INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter 6ce, while others may be from any ^ e of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the ori^al manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell A Howell Infonnation Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Aibor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE PEDAGOGIC AND PHILOSOPHIC PRINCIPLES OF THE NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR DANCE EDUCATION by
Rima Faber submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of American University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Administration C h a i r : Or. Frederic
la Prevots _
lly Smith
Dean of the College
U Date J 1997 American University -, , Washington, D.C. 20016 THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Nwnber: 9834109
Copyright 1997 by Faber, Rima
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 9834109 Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. © COPYRIGHT
by RIMA FABER 1997 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I dedicate this dissertation to my mentor and friend. Dr. Naima Prevots.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE PEDAGOGIC AND PHILOSOPHIC PRINCIPLES OF THE NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR DANCE EDUCATION
BY Rima Faber ABSTRACT On March 26, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed into law Goals 2000; The Educate America Act, which established voluntary national educational standards. Developed by a grassroots consensus process led by the Department of Education, they were intended to provide guidelines for student achievement for grades K-12 in the core subjects of English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, history, geography, and the arts, including dance, music, theater, and the visual arts. For the first time in American history, dance is included as basic to education. Chapter I of this dissertation clarifies the importance of The National Standards for Arts Education in bringing the arts to attention in the national education agenda.
Chapter II is a review of pertinent literature: (1) the work of philosopher John Dewey and cognitive scientists Jean Piaget and Howard Gardner, work that theoretically
ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. supports dance as an active learning experience; (2) accounts of the historical development of dance in education; (3) literature by people influential in promoting
arts education: Eliot Eisner, Charles Fowler, and Diane Ravitch; (4) three major documents leading to the National Standards : A Nation at Risk. Toward Civilization, and
America 2000: An Educational Strateov. Chapter III is an analysis of the debate leading to the creation of the Standards involving the National Committee for Standards in the Arts, the committee responsible for authorizing the document, and the Dance Task Force. Chapter IV focuses on the final document. It explains the pedagogic and philosophic principles underlying the National Standards, their structure, what the standards are designed to accomplish, and the results. Background information is also provided for the National Assessment Frameworks and Specifications and the "Opportunity-to-Learn
Standards for Dance Education.” Chapter V addresses the future: issues of dissemination, implementation, advocacy, and a vision for dance education. It discusses issues faced by the National Committee for Standards in the Arts, the Clinton Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education concerning implementation and advocacy. It further investigates issues for the stakeholders: political legislatures, school boards and administrators, arts iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. agencies, the business community, arts specialists, teachers, parents and students. Finally, it proposes future possibilities.
XV
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I was privileged to be a very small player in creating the assessment exercises for the NAEP 1996 Assessment. This gave me a glimpse of the scale of the undertaking to develop national standards and assessments for arts education, and the importance of this occurrence in the annals of dance
education and history. My interest was sparked when Dr. Frank Philip, Coordinator for the NAEP Assessment Consensus Project, was invited by Dr. Naima Prevots as a guest lecturer at American University. He encouraged me to become involved by sending in my annotated draft of the standards when they were distributed in the grassroots effort to obtain public opinion. This inspired me to further participation. I sincerely thank Dr. Frank Philip for absorbing me into the assessment process so I could join a committee and work with the Educational Testing Service to help develop assessment exercises. I also thank Dr. Richard Pioli, Regional Supervisor for the NAEP 1995 Field Test, for selecting me as his "Dance Facilitator," making me one of the worker bees while serving as a missionary for dance education in schools. When, during delivery of the NAEP performance exercises, students remarked, "This is fun!" I agreed and replied, "Why don't V
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. you ask your principal for a dance program? " I was hoping this was happening across the breadth of the United States. The creation of the National Standards and Assessments was a grassroots effort led by dedicated visionaries. Some of the major players, who devoted their time, energy, and effort in the consensus process, showed me great generosity in the creation of this account. Mary Maitland Kimball, President of the National Dance Association from 1991-1993 and Chair of the Dance Task Force, tirelessly held lengthy conversations on the telephone explaining the intricacies of the process involved in creating the Dance Standards and relating the committee's verbal "choreography." She then laboriously scoured my account for accuracy. Dr. Frank Philip once again helped, by elaborating at length on the historical organizational processes. He also opened his office for me to thump through documents and cart out a carload; then thoughtfully reviewed the outcome of his generosity.
The Music Educators National Conference opened its archives to me as well. Peggy Senko, Director of Publications and Administrator for the project to create National Standards for Arts Education, was an angel. While I ensconced myself in the library, moving in for two weeks, she organized documents for me, answered my myriad questions, scouted for information, reviewed my work for accuracy, and introduced me to Dr. John Mahlmann, who vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. generously spent an hour relating perceptive information about what is needed for successful implementation of the Standards. The staff also absorbed me into their fold, sharing chocolates, coffee, and delightful conversation. They made my research at MENC seem a relaxing vacation
rather than work.
I cim gratefully indebted to Dr. Clare Wolfowitz, a blessing undisguised as an experienced dissertation writer who volunteered long hours to format and formalize the text. Many others devoted time and effort as well. Much appreciation goes to Eugenia Kemble, Director of the Albert
Shanker Institute of the American Teachers Federation, for meeting with me to discuss the attitudes of teachers toward the National Standards for Arts Education; Jane Bonbright, current Interim Executive Director of the National Dance Association, who skillfully steered me toward people and resources; David Sparkman, journalist and friend, an expert line-editor and newly equipped web-surfer; my friends who understood when they called and I said, "I can't talk now"; and my two grown daughters, Sonya and Maeve, for their encouraging phone calls, pep-talks, and love. I thank my committee in the School of Education at American University: my advisor. Dr. Frederic Jacobs, for his insightful critiques; and Professor Sally Smith for her unwavering support and inspiring spirit. But, most of all, my gratitude and heart goes to Dr. Naima Prevots, Chair of the Dance Department at American vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. University, who was inspiration, guide, mentor, hand-holder, guardian angel, saint, and savior throughout the entire process. Her perceptive insight, scope, knowledge, dedication and spirit extend so far beyond the call of duty, the title Professor hardly begins to describe her relationship to her students1
Vlll
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...... Ü
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... V LIST OF TABLES ...... xii
Chapter I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING ...... 1 Introduction The Problem Definition of Terms An Overview of the Study II. REVIEW OF L I T E R A T U R E ...... 29 Educational Theory Leading to the Acceptance of National Standards for Arts Education Laying the Groundwork: The Background of Dance in Academic Settings The Arts are Basic to Education: Advocates for the Cause The Road Toward the Creation of National Standards III. AN ANALYSIS OF THE DEBATE ...... 121 Events Leading To The Formation of National Standards in the Arts The National Committee for Standards in the Arts Issues Debated by the Oversight Committee
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Relationship Between the Standards and the Assessments IV. OUTCOMES OF THE D E B A T E ...... 176 The National Standards for Arts Education The Arts Education Assessment Fraunework and Exercise Specifications Opportunity-to-Learn Standards for Dance A National Vision V. THE FUTURE: DISSEMINATION, IMPLEMENTATION, ADVOCACY, AND A V I S I O N ...... 221 Dissemination and Implementation Administration Strategies for Enactment Misconceptions of the Standards by the Public Concerns about the Standards Advocacy: The Staüce Holders Teacher Training Partnerships Next Steps Steps to the Future: Dance in Action A Vision Conclusion
Appendix A. GOALS 2000: SECTION 102. NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS 278 B. THE NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR DANCE EDUCATION . . . 283 C. THE NAEP ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORKS FOR DANCE .... 300 D. LISTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ...... 311 E. CHART OF COMMITTEE STRUCTURE ...... 318
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. F. LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS ...... 320 G. TIME LINE ...... 322 H. ISSUES FOR INTRODUCTION OF STANDARDS ...... 324 I. STATE CONTACTS FOR GOALS 2000 ...... 328 J. STATUS OF ARTS ASSESSMENTS INST A T E S ...... 336
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 353
XI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Recommended Time Percentages for Dance . . . .210
XXX
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING
Introduction
On March 11, 1994, Richard W. Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education, formally accepted The National Standards for Arts
Education (Consortium of National Arts Education Associations (CNAEA), 1994)^ at a press conference held in Washington, D.C. It was the dawn of a new era for the arts in American schools. The headline on the front page of the
Washington Post the next morning proclaimed, "Proposal Would Make Arts a School Staple, Not a Frill." The article states : Every American high school graduate would be required to have a vigorous working knowledge of dance, music, theater and the visual arts and to be skilled in at least one artistic form, according to new standards expected to be approved by the secretary of education. (Trescott, 1994) It describes an enthusiastic Riley who "ratified his own belief in the broader importance of the arts" (Trescott,
1994). Riley is quoted as saying, "Arts in education elevates and gives structure to that passion for expression and connection." It was the first national acknowledgement
^ Here referred to also as the National Standards or the Standards.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 that the arts are basic to education (CNAEA, 1994, pp. 6— 7) , and the first time in this country's history that dance stood in place next to the other arts as part of public school curricula on a national scale. This study will: analyze the historical development of the national standards relating to dance education in light of their purpose and ideas; explore the development of the Assessment Framework and Exercise Specifications documents (National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1994a 2 and 1 9 9 4 b ), which were designed to measure achievement of the new national standards; discuss the Opportunitv-to—Learn Standards for Arts Education (CNAEA, 1995) that were developed to accompany The National Standards for Dance Education (National Dance Association (NDA) 1996); and investigate the challenges the new arts standards are facing in their acceptance by the educational community. Five major questions are addressed by this dissertation. (1) To what purpose were the national standards in dance developed? (2) How did they evolve? (3) How are they being used? (4) With what educational issues are they faced? (5) What questions are being raised by them? The research: analyzes the standards and assessments for dance in light of the current theoretical work in dance education; illustrates how the standards in dance promote
^ See bibliography for full citation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 dance as an integrated and congruent component of learning in schools; demonstrates how the standards (together with the accompanying opportunity-to-learn standards, assessment frameworks, and exercise specifications) are being implemented in American public schools; and examines the issues that both foster and hinder acceptance of the national standards for dance in public education. All peoples, everywhere, have an abiding need for meaning— to connect time and space, experience and event, body and spirit, intellect and emotion. People create art to make these connections, to express the otherwise inexpressible. A society and a people without the arts are unimaginable, as breathing would be without air. Such a society and people could not long survive. (CNAEA, 1994, p. 5) The introduction to the National Standards asserts that
through the arts we discover who we are: "They connect each new generation to those who have gone before, equipping the newcomers in their own pursuit of the abiding questions: Who am I? What must I do? Where am I going?" In this sense, the arts are basic to education. "The arts have been a preoccupation of every generation precisely because they
bring us face-to-face with ourselves, and with what we sense lies beyond ourselves" (CNAEA, 1994, p. 5) . They make objective learning personal and transform knowledge into experience. "We know from long experience that no one can
claim to be truly educated who lacks basic knowledge and skills in the arts" (CNAEA, 1994, p. 5) .
