Arts education was never a problem at my school. In fact, I attended an art school and studied creative writing. Aside from that, my school offered visual arts, vocal music, instrumental music, dance, musical theatre, and acting programs of study. However, my high school experience was much different from the grade school experience of most. Arts education is not made a priority in many classrooms nationwide. Schools in urban areas are especially lacking in arts education.

This phenomenon is detrimental to students because arts education has been proven to be beneficial. In adults, participating in art activities can be linked to increased civic engagement and greater social tolerance, so teaching students these skills early can improve the likelihood of continued participation in arts activities down the road. In schools, arts education can improve school climate and empower students with a sense of ownership over their work, just to name a few.

If arts education is so critical, why is it always being cut? Often, the issue comes from funding. Public schools, especially, are notoriously underfunded. Schools are funded in different ways, with public schools receiving funding from federal, state, and local government. Technically, the federal government doesn’t fund public schools. However, states receive grants from the federal government to reach certain set criteria. For arts education, these grants often come from the National Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the Humanities. That said, most funding for public schools comes from the state.

For many states, funding for schools came to a crisis point after the recession.

While improvements have certainly been made since the original setback, and on an overall scale it seems as if funding has returned to pre-recession levels, individual areas still see a significant lack of funding. This can manifest itself in many ways: loss of teaching jobs, decreased pay and benefits, and conversion to four-day school weeks. If budget cuts necessitate the loss of certain classes, fine arts classes are often the first to go.  Subjects such as visual arts, music, theater, and band are often cut before other subjects. This occurs because there are no standardized tests in these subjects. Emphasis has been placed in schools all across America on improving math and English test scores, so arts education has fallen to the wayside. While it is important for American schools to provide adequate schooling in subjects such as math and English, and also that our test scores are comparable to those of other nations to gauge how equipped American students are in general for whatever job or future schooling comes to follow, this should not mean that all instruction in the arts is neglected.

Students rely on their schools. Not only is it the job of schools to teach, but also to provide a safe and comfortable environment while students are enrolled. By including the arts in classrooms, schools can tackle both goals at once: art can be taught to students at all levels and improve the classroom environment, at it has been proven that art provides certain benefits to schools such as lower drop out rates, improved attendance, and a greater understanding of diversity and peer support among students. When schools fail to provide adequate fine arts education, they are doing a disservice to their students. Firstly, there are those students with a passion for the fine arts who are not given an outlet to grow and expand their skill. There are students of lower socioeconomic status who might want to pick up a hobby in the arts but can’t afford private instruction, and failing to provide arts education to these individuals means they may have no other way to learn about their passions. Also, participation in the arts is a means of healthy recreation, so by teaching art to students, schools can help prevent risky or harmful behavior as students age.  Finally, when schools fail to provide arts education, they are failing to provide the best school environment for students.

So, what can be done to combat this phenomenon? Often, funding arts education falls on the shoulders of outside agencies. When schools are not receiving enough funding, nonprofit organizations such as Art Road can attempt to provide adequate art education for students. Nonprofit organizations can contribute to arts education in a variety of ways, from providing more funding to providing the actual classes themselves.

Within schools themselves, there is an opportunity to bring art into the classroom, even in non-art subjects. As Danny Gregory suggests in an article for Phi Delta Kappan, a professional magazine for educators, instead of emphasizing art classes themselves, shifting focus to fostering creativity in school environments can provide the benefits of arts education without disrupting the nationwide emphasis on improving math and English test scores.

Finally, schools can provide the framework for interested students to form clubs and groups surrounding their interest in art if they do not find the arts education programs in place to be enough to fit their own personal needs.

Growing up, the words “common core” could be found on the lips of every person who found themselves in a classroom at some point or another? Now, they aren’t discussed nearly as frequently? So, what is Common Core, and how do people feel about it now?

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is an educational initiative from 2010 that set academic standards in English language arts/literacy and mathematics. The standards define what knowledge and skills students should have gained at each grade level. It’s an attempt to standardize education nationwide, aimed at preparing students for college and career.

Since it’s development, criticism of the Common Core has made its way to the public forefront. In fact, criticizing this set of standards was so commonplace growing up that I could tell you that people didn’t like the Common Core, although I had no idea what that actually was. The criticism around the Standards developed for a variety of reasons, ranging from lack of input from working teachers on writing the Standards to the content to the whole idea of standards-based education. 

In terms of actual effectiveness at getting students ready for college, The Washington Post states that the Common Core Standards are not achieving this goal. In English language arts, this is mainly because of the discrepancy between what grade schools and colleges view as most important to writing. In grade schools, especially high school, the emphasis is disproportionately on critical analysis of written material, while the key element of writing in college is stated to be generating ideas for writing in the first place. This discrepancy could lead to students being unprepared for the actual realities of writing in college.