Based on this premise, the arts were finally recognized
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 as a core subject in education. But this was not always the case. The seeds for national standards in the arts were sown in 1983 with the publication of a report called A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) , 1983), prepared at the direction of U.S. Commissioner of Education Terrell Bell. It was a stern critique of American schools which exposed the failings of American education and provided a "wake—up call" for America, a warning that our country was at peril because of our deteriorating educational system. The word "arts" was mentioned only twice in the entire document. In 1988, The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) published Toward Civilization, an analysis of the arts in education. The study revealed three basic facts: Americans do not consider the arts serious learning; the arts are not an academic objective; and there is no consensus among the arts educators as to what constitutes a good arts
curriculum. It recommended that a clear definition of arts education be developed; that initiatives be undertaken to transform arts education into serious learning; and that partnerships be developed with communities to advocate and provide good arts education in schools. When President George Bush took office in 1988, he vowed to be remembered as "the Education President." In 1989 he learned of a gathering of the National Governors Association in Charlottesville, West Virginia, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 capitalized on their agenda to set goals for education in America. The result was the development of America 2000: An Educational Strateov. Six goals, to be achieved by the year 2000, were outlined: 1. All children in America will start school ready to l e a r n . 2. The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent. 3. American students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography; and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so that they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our modern economy. 4. U.S. students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement. 5. Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. 6. Every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. (U.S.Dept.Ed., 1991) Nowhere in the entire document are the arts mentioned. This omission had a galvanizing effect on the arts education community. Incensed by the apparent disregard for the importance of arts experiences in the schools, the arts community in the United States rallied. Organizations such as The National Dance Association (NDA), Music Educators National Conference (MENC), the American Alliance for Theatre Education (AATE) , and the National Association for Art Education (NAAE) abandoned their historically fragmented approaches to advocacy and explored new cooperative approaches. If the NEA recommendations were to be realized
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and if arts education was to gain important political recognition in national educational policy, a coordinated and focused effort was needed. The year 1989 marked a turning point in the recognition of arts education as peurt of the national vision for education. When Bill Clinton was elected President, the arts were vocal and he listened. In March of 1994, four coordinated and powerful statements about the importance of arts education in the American experience came to fruition within the span of a month. On March 5, 1994, the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) approved the Arts Education Assessment Framework and Exercise Specifications, both drafted by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 1994a and 1994b). On March 11, 1994, the voluntary National Standards — the very first set of national standards completed under Education Secretary Riley's initiatives— were presented to and accepted by the U.S. Department of Education. Congress passed Goals 2000; The Educate America Act at one o'clock in the morning on March 26, 1994. Five days later, on March 26, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law. The Goals 2000 Act was developed under the first Clinton administration. It was passed by the House of Representatives in October of 1993, and by the Senate in its final form on March 26, 1994. When Clinton signed it into law on March 31, 1994, it made March a true celebration of the "Arts Month." This bill differed from Bush's "national
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 goals" in two distinct ways. In Title I, which states the act's seven goals, the arts are included in goal #3 as a core subject along with science, math, English, a foreign language, government and civics. Also, a seventh goal is added concerning partnerships with parents and community.
A schema is provided, moreover, to accomplish and enact these goals. Title II calls for creation of a formal nineteen-member National Education Standards Improvement Council. In conjunction, the Department of Education set plans in motion to develop voluntary national standards in all core subjects. For the first time in American history, the arts were included. Dance, along with music, theater, and the visual arts, took its place in the national agenda. The National Standards for Arts Education (subtitled What Everv Student Should Know and Be Able To Do in the Arts) sets both content and achievement standards for grades four, eight, and twelve in four fields: dance, music,
theater and the visual arts. Seven "content standards" were identified for dance. These remain constant throughout each grade level, while the "achievement standards" grow progressively more advanced as the children mature. The content standards are:
1. identifying and demonstrating movement elements and skills in performing dance
2. understanding choreographic principles, processes and structures
3. understanding dance as a way to create and communicate meaning
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8
4. applying and demonstrating critical and creative thinking skills in dance 5. demonstrating and understanding dance in various cultures and historic periods 6. making connections between dance and healthful living 7. making connections between dance and other disciplines (CNAEA, 1994, pp. 23-5) Within these content standards, the achievement standards graduate in difficulty for each benchmark level.
For example, while fourth graders are expected to know the basic elements of locomotor movements (walk, run, jump, hop, gallop, skip, leap, and slide), twelfth graders are expected
to learn complex movement patterns, sequences, and compositions (CNAEA, 1994). In conjunction and coordination with the development of these standards and in preparation for a national assessment of the arts in 1997, the National Assessment of Educational Progress developed two documents, the Assessment Framework and the Exercise Specifications (NAEP, 1994a and 1994b), arrived at through a national consensus process that determined the content, nature, and design of the assessment. These "blueprints" for the assessment stated the criteria and methods with which to measure the level of
achievement in relation to the national standards for each of the arts. The framework defined what students know and are able to do in the areas of creating, performing, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. responding. To develop the frsunework and exercise specifications, a grassroots committee comprised of leading artists and art educators as well as educational leaders worked together for a period of eighteen months. The 1996 NAEP Arts Education Assessment Framework and the 1996 NAEP Arts Education Assessment and Exercise Specifications were
accepted by the National Assessment Governing Board on March 5, 1994 (NAEP 1994a and 1994b).^ Specific exercises based on the Frameworks and Exercise Specifications were then developed in each of the four arts by the Educational Testing Service (ETS), the contractor selected to produce and implement the assessment. Some of the exercises were created by consultants hired by ETS and some were created in another grassroots effort. Groups of arts teachers from fifteen volunteer states convened to develop the NAEP assessment exercises for the 1996 (later
changed to 1997) National Assessment of Educational Progress Tests, to be administered in schools nationally in a matrix sampling. Out of these states, nine had dance panels, which created sixty-one dance exercises. Representatives from each discipline then reviewed the exercises with NAEP and
Educational Testing Service (ETS) staff to select which ones were most appropriate for the national assessment. The Educational Testing Service was challenged by the
^ The two documents are normally referred to in tandem as the (Assessment) Frameworks and (Exercised Specifications.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 proposed framework and specifications. In order to create exercises that would successfully assess the arts, performance-based formats had to be developed. There was no previous paradigm for ETS to follow because the traditional multiple choice paper-and-pen exaunination would not fulfill the task. Testing, as it was known by ETS, was revolutionized. In dance, this took the form of (1) requiring students to watch videotapes of dance and respond to written questions through either multiple choice answers or essay responses; and (2) videotaping active and participatory
warm-ups, improvisations, the choreographic process, and choreography. Representatives of each discipline reviewed the suggested assessment exercises with the NAEP and ETS staff to select which were most appropriate for the national assessment. WESTAT, an educational research company based in Rockville, Maryland, was engaged as a subcontractor to facilitate and perform the actual testing. A field test was implemented in the months of January to March, 1995. A national matrix sampling was drawn, and from that sample individual schools volunteered to participate in the testing. Testing was accomplished by teams consisting of (1) an assessment supervisor, (2) an exercise administrator, (3) a dance facilitator, and (4) a technician, all under the direction of a field supervisor. All materials and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11 exercises were held in strict confidentiality. The names of students never left the school buildings. The videos and booklets were sent to National Computer
Systems (NCS) in Iowa City for scoring. Dancers and professional scorers were trained by ETS in a scoring rubric constructed for this task. April and May were spent reviewing the videotapes and evaluating the assessment methods. Based on the results of the field test, many of
the exercises were eliminated due to technical and logistical difficulties. Attention was given to problems in the exercises remaining, and great effort was made to revise them appropriately.
The original plans were to run the field test for grades four and eight in 1995 and for grade twelve in 1996, with the full assessment for all three grades in 1997. Unfortunately, a formerly supportive Congress had fallen under a newly constituted majority dominated by conservative elements with anti-arts sentiments. Budgets for both the arts and education were slashed, producing strict accompanying budget constraints. The flat funding for the assessment program necessitated changes in the arts
assessment. In the final schedule, the national assessment would be only at the eighth-grade level during the winter and spring of 1997, with the twelfth-grade field test being conducted concurrently.
In addition, requirements for implementing the arts
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12 assessment, with its accompanying supplies and staff necessities, proved to be far more costly than anticipated and ate away large portions of the dwindling funding. While one year earlier arts in education were facing a new dawn, by March of 1995 they were once again struggling for s u r v i v a l .
The Problem
Historically, the idea of national standards has never been popular in a country where the U.S. Constitution affirms the states' power to determine and provide for public education. Even now, the National Standards are presented as voluntary and represent national consensus and collective national wisdom rather than a mandate from the federal government. The National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) has been in existence since 1969, and national assessments were first developed for music in 1971 and 1978 and for the visual arts in 1974 and 1978. Nevertheless, dance and theater have never been included as core subjects for testing until now. The inclusion of dance, along with music and the visual arts, is revolutionary. In that context, this dissertation will examine the history of this development and analyze factors that brought the educational recognition of dance to fruition. The questions to be researched are:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13 1. What theoretical material was being utilized in education that provided fertile ground for acceptance of
dance in education? 2. What were the events that led to the creation of dance standards? 3. How do the standards relate to methodologies and theories of dance education? 4. How do the standards relate to current theories of
pedagogy? 5. How have the standards been implemented? 6. By what methods are the standards being tested? 7. What are future plans for refining and further developing the standards? 8. What are the issues pro and con in terms of acceptance and development of the standards? Because the Constitution has ceded the power over education to state and local jurisdictions, local school districts usually determine the content of the curriculum— what their children should know and be able to do. It has been felt that local school boards could more appropriately take into consideration the values and beliefs of the community. Therefore, a great many issues concerning the
acceptance of national standards for dance in public schools are impacted by the hypothesis that inclusion of dance in elementary school curriculum is of great educational benefit to students. Questions in relation to this problem include:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 9. How are the standards constructed to maintain local autonomy in their implementation? 10. What are the positive effects of the national standards that can be built upon? 11. How can supporters of the standards be effective advocates for their acceptance and implementation? 12. What is the projected effect of the standards by dancers and choreographers? 13. What is the projected effect of the standards by educators? 13. What is the projected effect of the standards by
administrators? 14. In this light, what recommendations can be made for the future? Dance education is important for learning. It is a doorway for human development, cognitive development, and creativity. As such, it is basic to education and important to include in school curricula. National standards in education were instituted for the core subjects of English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, arts, history, and geography. As part of this effort, national standards were developed for dance as an art. Accompanying tools of assessment and opportunity-to-
learn standards were also created, for which there had never been precedent in the United States. It is the hypothesis of this study that The National
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 Standards for Dance Education, together with their accompanying opportunity-to-learn standards and NAEP assessments, are a positive development for dance education and education as a whole in the United States. The purpose of this study is to examine the historical development of The National Standards for Dance Education in light of their pedagogic purpose and educational ideas, in order to show that the inclusion of dance as a core subject, is beneficial to both arts education and academic study. It also will briefly investigate the development of the accompanying Assessment Framework (NAEP, 1994a), Exercise Specifications (NAEP, 1994b) , and Qpportunitv-to-Learn Standards (CNAEA, 1995) in relation to the new national standards. It is expected that an examination of the historical development will show permanent changes in: 1. the acceptance of dance as a viable subject to be taught in core school curriculum; 2. understanding among educators about the importance and value of dance;
3. the réévaluation and reconstruction of a performance-based assessment process using a holistic paradigm;^
ETS, because of this revolutionary development, has been reexamining all of its testing procedures. Problem-solving in practical applications, such as lab work in science, are being instituted, as well as essays and narrative forms of ans w e r s .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 4. the relationship of the arts disciplines toward one another in forming a unified philosophy about the role of the arts in arts education and how to achieve specific goals in each of the disciplines; 5. the force of the voice for arts advocacy since arts organizations coalesced, for the first time in American
history, to become a political coalition.
Definition of Terms
Definition of terminology became a major issue in the development of The National Standards for Arts Education. This was especially true for the discipline of dance, whose vocabulary is not general knowledge. The Dance Task Force writing the standards argued successfully for permission to provide a "dance glossary" of terms. Because definitions for these terms are derived from the consensus of prominent national dance educators, and much of the information for this dissertation stems from this publication, the definitions in this section will concur with this reference. The glossary, however, fails to provide a definition of d a n c e .
The term dance can mean any form of rhythmic body movement. In Webster's unabridged New World International Dictionary, the Third Edition (1986), the word dance. as a verb, is defined:
1. to perform, either alone or with others, a rhythmic and patterned succession of steps, usually to music 2. to move or seem to move nimbly and quickly up and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 definition of dance utilizing a politically contemporary set of values more appropriate to the issues served in this
dissertation is: the language of movement as expressed by the human body for communication, aesthetic purposes, and the release of emotions. Every society develops its own cultural form of dance, and the term as used in this dissertation is not limited to any single culture. The author, however, is a professional modern dancer in the United States and her work evolves from that cultural base. The glossary included in the National Standards includes a list of terms relating to dance. What follows is selected terminology, with definitions taken from the Standards * glossary, that will aid in understanding this
work. Abstract: To remove movement from a particular representative context and (by manipulating it with elements of space, time, and force) create a new sequence or dance that retains the essence of the original. Action: A movement event. Axial Movement: Any movement that is anchored to one spot by a body part using only the available space in any direction without losing the initial body contact. Movement is organized around the axis of the body rather than designed for travel from one location to another; also known as nonlocomotor movement. Choreographic; Describes a dance sequence that has been created with specific intent. Choreographic Structure: The specific compositional forms in which movement is structured to create a d a n c e . Dynamics: The expressive content of human movement, sometimes called qualities or efforts. Dynamics manifest the interrelationships among the elements of space, time, and force/energy. See also movement quality. Locomotor movement : Movement that travels from place to place, usually identified by weight transfer on the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 feet. Basic locomotor steps are the walk, run, leap, hop and jump and the irregular rhythmic combinations of the skip (walk and hop), slide (walk and leap), and gallop (walk and leap). Movement quality: The identifying attributes created by the release, follow-through, and termination of energy, which are key to making movement become dance. Typical terms denoting qualities include sustained, swing, percussive, collapse, and vibratory and effort combinations such as float, dab, punch, and glide. Movement theme: A complete idea in movement that is manipulated and developed within a dance. Style: A Distinctive manner of moving; the characteristic way dance is done, created or performed that identifies the dance of a particular performer, choreographer or period. Technology: Electronic media (such as video, computers or lasers) used as tools to create, learn, explain, document, analyze, or present dance. Theatrical: Dance genres primarily developed for the stage (such as jazz or tap). Traditional dance: The term "traditional" is used to denote those dances and dance forms that have arisen out of the traditions of a people, such as the dances bharata natyam, noh, or the folk dances of indigenous people of Europe or other areas. Warmup: Movements and/or movement phrases designed to raise the core body temperature and bring the mind into focus for the dance activities to follow. For purposes of this work, particular attention should be paid to the term improvisation. The American choreographer, Douglas Dunn, defined improvisation as "choreography created very shortly before it is performed. Webster's gives the following definition: "Act or art of composing and rendering music, poetry, and the like, extemporaneously; hence, impromptu invention or accomplishment." The Standards' glossary definition elaborates :
^ Spoken text from a dance by Douglas Dunn, performed at George Washington University in 1980.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20 Improvisation : Movement that is created spontaneously, ranging from free-form to highly structured environments, but always with an element of chance. Provides the dancer with the opportunity to bring together elements quickly, and requires focus and concentration. Improvisation is instant and simultaneous choreography and performance. An important term which is not included in the Standards' glossary is creative movement. This involves movements that are spontaneously created in order to express an idea or thought, or in solution to a movement problem. These ideas can range from the expression of personal feelings to the structuring of abstract concepts. The factor that separates creative movement from other aspects of dance stems from the fact that, while the idea behind the movement can be directive, the actual motions are improvised. The hardest term to define is modern dance. Its roots lie in a rebellion against the strictures of ballet at the turn of the century. It was originally called "Natural Dance," because it returned to the body's natural movement graces without artificial techniques, or "Greek Dance," since it was supposedly returning to classical philosophies and aesthetics. It evolved into a personally expressive movement form in which individual choreographers defined their distinct movement vocabularies. Many people currently prefer to use the term "contemporary dance" or "post-modern dance" to describe the trend that has developed which is a synthesis inclusive of many dance styles. These include
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 ballet, jazz, "folk" dancing, social dancing, and the dancing viewed on TV entertainment shows.
An Overview of the Studv
The process of studying and creating art in all of its distinct forms describes those qualities that are at the heart of educational reform: creativity, perseverance, a sense of standeurds and, above all, a striving for excellence. (Richard Riley, Secretary of the Department of Education) The first chapter has served as an introduction to the dissertation and to the issues leading to the development of The National Standards for Arts Education. It related how the arts were advanced from the back seat compared to other academic subjects to full attention in the national agenda for education. This involved a discussion of the importance of the arts in education, and the standards in particular. In order for the standards to have been developed the arts had to be perceived in a new light. This dissertation is an attempt to trace the preliminary shift in the climate for dance education and the subsequent evolution of the standards for dance education. Chapter two, a review of pertinent literature, will begin with works describing educational theory in support of the inclusion of dance in educational and the need for active learning experiences. This includes the works of John Dewey, educational philosopher at the turn of the century; Jean Piaget, a cognitive "biologist" who developed radical theories about the thought processes of children;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22 and Howard Gardner, a well-respected contemporary cognitive scientist at Harvard University who is broadening concepts of intelligence. In order to present the case for the need for national standards in dance education, literature is cited that demonstrates the development and importance of dance in education settings. Until early this century, only folk dancing or dance as an aspect of pageantry was included in school programs. The first expressive modes of dance to evolve reflected Isadora Duncan's influence and the advent of the "natural" or "Greek" dance. As these forms evolved into modern dance, they became an influence in education through programs at Dewey's stronghold, Columbia Teachers College, and through
the influence of master teachers such as Margaret H'Doubler. The lineage of leading modern dance teachers is traced to the present, exemplified by the work of Anne Green Gilbert and Dr. Susan Stinson. Literature is examined that supports arts in education and that was influential in leading toward the creation of The National Standards for Arts Education. The work of Eliot Eisner, a well respected educator and strong advocate for arts education, is essential in this context. Charles Fowler, a leading music educator, and David Pankrantz, whose research in arts education is highly respected, wielded considerable influence. Diane Ravitch, as Assistant
Secretary in the Department of Education, played a major
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 role in the creation of the National Standards. Events leading to the National Standards grew from three major documents: A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) , a government report that was a wake—up call to alert the nation that its educational system was slipping; Toward Civilization (NEA, 1988) , a report by the National Endowment for the Arts that depicted the state of arts education in the United States ; and America 2000: An Educational Stratecrv (U.S. Department of Education, 1991), President George Bush's document that omitted the arts and caused the national arts community to coalesce in response and debate the issue of national standards for arts education. Chapter three is an analysis of the ensuing debate. It provides a rationale for The National Standards for Dance Education and answers the question, "Why do we need standards?" It describes the progression leading to their creation and explores the issues debated during the meetings of the National Committee for Standards in the Arts, the committee responsible for signing off on the standards developed by the writing task forces. As an analysis of the debate, this chapter delineates the various organizations and individual committee members involved in the creation of The National Standards for Dance Education, describes their point of view, and examines their interactions leading to the final decisions.