In terms of mathematics, teachers often report teaching math skills beyond the Common Core requirements, either because they find these skills as most important or because they find that students are unprepared for later math courses.

However, there are obvious benefits to the Common Core Standards. Since so many states adopted Common Core Standards in some form, it allows for different states to compare standardized test scores accurately.  (Although, standardized testing itself has its own set of pros and cons.)

Common Core has also given educators a way to evaluate student performance since set skills are supposed to be learned at each level. Plus, having students learn the same things, at least in theory, sets them up equally as well for their future.

That said, a big problem with the Common Core is that the standards are vague and broad, and educators can pick and choose different pieces of the standards, or apply them in very different ways. So, while the sentiment is there, with very little regulation or way to ensure educators are all following the same standards, the common core is less effective. (Some argue that this is actually a good thing because and that standardized education kills creative teaching.)

That said, what is the fate of Common Core today? What happened to the rampant discussion of these standards that populated the classrooms of my youth? The answer is, essentially, nothing. After so many states adopted the Common Core, in 2017, about half of them claimed to have plans to revise or replace the Common Core Standards.

Despite these claims, Peter Greene claims in Forbes that the Common Core Standards have never really left our classrooms. First, he makes a point to state that Common Core was never really implemented in a standardized manner anyway and that only the subjects that would be on standardized tests were emphasized in classrooms. As a result, areas such as speaking and listening were neglected because of their lack of possibility to appear on standardized tests.

Then he gets into the meat of the article: despite claims to reject or reform Common Core, the Standards never really left. From the beginning, different districts and even individual teachers have been picking what worked, revising their lessons, and designing a curriculum that they claim aligns with the Common Core. And since there is neither an authority to say otherwise nor hard and fast rules in terms of what a Standards-based education looks like, these teachers were actually right. So, nothing that the government of each state could say or do in terms of Common Core could actually change how teachers are teaching. They’ll keep using the Standards, albeit with different names, to categorize and organize what information needs to be taught, and they’ll keep filling in the gaps based on what specific information needs to be learned in a particular school district to allow for further success in school.

So, although the promise of change has allowed the discussion of Common Core to fall to the wayside, the much-debated set of standards has never really left. Educators and students alike are still as influenced by it as ever.

As I’m sure everyone understands, the 21st century is a very technologically-savvy era. New technology is being introduced every day. Computers and phones are constantly being replaced by newer versions, and there is no limit to the number of helpful applications which these devices have. The sheer volume of information which technology gives us access to is astounding.

In light of this new age of technology, the public school system has had to adapt to keep up with the times. Across the country, technology is being integrated into the classroom environment in a variety of ways. Computers, tablets, and other devices are all finding their way into classrooms to be involved in education.

What does this mean for students and schools alike? This blog will explore both the good and bad of having technology in the classrooms.

The Pros:

As covered in my last post, “flow” in education is critical to students enjoyment in the classroom. Gamification, or the implementation of classroom games, can be a source of flow. Technology allows for more games to be accessed by used by educators, thereby creating an environment conducive to flow experiences.

Aside from just games, technology allows students to access a wider breadth of information than ever before. When tech such as computers and devices are introduced, students gain access to the internet. The internet is, obviously, home to a ton of information, which can be useful to students working on projects or research.

Aside from mere information, there are also helpful programs which are based on technology which can help with teaching, tutoring, studying, and anything in between. There are also sites such as Google Classroom which allow students to upload assignments electronically, which is useful in a wide variety of situation.

Learning how to adequately use technology also has implications outside of the classroom. After graduation, students are expected to use technology in every aspect of their lives. From home to the office, technology is everywhere. Students must be taught both the importance of technology and important skills to go with it in order to survive the 21st-century workplace.

The Cons:

Technology is expensive. A growing trend in many school districts is purchasing one-to-one devices. While this certainly has benefits, a major downside is that buying a device, such as an iPad, for each student can be costly, especially when public education is underfunded.  Not only would the initial purchase of these devices be costly, but the trend of planned obsolescence in technology means that whatever tablets or computers were being bought for the students would likely end up being more costly as years go by and technology needs to be maintained or upgraded.

Aside from the costs of one-to-one devices, having technology in the classroom can also be confusing and distracting. Using online programs and resources in the classroom requires educators to be trained in how to run said programs. When first making the switch from paper to computers, it is bound to be confusing as educators and students alike learn their way around the new system. This can be frustrating for all parties involved. To add to this classroom chaos, having technology in the classroom can be a distraction to students. With all the aforementioned information available to them, students have an endless supply of distraction should technology be allowed in classrooms.