Within this complex super-structure, there were many
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 issues and problems specific to dance. Information was sought for this dissertation through the Council of Chief State School Officers in Washington, D.C., through the
National Dance Association and Music Educators National Congress offices in Reston, Virginia, and through interviews with leading officers of The National Dance Association and
the Dance Task Force. The author had the privilege of participating in the grassroots process, particularly in the creation of effective assessments for the National Assessment Educational Progress (NAEP). Her first-hand knowledge of this process adds an authoritative perspective to the research. A great many arts organizations were formed for specific purposes in the process leading toward the creation of the standards, assessments, and opportunity-to-learn standards. Documents and research obtained from the Council of Chief State School Officers provide both an explanation of purpose and a history of events for each of the
organizations and committees involved. Information from reports, papers, and summaries of their work are included. Interviews with organizational leaders provide a first-hand perspective. The outcome of the debate is the document The National Standards for Arts Education. Chapter four explores and analyzes the process of conversion of theory into workable National Standards for Dance Education (NDA, 1994). It
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 examines the standards for dance, explains their structure, describes the major aspects for dance education, provides the transition of theory into practice, and analyzes the results in terms of their implication and application. As an outcome of the debate, the chapter begins with with an explanation of the philosophic and pedagogic principles embodied in the vision of the national standards for all the arts. It consequently describes what the National Standards are designed to accomplish. The organization of the chapter follows the structure of the National Standards. adopting its division into grade level groupings and subordinate listing of content standards. This allows for an easy comparison with the National Standards document.
Although the focus of the chapter is on The National Standards for Dance Education. additional background information and explanations are also provided for the Assessment Frameworks and Exercise Specifications (NAEP, 1994a and 1994b) as well as for the "Opportunity-to-Learn Standards for Dance Instruction" (CNAEA, 1995, pp. 1-12), to which the author contributed her expertise. The National Standards for Arts Education has unified
arts education in a consensus process involving the four arts disciplines of dance, music, theater, and visual arts. It has created a national vision for arts education. The ultimate purpose of this chapter is to define this vision.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26 Chapter five addresses questions about the future. It examines issues of implementation and advocacy. What are future possibilities? What should be the next steps? It is both deductive and inductive : deductive in that it provides a conclusion summarizing the debate and examination of The National Standards for Dance Education: and inductive in that it develops ideas for future possibilities. While the term "conclusions for the future" seems to be an oxymoron, this is the purpose of the final chapter. It is an assumption in this dissertation that arts education is important for learning and a vital aspect of school curricula. Dance, as a kinesthetic art form, is especially important for children as a creative means of sensory-motor expression. The inclusion of dance in school programming is therefore beneficial. It is also assumed that the development of national standards for dance is a positive development for dance
education. Such standards offer dance a credibility in basic curricula never before afforded this art form. This study explores the development of the national standards and assessments for arts education from an historical perspective, with an eye to its practical application. The focus is the development of the content of the standards in dance, how they are being implemented in public schools, and their impact on dance education. It does not investigate issues of policy, nor does it
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 analyze the political aspects of party politics, departmental politics, and politics among arts organizations. It does not involve the roles of individual leaders as much as focus upon the written literature and its impact. Information about individuals or particular schools is used merely as examples for illustrative purposes. The creation of The National Standards for Arts Education is revolutionary in the United States, especially for dance. In fields of endeavor that pride themselves on nonconformity and in a country in which "states' rights" is a basic principle, the success of the standards hangs on the balance of proper implementation and sufficient advocacy. While the Department of Education accepted that the arts are basic to education, middle America has yet to be convinced of the wisdom of implementing wide-scale arts programs. When funding is short, the arts are the first to be cut. A study such as this could have far-reaching effect by demonstrating the importance of dance in education and showing the historical premise for effective educational dance programs. The National Standards highlight dance education as a higher learning process (Bloom, 1956). Given the breadth and depth included in the national standards, dance cannot be dismissed as a frolic or frill. Because the National Standards and the assessments are still new, few studies have been completed. The literature is limited and, because the process is continually evolving.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 hard-pressed to be up to date. A new perspective that includes the most current information is needed. Such a study can promote dance advocacy, which is a continual demand if dance is to gain popular acceptance as a viable academic subject.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The concept of national standards for arts education is as revolutionary for the arts as for the field of education. Standardization of the arts is an oxymoron; the idea is as foreign to the creative imagination of artists as is inclusion of the arts as a core academic subject to traditional educators. It required a complete turnabout in thinking in both fields, a progression which did not occur overnight. Its occurrence was the evolutionary culmination of nearly a century of educational philosophy, cognitive theory, and artistic development nurtured by a democratic political climate. The inclusion of dance along with visual arts, music and theater, is also revolutionary. While music curriculum
has been included in American academic institutions since
1838, ^ and the visual arts have held equal importance in schools, creative dance instruction has rarely been offered,
and then it was through the door of physical education. ^
^ John Mêüilmann, Executive Director of Music Educators National Congress, personal interview, June 27, 1997. ^ Margaret H*Doubler was the first to create a modern dance "major" at the university level in the Physical Education Department at the University of Wisconsin during the 1920s. 29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30 Recognition of the developmental benefits of learning dance is contemporary. Dance promotes physical, emotional, social and cognitive growth in children (Faber, 1994, pp.
33-131). Dance embodies one of our most primal relationships to the universe. It is pre-verbal, beginning before words can be formed. It is innate in children before they possess command over language and is evoked when thoughts or emotions are too powerful for words to contain. . . . For this reason, damce is a powerful ally for developing many of the attributes of a growing child. (Faber, 1994, p. 33) It is evident that dance helps the growing child physically. It develops strong muscles and bones, improves
the heart rate, circulation, respiration, and aerobic capabilities. Properly taught, dance also corrects alignment or structural problems and produces flexibility and a greater range of motion. Physical development milestones are more easily attained by a child adept in movement skills, and dance addresses the formation of physical abilities, both muscular and neurological. In addition, it is fun. Emotional maturation is harder to measure than physical growth, but dance can serve as a unifying medium between the two. Psychologists have long recognized that psychological health and maturity is promoted by the creative expression of one's inner reality. Dance offers emotional release and develops self awareness.
Movement helps shape a child's psyche. The holding and comforting touch of mother or the prime caretaker of an infant develops a sense of trust for others. The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 toddler develops a sense of autonomy through the successful basic muscular control of bowels and locomotion. The raw, egocentric creative movements of the preschooler gives rise to the imaginative awareness of the kindergartner. Physical achievement gives young school age children a sense of concrete empowerment. . . . Being in control of their bodies and feeling strong promotes a greater sense of self-confidence and maturity. With a sense of physical achievement, children perform better and enter into a cycle of physical and emotional growth. (Faber, 1994, p. 95) Every human society has developed a form of dance. "To dance is human" (Hanna, 1979). Since prehistoric times, the
function of dance has been primarily communal— it is a social phenomenon that is created, learned, and performed
with others. This demands social consciousness, sensitivity and cooperation. The corporate nature of dance promotes the social development of its participants. Each person can broaden the scope of the artistic vision by bringing to the work their individual awareness and depth. Creative production demands the social skills necessary to achieve a common goal. Children learn to work well alone, in relation to others, and as leaders. (Faber, 1994, p. 95) "All human movement initiates with thought, be it conscious or unconscious" (Faber, 1994, p. 80) . Therefore, the ability to think is cultivated symbiotically with the ability to move. Cognitive science is an embryonic field of study that has emerged only in the past thirty years. The exploration of thought processes as a scientific phenomenon is of relatively recent interest to researchers. Its relationship to child development and education is a contemporary issue. (Faber, 1994, p. 81) The birth of the cognitive sciences gave rise to a new framework from which to understand how learning occurs, and dance plays a multifaceted role. (Faber, 1994, Abstract)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 The educational and cognitive theory that paved the road for the inclusion of dance in schools was laid by a triumvirate of leadership: the influence of the American philosopher, John Dewey (1859—1952) , who transformed educational theory and practices; the Swiss-born John Piaget (1896-1980), whose research demonstrated that children's thought processes are qualitatively different from those of adults; and most recently, by Howard Gardner, (1944-), Co- Director of Harvard's Project Zero and a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, whose theory of multiple intelligences is changing the way educators think about the learning processes of children. While these three forged the foundation for the acceptance of dance as a core academic subject, they did not directly address it as an issue. Only now has it become a contemporary topic for educators to explore. A review of the literature about the inclusion of dance in education must begin with works describing supportive educational and cognitive theory. The writings of John Dewey established a basis for including the arts as tools for academic learning. Jean Piaget's theories of cognitive development demonstrated how movement and concrete learning processes are vital to the internalization of information. Howard Gardner is the current champion for the inclusion of the arts in academic environments. His theory of multiple intelligences confronts traditional perspectives about
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 learning with an entirely new paradigm. Literature demonstrating the background of dance in educational settings is provided in order to furnish a perspective of the milieu from which the national standards for dance education emerged. While most writing progresses from the general to the specific, this chapter must, of necessity, begin with the development of dance as a viable component of education and progress to current literature, which focuses on the coalition of all the arts as an essential aspect of basic education and imperative for educational reform. It is prerequisite to provide a basis of understanding about dance education and its importance in educational curricula before a discussion about the current educational reform movement and events leading to The National Standards for Arts Education. Therefore, a brief history of dance in American schools and of the emergence of modern dance, from Isadora Duncan to the analytical systems of Rudolph Laban, is necessary to demonstrate the educational effectiveness of creative movement. Currently, Anne Green Gilbert and Susan Stinson are major influences for dance in education, and their work has gained national attention. This chapter also reviews the literature about the importance of the arts in education written by advocates in support of the National Standards. Elliot Eisner, a strong voice for the arts in education, pressed educators for its
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 inclusion. Charles Fowler and Diane Ravitch are also respected advocates who have written extensively on the
subj ec t . Events leading to The National Standards for Arts Education grew from three major documents: A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) , a government report in 1973 that was a weüce-up
call to alert the nation that its educational system was deteriorating; Toward Civilization (NEA, 1988), a report by the National Endowment for the Arts in 1988 depicting the state of arts education in the United States; and America 2000 (U.S. Dept. Ed., 1991), President George Bush's "Educate America" strategy that never mentioned the arts and caused the national arts community to coalesce in response.
This led to the formation of The National Standards for Arts Education and its accompanying Assessment Framework and Exercise Specifications, as well as the Opportunitv-to-Learn Standards. The literature review must also include critiques of the National Standards, preliminary results of the national standards in dance education, and reports from the Educational Testing Service and the National Assessment of Educational Progress about the 1995 NAEP Field Test that was administered nationwide.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35 Educational Theory Leading to the Acceptance of National Standards for Arts Education
John Dewey: Laying the Educational Foundation for the Incorporation of Dance in Schools
Dewey's prolific writings were seminal in creating a progressive climate that advocated learning through experiential activities. His work ultimately led to the progressive acceptance of dance as a valuable asset in educational programs. The School and Society (Dewey, 1900), one of Dewey's early works, set the stage by providing the theoretical underpinnings of his philosophy of pedagogy while he was professor at the University of Chicago. The principles that Dewey expounded as the basis for education are unlike those traditionally accepted in The United States. Dewey's view of the child as a dynamic member of a community embodies a process of learning that involves the active participation of the child in the pursuit of knowledge as opposed to education as the passive reception of information. Mind for Dewey is a process— a verb, not a noun. He "depicted humans as actively striving to explore and to master their world rather than passively reacting to forces impinging upon them from the outside" (Dewey, 1900, p. xxi, preface). The road toward knowledge is traversed through thorough questioning and scientific testing, in a careful process of reflective thought. Learning by doing occurs through the internalization of experience.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 A central theme in The School and Society is the basic connection of individual growth with social and cultural community. The unfolding of mind, for Dewey, is aligned
with social development. The idea of evolution has made familiar the notion that mind cannot be regarded as an individual, monopolistic possession, but represents the outworkings of the endeavor and thought of humanity; that it is developed in an environment which is social as well as physical, and that social needs and aims have been most potent in shaping it— and the chief difference between savagery and civilization is not in the naked nature which each faces, but the social heredity and social medium. (Dewey, 1900, p. 99) Two years after publication of The School and Society. Dewey published a pamphlet entitled The Child and Curriculum (Dewey, 1902), in which he sets forth curricular conflicts between his concept of the fundamental factors involved in the educational process and the traditional view. Dewey
recognized that the child enters the classroom as an immature being, while schools traditionally fostered upon that child the social aims, meanings and values "incarnate in adults" (Dewey, 1902, p. 187). Dewey also understood the
world of the child to be egocentric, while in school the child is confronted with the "learning of the ages" (Dewey, 1902, p. 187). He discerned that a child's life is integral
and holistic, while school learning is departmentalized and categorized. Dewey developed a child-centered curriculum, based upon personal experience, that was in direct conflict with the factory model which was the public school paradigm of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 education for the masses held at that time. The child is the starting point, the center, and the end. His development, his growth, is the ideal. It alone furnishes the standeurd. To the growth of the child all studies are subservient; they are instruments valued as they serve the needs of growth. (Dewey, 1902, p. 187) In Schools of Tomorrow. Dewey provides a model education fashioned after his Laboratory School in Chicago. It is a blueprint for schools based on teaching through learning experiences in an education grounded in communal enterprises. Dewey describes a school in which the lines between life, community, and education melt into a continuum. Individual subjects are not taught. Skills are acquired through the accomplishment of educational experiences. Participatory activities are the crux of this
m e t h o d . Dewey's paradigm of education was one involving the practical application of learning and discovery. In Schools of Tomorrow, he developed a model school in which children were immersed in projects involving the exploration of everyday activities within the school as well as in the wider community. Learning took place within the context of life. The world was the classroom and everyone in its community were teachers. He brought Rousseau's Emile out of the woods and into cosmopolitan society. Dewey most thoroughly explored his philosophy of experiential learning in his short book. Experience and Education. By 1938, when the book was published, he had
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38 gained several decades of experience in tiie application of "learning by doing." By that time also, a vocal "progressive education" movement had gained momentum. While Dewey initially was a visible leader of the movement "because of its reliance upon and use of humane methods and its kinship to democracy" [Dewey, 1938, p. 35), he ultimately disassociated himself from it for reasons explained clearly and forcefully in the first few chapters. Progressive education had come to mean a laissez-faire attitude toward classroom management. "Progressive" had become synonymous with "permissive." The form of education Dewey espoused, however, involved cooperative organization and well-planned educational experiences. A primary responsibility of educators is that they not only be aware of the general principle of the shaping of actual experience by environing conditions, but that they also recognize in the concrete what surroundings are conducive to having experiences that lead to growth. (Dewey, 1938, p. 40) "Every experience," Dewey maintained, "is a moving force. Its value can be judged only on the ground of what it moves toward and into" (Dewey, 1938, p. 38). In the context of kinesthetic learning, this last quote is a pun, for movement played a primary role in Dewey's vision of education. Although he did not devise a curriculum for learning through the medium of dance, his work opened the door for its inclusion in American education and nourished the pioneers who evolved.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 Jean Piaget: A New Framework for Developmental Cognitive Processes
Piaget's work created a major shift in the framework within which concept formation and childhood thought patterns were understood. It was previously believed that the thinking processes of children were the same as thoseof adults, but that children had less information and experience at their disposal. As a result of Piaget's experiments with children, beginning in Paris in the 1920s and extending to the United States in the latter half of the century, it is now widely accepted that children use a qualitatively, as well as a quantitatively, different mode of conceptualization. Piaget's experimentation with children, and his research into the development of logical
and scientific higher thought processes of inductive and deductive reasoning, synthesis, analysis, and understanding of causality, established entirely new paradigms in both psychology and education. In his work A Child's Conception of the World (1963), Piaget delineates three specific areas in which the thought processes of children and adults are differentiated : (i) children's reality is "egocentric" rather than "objective;" (2) their mode of thought is "concrete" or "operational" rather than "abstract"; and (3) their sense of causality is "magical" rather than "logical." Piaget discusses his research in each of these areas in great technical depth and reports accounts of his direct investigations with children.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40 The results of his findings caused Piaget to structure the development of human conceptual thought into four progressive stages: (1) the sensori-motor stage (ages 0-2 years); (2) the preoperational or intuitive stage (2-7 years); (3) the concrete operational stage (7-12 years); and (4) formal operations (13+). In the sensori-motor stage, infants and toddlers relate to their environments in response to sensory or physical stimuli. They organize their experience based on immediate, direct, and personal feelings or observations. When a sense of "object permanence" and an expanded sense of time is developed, children develop a "preoperational" ability to generalize that allows for the formation of language, although causality at that age is still entirely egocentric, intuitive, anthropomorphic, and magical in its perspective. In the middle elementary school years, children progress to a style of symbolic thought which, although still grounded in concrete realities, involves the prototype for abstract logic. It is not until adolescence that formal abstract thought evolves. Piaget held that children must pass through each of these phases en route to true abstract thought. He also asserted that the development of each phase is a passage out of the previous mode into a new dimension. The problem Piaget set out to resolve in A Child's Conception of the World is, "What conceptions of the world
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 does the child naturally form at the different stages of its development?" (Piaget, 1963 [1929], p. 1). This 397-page book explores issues of realism, dreams, animism, moral necessity, physical determinism, "artificialism," and consciousness. It analyzes the significance of explanations communicated by children, and through this method determines
the child's sense of causality. In The Language and Thought of the Child (Piaget, 1955), Piaget expounds on the functions of language for children, their stages of development, understanding of
verbal interaction, and the developmental issues of communication. Written later in his career, this 250-page volume integrates much of his earlier research and applies
previous findings in new arenas. As with the first book, theoretical conclusions are both the result of and exemplified by anecdotal evidence. Amusing and heartwarming conversations are juxtaposed with heavy and convoluted analysis. Although Piaget's work primarily addresses the formation of scientific logic, in The Language and Thought of the Child he focused on the processes by which children express their thoughts and the thinking that underlies their