Students who use computers or devices in the classroom also perform worse in some areas than students who do not. In doing math, for example, students who hand-write have been observed to perform better than those who use computers. Hand-writing notes can lead to better retention of said notes, since the act of deciding what information to include and leave out– a necessary step as few can write as fast as they type– adds an extra layer of processing during the note-taking process.

Access to that ever-pertinent wealth of information can facilitate cheating. Among the one-billion-and-growing websites found on the internet are, for example, pages with the answers to that geometry worksheet or thousands of easily-copied articles about the exact topic of that essay. Students have such easy access to information, but with that comes access to resources which encourage dishonesty.

Finally, let’s say a certain school was implementing an online system in which students could turn things in online but chose not to implement 0ne-to-one devices. This could lead to unequal access to technology between the students, which puts students of a lower socioeconomic status who are less likely to be able to afford all the same technologies at a distinct disadvantage. Not only could they not participate in the online system, but they would also have less access to information for research purpose, and less access to the many helpful tools which the internet provides.

So… what’s the answer?

Should computers and other technologies be used in classrooms? The honest answer is that they have to be. The way society has progressed, technology plays too large a role in our lives to be ignored by the public school system. However, that does not mean that giving every student an iPad and calling it a day is the right thing to do, either. It depends on the school and the situation. These are just some considerations to keep in mind before making the switch to a tech-heavy classroom.

 

During my career as a student, I have often struggled with boredom in the classroom. Perhaps it was my lack of interest in the subject or the unchallenging nature of the class. But, perhaps the problem was that the classroom setting was unengaging.

Senior year of high school, one of my favorite classes was AP Calculus. Now, sane people might be wondering why I enjoyed such an insanely difficult class. The reason I enjoyed this class so much is that I found it engaging with just the right amount of challenge. I would lose track of time in class, so focused on getting the right answers that our 90-minute class would fly by. We were assigned homework each night, and the time spent working on these assignments would put me in a similar state of intense focus. I would get so intent on finding the right answer that I would scarcely realize how long it took me to find it. I’d go through the motions of finding the right answer without even realizing I was doing it.

What I experienced was something called “flow.” The feeling of flow, or complete immersion in an activity, often occurs when one is engaged in an activity that they enjoy and in which they are fairly skilled. This is why I had a feeling of flow while working on calculus; I enjoyed the subject and I was pretty good at it. For other students though, working on calculus homework is very unlikely to be a flow experience because they are either uninterested or have greater difficulty with the subject.

Flow theory suggests that in order for one to achieve a flow state by participating in a certain activity, the activity has to be the right amount of difficulty and the participant has to have enough skill in the area.

Additionally, one is more likely to experience flow when participating in an activity with clear goals that gives immediate feedback and is intrinsically rewarding. For me, this was calculus. I knew the goals– to solve the problem– and because my teacher posted the answers, I knew immediately if I got the answers to the problems right or not. Also, I was motivated internally to prove I could get to the right answers; I was motivated by the task itself, not some external reward.

However much I loved calculus, this is not the experience of many students. In terms of applying flow theory to the classroom, it can often be difficult to get students in a position where they are fully engaged in the topics at hand. Students have busy lives, so getting students to let go of the buzz of the outside world in a certain class can be a difficult task. How does one accomplish this?

One of the most important elements is the level of challenge. Students need to be challenged just the right amount. Too much and they’ll feel anxious, too little and they’ll lose interest. Assigning tasks with just the right amount of challenge is key to creating an environment which promotes flow.

Tasks that are hands-on and engaging allow for students to experience flow. Games and immersive learning activities where the goals are clear and feedback is received immediately also create an environment where flow experiences are possible.

Merely lecturing students or playing videos about a certain topic is not going to invite students to experience flow. It is unlikely that students will feel fully immersed or engaged with more passive forms of learning such as these, especially not in the 21st century where attention is constantly split between the tasks at hands and the electronics lining the backpacks and pockets of many students. So, by creating fully immersive learning environments, where students are consumed by the task at hand, students are more likely to experience flow.

However, not every moment in the classroom can be spent playing games. There are times when one must attend a lecture, work on a paper, or fill out a worksheet. Unless one is hyper-focused on their math problems–I can personally attest to the likelihood of this possibility, especially when the problems present the right amount of challenge– this method of classroom instruction is unlikely to create flow experiences. However, applying the core principles of flow in a classroom setting by assigning tasks with clear goals, minimizing distractions, and offering frequent feedback can make the learning experience more enjoyable for students.