verbal communication. He was the first to recognize that the words children use may not be expressing the same concepts and contexts as they do for adults because children experience their world conceptually differently. Piaget's work provides validation for the inclusion of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42 dance as a core subject in academic environments. Given his findings that children are primarily sensori-motor, concrete or operational in their processes, it is crucial that they be taught experiences that address these modes rather than primarily through abstract words or ideas. His research is testimony to the theoretical effectiveness and the vital necessity of addressing kinesthetic learning channels. "For children, actions still speak louder than words. Thus dance, as an action, has a loud voice and is an effectively communicable teaching tool" (Faber, 1994, p. 108). During the 1960s and 1970s, the work of Piaget was becoming more widely published and read in the United States and was considered the "cutting edge" of developmental psychology. Unfortunately, his writing style is extremely obscure, hardly lucid enough for the average teacher to understand. It is therefore through the interpretations of his followers that Piaget's theories have become popularly
understood. Hans Furth, a professor of psychology at Catholic University of America and a member of the Boys Town Center for the Study of Youth Development, authored several books which served to promote Piaget's theories: Piaaet and Knowledge: Theoretical Foundations (1969) explains the theoretical basis of Piaget's work; Piaaet for Teachers (1970) offers a shorter and more simplified work that addresses classrooms functioning; and Thinking Goes to School: Piaget's Theory in Practice (1972) describes a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43 project in Charleston, West Virginia, and the creation of a "School for Thinking." For almost three decades, Furth has been considered the major authority on Piaget. Barry J. Wadsworth, professor of psychology and education at Mount Holyoke College, is also a respected authority on Piaget's philosophy. Author of Piaget for the Classroom Teacher (1978) and Piaget's Theory of Cognitive and Affective Development (1989), he writes in an easily comprehensible and direct style that emphasizes the biological and Darwinian aspects of Piaget's theories. He introduces chapter one of Piaget's Theory with this statement : Intellectual and biological activity are both part of the overall process by which an organism adapts to the environment and organizes experience. (Wadsworth, 1989, p. 9) Elsewhere, he writes that Piaget came to believe that biological acts are acts of adaptation to the physical environment and organizations of the environment. . . . Thus, he considered intellectual functioning to be a special form of biological activity (Wadsworth, 1989, p. 42). The concepts of schema, assimilation, accommodation and equilibrium are "used to explain how and why cognitive development occurs" (Wadsworth, 1989, p. 10) . In Wadsworth's view, one never forgets that Piaget began his career at age ten as a child prodigy in biology. Piaget was contemporary with a well-known German psychologist, Heinz Werner. It is difficult to surmise whether Werner was influenced by Piaget's work, or vice
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44 versa. Both were men of great reputation whose work traversed a developmental path from concrete, global, sensori-motor modes of thought to abstract symbolic conceptualization. There were, however, basic differences. Piaget worked with children within only one cultural context, that of the European or American middle and upper class. Werner, in an attempt to cultivate a more inclusive paradigm, studied a variety of thought processes within a wide range of cultural contexts. However, he seemed to apply a bias to each of the societies he studied. Thus, he describes "primitive mental activities" or "primordial perception" in quantitative terms, such as "lack of differentiation," rather than adhering to the qualitative and descriptive characterization of syncretic thought. Drawing on the research in child psychology, comparative animal psychology, cultural anthropology and psychopathology, he repeatedly compares the thought processes of "primitive man," children, and pathological individuals (schizophrenics) in an effort to synthesize a theoretical framework for the process of mental development in humans. In agreement with Piaget, he views the nature of primitive conceptualization as sensori-motor and concrete. He goes on to describe such perceptions as global, syncretic, diffuse, rigid, and magical. The description on the back cover of the paperback edition of Werner's lengthy tome. Comparative Psychology of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 Mental Development, reads as follows: "A modem classic of psychology, this book is the comprehensive introduction to the problems and methods of comparative developmental
psychology" (Werner, 1961 [1948], back cover). Heinz Werner was a well-accepted and influential psychologist of developmental theory. He was the first to correlate the cognitive processes of indigenous, non-literate peoples (then called "primitive societies") with those of children and the mentally challenged (then classed as "retarded") in contrast to the abstract scientific thought processes of technically advanced societies. His work fell out of favor in the climate of political correctness that prevailed in the 1980s because of its negative implications about Third World societies and disadvantaged individuals, but today is again recognized for its astute analysis with a forgiving attitude toward its "un-PC" language. Werner's book is intended as a basic text in developmental psychology, and was we11-respected as such. It is divided into three "books." Book one is a one-chapter introduction to the problems and methods of developmental psychology. Book two, divided into five parts, explores "primitive mental activities" and includes ten more chapters :
1. The Syncretic Character of Primitive Organization 2. Diffuse Forms of Sensori-motor and Perceptual Organization
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 3. Syncretic and Diffuse Organization in Imagery 4. Primitive Notions of Space 5. Primitive Notions of Time 6. The Nature of Syncretic Action; Action as Bound to the Concrete Situation 7. The Diffuse Character of Primitive Action
8. Conception 9. The Primitive Structure of Thought 10. The Fundamental Ideas of Magic as anExpression of
Primitive Conceptualization. Book three closes the text with two chapters about "The World and Personality." The categorized bibliography is extensive and includes the works of leaders in all related
fields, including those of Piaget. Werner's work offers great insight into the use of movement as an educational tool by describing the syncretic perceptual experiences and concrete thought processes of children. It explores areas in which the internalization of knowledge is most accessible through dance. In some respects, however, the work of Werner is counterproductive to the cause of kinesthetic learning, in
that it labels the sensori-motor and concrete perceptions of children as "primitive" thought processes. Teachers, hoping to lead their students to "higher" mental processes, could develop a hierarchical set of value judgments from this text. It is important, instead, to integrate these
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 processes into a holistic form of functioning that incorporates all aspects of concept formation.
Howard Gardner: A New Paradigm of Intelligence
Ever since Alfred Binet developed written tests to predict how well children would function in school, intelligence has been defined by a "grade" on a written examination, called the "g" quotient or "I.Q." (Intelligence Quotient) . It measures linguistic and mathematical/logical abilities. Howard Gardner, in his book. Frames of Mind (1983) , has revolutionized this concept by defining intelligence as the ability to solve problems creatively and function productively in the world in a variety of capacities. His definition is functional, dynamic, and open-ended.
"Although Gardner had been thinking about the notion of
'many kinds of minds' since at least the mid-1970s (see
Gardner, 1989, p.96), the publication in 1983 of his book
Frames of Mind marked the effective birth date of 'MI'
theory" (Armstrong, 1994, p. ix). Gardner asserts that a single, central concept of intelligence is erroneous— that there are seven different intelligences in humans, each functioning independently as separate domains. These are the linguistic, mathematical/logical, musical, spatial, bodily/kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersona 1 intelligences. Gardner's research, a major part of the work of Project Zero (which he co-directs at Harvard University) ,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 is contributing significantly to change traditional concepts of learning and education. In Frames of Mind. Gardner develops a substantial argument for his "Theory of Multiple Intelligences" (MI). Each of the seven intelligences listed above functions on separate principles that are not yoked to any others and operate spontaneously in the presence of specific stimuli. Gardner systematically and convincingly proves the validity of his assertions in the exploration of each domain's manifestations, neurological basis, evolutionary development, personal development and cultural contexts. In the chapter exploring bodily/kinesthetic intelligence, Gardner analyzes its manifestation as "the fluency of bodily movement as a whole or in parts; the capacity to work skillfully with objects; the use and understanding of movement vocabulary; and the ability to problem solve in movement" (Faber, 1994 p. 115). "Characteristic of such an intelligence is the ability to use one's body in highly differentiated and skilled ways, for expressive as well as goal directed purposes" (Gardner, 1983, p. 206). Gardner does not, however, explore the sensitivity of
"touch" as an element of kinesthetic intelligence. Also, while he pursues the practical, concrete aspects of kinesthetic intelligence through the development and use of tools, he does not significantly address the use of movement
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 as a form of symbolic communication. He mentions that dance is the height of kinesthetic intelligence, but does not explore the development of kinesthetic literacy. Frames of Mind involves exceptionally rich and sometimes technical research, yet is easy and interesting to read. It has indeed become popular with psychologists, educators, anthropologists, sociologists and even parents seeking new definitions and understandings of the function of the human brain and the role of intelligence in education and society. Part one of the book provides background to the theory of MI: introducing its concept, providing earlier views about intelligence, discussing the biological foundations of intelligence and redefining it. Part two, the bulk of the volume, is an in-depth analysis of each of the seven
intelligences: how they are manifested, the neurological basis for their existence as separate domains, their evolutionary development and cultural significance. Gardner thoughtfully provides his own critique of the theory, noting that "it is important to consider how the theory stacks up with other competing theories of human cognition" (Gardner,
1983, p. 277). Finally, part tbree of the book explores the practical educational applications of the theory.
Gardner is an exceptionally prolific writer and the author of a great many publications helpful to the understanding of kinesthetic learning. These include The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 Ouest for Mind (1972), The Arts and Human Development (1973, 1994) , Art. Mind and Brain: A Cognition Approach to Creativitv (1982), The Mind's New Science (1987) , Multiple
Intelligences (1993), and Creating Minds (1994). These works provide great insight into the evolution of Gardner's theory and its application. The theory of multiple intelligences (MI) is serving to change teaching techniques and concepts of learning. While educators since the 1960s have been aware of learning through different modalities or learning channels, Gardner's
work supports the idea that it is imperative to approach learning situations from a variety of modes. In the 12 years since the book's publication, kinesthetic learning has
become a much more widely accepted concept. It is unfortunate, however, that Gardner's work, like the work of his followers, is weak in regard to the interpretation of both kinesthetic and spatial intelligences. In focusing on the use of tools rather than on movement as a symbolic communicative vocabulary, or on a visual spatial intelligence rather than on an awareness of the self in time and space, he relegates the bodily/kinesthetic to the concrete operational phase of development— not to the level of abstract symbolism which is the basis of higher level thought and the creation of art. There are surprisingly few critiques of Gardner's MI theory. Any radical new theory must have its band of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 disbelievers and dissenters. This necessary critical factor serves to keep new ideas in "reality check." Harry Morgan's paper, "An Analysis of Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences," is both critical of Gardner's theory and helpful to the cause of MI, in that he raises important issues that are well researched and documented. Using a simple and direct style, he attacks Gardner's division of
intelligences, claiming they are merely "cognitive styles" (Morgan, 1992, p. 4). Yet ultimately he pushes the envelope of the understanding of Gardner's work without invalidating
it. Morgan states: The theory that multiple factors contribute to what is generally considered intelligence is not new. What is novel about Gardner's proposal is that each factor (as identified by his work), constitutes a separate construct that would qualify as an intelligence. (Morgan, 1992, p.4) The focus of his paper, is a refutation that these separate areas constitute "intelligences"; rather, they "are more realistically factors in general intelligence, and/or
cognitive stvles" (Morgan, 1992, p. 4; emphasis in orig i n a l ) . Morgan argues, "there are theoretical and structural
problems in labeling each ability an 'intelligence' "
(Morgan, 1992, p. 6). He cites the work of J.P. Guilford (1967), L.L. Thurstone (1938), A. Gesell (1949), Heinz Werner (1957), and N. Kogan (1971 and 1976), as well as the
Stanford-Binet Revised test, the Meyers-Briggs Inventory,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Revised); and a host of additional references listed in an extensive bibliography. He explores a variety of paradigms for theories of intelligence in relation to the concept of cognitive style, which he defines as: a construct that refers to the particularized and idiosyncratic modes that individuals employ in perceiving, remembering, organizing and evaluating information. . . . [Cognitive styles] embody processes that are typically employed in thinking, problem solving and various individual experiences." (Morgan, 1992, p. 12) Morgan's forty-one-page paper is a clear, concise exposition of his premise, densely researched and well organized. He opens with a synopsis of MI, a paragraph explaining the organization of his paper, and a generalized critique of MI. Section I is a historical review of
selected theories of intelligence; section II discusses characteristics of MI in relation to cognitive style constructs; section III compares MI with aspects of a unified theory of intellectual functioning labeled "factors"; and section IV provides comparisons of Gardner's "intelligences" with constructs in cognitive style theory. A table is included listing Morgan's interpretation of Gardner's definition of each of the intelligences. A complete and substantial list of references concludes the work. The portion of Morgan's analysis that focuses on the Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence is an exceptionally strong
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 validation of the effectiveness of kinesthetic learning- He finds this intelligence "the most interesting of the seven intelligences" (Morgan, 1992, p. 21) and asserts that "intellectual requirements for performance in gymnastics and sports are not fundamentally different from cognitive endeavors that do not necessarily call forth competitive type physical interactions, responses, and performances." He accepts that bodily-kinesthetic performance is a cognitive pursuit, and in relation to this states that: An essential element that appears to be common to all intellectual functioning is problem solving through the processing of information. Performance associated with problem solving skills are useful indices of intellectual capacity. . . . A careful observation of a brief episode in a basketball or football game, for example, would reveal a performer processing a tremendous amount of information. . . . The high levels of mental and physical abilities employed during the athletic performance, however, might not be available to the same individual in the static environment of the quiet classroom. (Morgan, 1992, pp. 21-23) Although Morgan labels this a "sensori-active cognitive style" (Morgan, 1992, p. 23) rather than an "intelligence," stronger affirmation of kinesthetic learning could hardly be verified. Like Gardner, however, Morgan also ignores the aspect of bodily-kinesthetic "intelligence" or "cognitive style" that applies to the use of movement as a symbolic form of communication. It is ironic that such otherwise perceptive intellectuals have not applied their skills to the intellectual understanding of human movement. While Gardner's work offers a strong theoretical basis.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 he relies on others to provide the practical application of his ideas. Thomas Armstrong is a strong advocate of Gardner's theories who has written an extensive number of works (with Gardner's endorsement) to facilitate the use of the seven intelligences to the "nuts-and-bolts issues of classroom teaching" (Armstrong, 1994, p. ix) . He was a specialist in learning disabilities in the late 1970s and early 1980s who was initially attracted to Gardner's work as the solution to "a deficit-oriented paradigm in special education" (Armstrong, 1994, p. ix) . It is Armstrong's view that "MI theory is perhaps more accurately described as a philosophy of education, an attitude toward learning, or even a meta-model of education in the spirit of John Dewey's ideas on progressive education rather than a set program of fixed techniques and strategies" (Armstrong, 1994, p. x) . Armstrong's book. Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom, is a practical introduction and guide for the creation and implementation of curricula and methodologies. It is a book that should be helpful to administrators, program designers, teachers, counselors, professionals in special education, and parents. Armstrong does not promote his own philosophy, but is a spokesperson for Gardner and missionary for the implementation of his work. His ideology in the classroom is progressive and child-centered. In relation to MI he states :
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 Although it is true that each child possesses all seven intelligences and can develop all seven to a fairly high level of competence, children seem to begin showing what Howard Gardner calls "proclivities" (or inclinations) in specific intelligences from a very early age. By the time children begin school, they have probably established ways of learning that run more along the lines of some intelligences than others. (Armstrong, 1994, p. 26) Armstrong offers methods for determining the intelligences of children and suggests activities that promote them. He offers techniques to address the individual and unique needs of each child. Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom is a 185-page
handbook mapping the practical application of MI. After a simplified and easily understandable explanation of MI, he proceeds to address classroom issues such as recognizing the intelligences of students, curriculum development, classroom strategies and management, classroom environment and school culture, special education, cognitive skills and other applications of MI theory. He provides activity charts, reading lists and examples of lessons and programs. As the director of the center for Armstrong Creative Training in California, he has written other well-publicized books such as 7 Kinds of Smart (1993) and Awakening Your Child's Natural Genius. Howard Gardner says of Armstrong, "He has always stood out in my mind because of the accuracy of his accounts" (Armstrong, 1994, preface). Armstrong does not challenge the words of Howard Gardner, and therefore exhibits the same weaknesses faced by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 Frames of Mind in its application of the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. He mentions games, manual manipulations,
theater games, yoga, and even martial arts, but he fails to mention any dance activities whatsoever. This replicates Gardner's omission to explore movement as a symbolic system
of communication. Armstrong, like Gardner, ignores movement as a form of literacy. While serving as a missionary for the inclusion of movement in the educational process, he
neglects its greatest potential.
Conclusion
Although the roots for promoting the use of movement in schools began early this century, only in recent years has there been a burst of literature supporting the benefits of dance education as a tool for cognitive and academic development. Very little, however, except the work of dancers or of Howard Gardner and his followers, addresses this issue directly. Even then, great gaps and omissions are left begging for inclusion and further development. While cognitive theorists have ignored the expressive art of dance, dancers have ignored the depth and support of the work spawned by the theorists. They have written "how to" books promoting activities and exercises rather than
connecting the work in movement to any theoretical basis. Until the practical and theoretical are linked, the importance of dance education will not be understood and
general acceptance of the national standards for dance is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 not likely to occur.
Laving the Groundwork: The Background of Dance in Academic Settings
Modern dancers have been the major advocates for the inclusion of creative movement and dance in schools and were the first to recognize its educational value for academic
learning. There were many forces creating change in educational thinking at the turn of the century, consequently the emergence of dance in school settings began to grow significantly. Initially, the dancers who brought dance activities into schools were not concerned with the inner experience of creative movement, but applied traditional dance forms for physical education and pleasure. Emile Rath, in his book. Aesthetic Dancing (1914), describes the teaching of positions and steps to be learned in order to execute classical style dances accompanied by a wide variety
of orchestral music forms. This, the first effort of the author, is an endeavor to place in the hands of teachers of physical education a book which may assist them in presenting to girls' and women's classes the fascinating aesthetic dancing. It is an effort to extend the work begun by the late Mr. Melvin B. Gilbert, who was the first to arrange these artistic steps and movements into pleasing dances suitable for gymnastic purposes, thereby contributing a most valuable class of exercises to physical education. (Rath, 1914, p. iii) The course of study was intended solely for females as a form of physical exercise. Although it was called "aesthetic" dancing, the teaching of choreographic