I am not an expert on being a teacher. However, as a student, I can say that I would much rather be challenged enough to feel actively engaged in a classroom than sit in a lecture with no sense of focus. Additionally, experiencing flow in the classroom increased my interest and understanding in a certain subject matter. So, if ever there is doubt whether this method works, I can attest that it does.

All my life, I’ve been a fast learner. I remember in second grade, our class read Eric Carle’s The Mixed-Up Chameleon in class. That same night, we were assigned the same story for homework to practice reading. Each day that week, we were supposed to go home and read the same story. Instead of doing the reading, I would go home and cry because I couldn’t stand to read the same story all over again when I already knew what it said. Thus, my mother had me tested to enter the gifted program at my school. Upon entering the program, I would then leave my classroom during English to go to enrichment classes in which I would read higher-level books. This continued throughout elementary school.

In middle school, while still participating in enrichment through the gifted program, my education was also impacted by acceleration. What I mean by this is that students were placed into classes based on ability level. I was in all the blue group classes– classes for students who performed with the most proficiency. The other groups, red and green, were for intermediate and low-achieving groups of students, respectively.

This process, commonly referred to as ability grouping, is long-debated, and for good reason. For some students, such as myself, the process of ability grouping is a benefit to our education as we are able to cover information at a more rigorous pace. However, students who are consistently placed into lower-achieving classes fall into a pattern in which they receive lower expectations, which in turn creates a lower motivation to succeed and excel in the classroom.

Ability grouping can occur in a few different ways. Within-class grouping is a teacher’s practice of putting students of similar ability levels together to form small groups within the same classroom, while between-class grouping is a school’s practice of separating students of different ability levels into different courses altogether. In high schools and some middle schools, between-class grouping can also include cross-grade grouping, where students of different grades but similar ability levels are placed in the same classroom.

Proponents of ability grouping cite the possibility for individualized learning as a major benefit. When students are placed in classrooms according to their ability, instructors are able to adjust the pace of instruction based on the needs of the students. This eliminates the issue of “teaching to the middle,” a practice in which educators teach at a pace geared towards neither the highest nor lowest ability level, opting instead to teach in a manner geared towards the perceived average ability level. This leaves roughly one-third of the class bored and unchallenged an another third confused and requiring further instruction or clarification to fully grasp concepts. By sorting students into classrooms based on ability level, this dilemma is avoided. Additionally, according to study, high-achieving students benefit significantly from ability grouping, allowing them to maximize academic achievement and avoid learning what they already know. Such students are further challenged when placed in classes with faster-paced instruction. Ideally, students at each level are then being challenged in their work.

Drawbacks of ability grouping are that the overall learning culture can then be debilitating for certain students. Individuals placed in lower-achieving groups can get stuck in lower-achieving groups from which they have a potential to advance, especially in between-class groupings. Students placed in low-level tracks will often have no opportunity to advance to higher levels even when they have that potential. Being placed into lower levels can also have an effect on student motivation. Students placed in lower tracks can lose motivation to succeed or to move ahead. Plus, they lose the benefit of having higher-achieving students in the same classroom or group to help their peers understand or serve as motivation. 

Additionally, the system of ability grouping can result in inequality within our school systems, in which high-achieving students are given the best teachers and equipment and encouraged to pursue creative problem solving, while students in lower levels have fewer demands and spend most of their time engaging in routine, unchallenging activities. These consequences also have societal implications, since lower-achieving groups are disproportionately filled with poor and minority students.

So, what is the best option, then? If high-achieving students will be left bored and unsatisfied without achievement grouping, but students placed in low-level classes will be at a significant disadvantage, what is the solution?

One solution is a mixture of both grouped and ungrouped elements within a classroom setting. Combining students into one classroom but sorting students into ability-based groups within it can allow for grouped learning without the negative effects. If students are sorted based on ability level in each subject, or even simply in each lesson, students will be less confined and barred from success if placed in lower achieving groups sometimes. For example, say a student excels in mathematics but needs extra instruction in reading classes. Being placed in higher level math courses and low-level English courses could allow this student to receive the best instruction in both areas without being confined to a low-level track for the rest of their academic career because of their need for more instruction in a certain area.

Additionally, cooperative learning, where students are placed in small groups not based on ability level in which they necessarily depend on one another to achieve learning goals, can maximize learning for students. Cooperative learning includes five facets– positive interdependence, individual accountability, face-to-face interaction, interpersonal and small group social skills, and group processing– which can be implemented in a variety of ways. The goal of this style of learning is to foster cooperative interdependence among students and to allow students of every ability level to succeed.