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58 aesthetics was not its objective. Other dance writers such as Irene Phillips Moses also reflect this attitude. Her book Rhythmic Action Plays and Dances (1915) provides a menu of dances to be taught to young children of both sexes based upon nursery rhymes and folk dance styles. "The pleasure the children derive from their rhythmic work is quite the most important factor of its success" (Moses, 1915, introduction) . Healthful and enjoyable physical exercise is the objective. Creative movement is not a consideration. At the turn of the century, creative movement in this country was still an anathema. America was slow to accept self-expression through the body. Deep roots in Puritanism bred a mistrust of free body movement, equating it with immoral conduct and sexual promiscuity. Although the dance forms used in educational settings during the first decade of this century were neither innovative nor creative, they planted the field with concepts that led to future developments. Out of this milieu emerged Isadora Duncan (1878-1927), a revolutionary dancer, artist, free-thinker, and renegade, whose brilliance as a solo performer changed the face of Western dance. Isadora was a romantic who felt she was returning to the aesthetic of the ancient Greeks. She danced barefoot in flowing, sometimes short Grecian style tunics, considered scandalous according to the corseted and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 constricted standards of the era. She rejected the rigidities and artificialities of traditional and classical dance forms and sought movements that were natural to the body and emotionally expressive. Instead of projecting fantasies of flight with nymph-like grace, she used weight and gravity as an aspect of motion. Her dances expressed strength, anger, and pain as well as joy and freedom. The legacy Isadora left modern dance was a spiritual legacy rather than pedagogical. As a world-class performer and notorious free-thinker, Isadora created a furor and became an internationally known figure. Her work deeply affected the souls and spirits of those who viewed it. Although she never taught in schools or educational institutions, her dancing transformed dance education. As the seeds sowed by John Dewey and Isadora blossomed, movement as a form of self expression found its niche within the walls of academia. Dancer educators sought their own methods to free dance from the shackles of confinement, yet the inclusion of dance was still revolutionary and primarily an aspect of pageantry or a form of theater. Mary Beegle and Jack Crawford brought pageantry to Dewey's stronghold, Columbia Teachers College, in 1911 where they were the first to promote the creative movement of the new "natural" and "rhythm" dance forms (Beegle and Crawford, 1916) . Gertrude Colby, a student of Dewey's, graduated from Teacher's College the same year Beegle and Crawford initiated their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 pageantry course there. She became a full faculty member in 1914 and instituted "Natural Dancing" in 1919 as an aspect ofteacher training in physical education, an act that began a trend to include dance in physical education departments instead of teaching it as a fine art. The growing recognition of the need in physical education for something less formal and more in harmony with the interests and activities of everyday life has drawn attention to a "new" type of dancing. It is not new, nor is it truly old, for while the dancing of ancient Greece has its inspiration, it's development is modern in essence. . . . It is based upon such free natural movements as walking, skipping, running, leaping, etc. By making ourselves free instruments of expression, rhythmically unified, we are enabled to express in bodily movement the ideas and emotions which come from within. We "dance ideas, not steps." (Colby, 1922, p. 7) The expressive and emotional benefits of dance in education had become recognized. Meanwhile, the work of movement education innovators in Europe had vaulted the Atlantic Ocean and was beginning to make an impact in the United States. The work of Dalcroze spread quickly and became particularly well known among musicians and dancers. Emile Jaques-Dalcroze (1865-1950)
began teaching a system that used movement as a tool for teaching music in Swiss schools. He called his method "Eurhythmies." His efforts began in the training of students of music. But it was quickly seen that his ideas had an even wider application. His experience suggests the possibility of a very close combination of the intellectual and artistic elements in elementary and secondary education. . . . Its educational value for children, its applicability to their needs, the pleasure which they tedce in the exercises, have been
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 conclusively proved. (Dalcroze, 1917, p. 10, introduction by M.E. Sadler) Dalcroze taught that "the spontaneous rhythms of the body have synchronous mental rhythms to collaborate with them" (Dalcroze, 1930, p. 5) . He explored the symbiotic relationship between music and movement. Music was kinesthetically interpreted into dance and the movements of the body were translated dyneunically into music. Although the system Dalcroze developed is based on the learning of music, he applied his work to educational theory, echoing the educational philosophy of John Dewey, and made a notable impact in schools. He agreed with Dewey's criticism of the educational philosophy of the time
which expected students to be passive retainers of information and the accumulators of factual knowledge: Instruction is passive. It is a means of accumulating knowledge. Education is an active force working upon the will and tending to coordinate the various vital functions. . . . The object of education to enable people to say at the end of their studies not "I know", but "I experience," and then to create the desire of self -expre ssion. (Dalcroze, 1930, p. 97) Beegle had studied in Switzerland in 1910, and the
Dalcroze system entered the awareness of educators in the United States when it became part of the curriculum at Columbia Teacher's College. The 1920s Jazz Age was an era of expansion and change: the cubists were turning around concepts of art; the stock market was soaring; social restrictions were breaking apart;
and a new form of "natural" dance was teUcing hold. Dance in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62 education was expanding as well, and the teaching and
writing of Margaret Newell Doubler had considerable impact
in the field. H'Doubler was the first to develop a
curriculum in "the dance" that warranted its inclusion as a major subject on the university level. Having started her career as a biology major at the University of Wisconsin, H'Doubler provided dance with a scientific kinesthetic basis
which served to give it credibility in a higher academic setting. After teaching at Pennsylvania State University and receiving advanced work at Columbia Teacher's College, she returned to the University of Wisconsin and developed, for the first time in any university, a modern dance "major"
in the Department of Physical Education.^ Without forfeiting the creative and self-expressive
elements of movement, H'Doubler's dance curriculum was
philosophically sound, informative, logical, yet artistic.
In her book The Dance (1925) she addressed dance as an art form in depth as well as its applications, distinguishing between "the art of dancing" and "dancing as an art": "The first, the art of dancing, is the skill which performs the acts directed by science. . . . But by dancing as an art we mean something more— dancing as an adequate and harmonious
^ H'Doubler's major error, as was Colby's, was to institute her program under the umbrella of physical education rather than performing arts. This established a precedential model which has made it more difficult for dance to earn credibility as a serious and important art form in need of independent recognition. Dance departments have consequently suffered under this shadow.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 means of expressing our emotional life" (H'Doubler, 1925,
p •7—8). As a leading personality of the new intellectual breed
of modern dancer, H'Doubler explored the essential nature of
dance and its place in educational curriculum. In concurrence with Plato's definition of education, she agreed that: "The purpose of education is to give to the body and
soul all the beauty and perfection of which they are capable" Doubler, 1925, p. 31). To her, the aim of
education was "the freest and fullest development of the individual based upon a scientific understanding of his
personal, mental, spiritual, and social needs" (H'Doubler,
1925, p. 31). She believed this could be done most effectively through the arts and so focused on dance as an inner experience of growth and development. In the last analysis it is the development of human nature, of personalities, that is the most important consideration, not the subject itself. That is only a means- Our real purpose is to teach boys and girls and men and women by means of the dance; to teach them a philosophy of life that finds its practical application in the dance. (H'Doubler, 1925, p. 78)
While those before her made the ultimate product of
their dance education a performance, H'Doubler centered her
training on the process. She planted the conceptual seed
that could grow into the use of dance as a kinesthetic tool for learning. Other university progreums followed suit. Betty Lynd
Thompson, Assistant Professor of Physical Education at the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 Oregon State College, trained with both Margaret Doubler
and Martha Grahem. As described in her book Fundamenta1s of Rhythm and Dance, a "rhythm section" was developed in 1927 as part of the freshman course in the "Fundamentals of Physical Education" (Thompson, 1933, p. xiii). Another leader was Ruth Murray, who initiated a dance program at Wayne State University that spawned a generation of graduates who populated Michigan with competent dance
t e a c h e r s . Until the 1960s, however, the University of Wisconsin
was the only large university to offer a degree as a dance major that trained students in dance education. As a result, several generations of dance teachers were trained
by Margaret H'Doubler. Dance in educational institutions
entered through the door of physical education departments. The currents of dance performance were running parallel with the infusion of dance into schools. In the 1930s, an emerging idiom of dance, now called "modern dance," was largely centered around the offspring of the Denishawn school and company. Ruth St. Denis and Ted Shawn had opened a school for the dance in Los Angeles in the summer of 1915 and developed a philosophy of teaching that was radical for its time. St. Denis, a magnificent performer, inspired her students, while Shawn developed a solid pedagogy of training. As explained in his book. Dance We Must (1946), they integrated Asian dance forms with Eastern philosophy
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 and the new freedom of modern dance to evolve a contemporary ritual that aligned with the nature of human movement. The school thrived for ten years as a center for the emerging form of dance. From their ranks of students, St. Denis and Shawn formed the Denishawn Company which toured both nationally and internationally. By the time they abandoned
the school in 1925, the Denishawn Company had launched a new generation of modern dancers, including Martha Greiham, Doris Humphrey and Charles Weidman. Graham, a small, dark, fiery woman, broke from the Denishawn Company in 1926 and launched a career as a solo artist in New York City, establishing herself as a major force in the dance world. She built on the roots of Denishawn's Asian philosophy while examining the depths of passion in the human psyche as expressed in the body. She developed a uniquely American repertory that explored the pioneering American spirit. She also evolved a physical technique and training that focused on natural universal forces of movement. Her technique, as well as choreography, dramatically probed the depths of the human soul. In contrast, Doris Humphrey was a tall, slender, fair woman of gentle grace and goddess-like poise. She developed
an expansive technique that suited her choreography, which often consisted of movement interpretations of musical scores focusing on the compositional orchestration of movement, on form or structure in the abstract, or on the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66 loftier sentiments and spiritual aspects of being. She
worked closely as a team with Charles Weidman, also a product of Denishawn and a life-long colleague. Each summer, from 1934-1941, leading choreographers and dancers rallied at The American Dance Festival held at Vermont's Bennington College, which emerged as the center for the new dance form (Kriegsman, 1981). Although the focus at Bennington was the creation of new choreographic works and performance, physical education teachers were attracted to the program to learn about the new movement form entering their university departments. The world of professional dancers and the educational world of teachers communed to produce a generation of dance educators who spread the emerging dance idiom to the general school population. During this same period, modern dance was fermenting and ripening in Europe, especially in Germany. Rudolph Laban emerged in Europe as a leading movement analyst. He served to develop definitions of movement and a descriptive vocabulary that greatly influenced the observation and evaluation of dance in this century, and originated a system of dance notation appropriately called "Labanotation." "He
evolved a means of 'dissecting out' the basic elements which
create and control every kind of movement of which the human anatomy is capable" (Winearls, 1958, p. 11). In Modern Educational Dance (1948) he systematized the teaching of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 dance into elements of movements of the body, space (shape) , and dynamics (effort), and described the interaction between the three. His work, built concretely on defined structures, was ripe for teaching in schools. Laban, whose homeland was Czechoslovakia, lived and worked primarily in Germany but ultimately escaped to England before the onslaught of World War II. There he trained dancers and promoted his teaching. He was a strong advocate for the inclusion of dance in school programs. "It is more widely realized today that school education must take the subject of dance-tuition into consideration" (Laban, 1948, p. 1). He was early to recognize the "beneficial effect of the creation of activity of dancing
upon the personality of the pupil" (Laban, 1948, p. 1). Two of Laban's students, Joan Russell and Marion North, became strong voices for dance in education in England and later, in the mid-1960s and 1970s, wrote books that had great influence in the United States. Joan Russell well demonstrates the primary relationship between movement and learning in her book Creative Dance in the Primarv School (1965) . We live in an environment full of movement. It is a manifestation of life itself and one way in which we learn to understand the world is through our sense of touch and movement. . . . It is only comparatively recently that educationalists, other than those engaged in the teaching of movement activities of one kind and another, have turned their attention to movement as a vital ingredient of interpersonal communication. . . . Movement is one of the first means of expression, of communication and of learning about the world.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 (Russell, 1965, p. 12) Russell applies Laban's theoretical work about the structure of movement to the teaching of children, and defines a course of study appropriate to the various ages in elementary school. In this process she integrates the goals and objectives of academics with those of learning dance. As developmental psychology and child development became more widely understood, dance educators such as Marion North recognized and promoted dance in order to benefit children's intellectual, emotional and social growth. Her writings, Bodv Movement for Children (1971) and Movement Education; Child Development Through Bodv Motion
( 1 9 7 3 ) , served to educate American school teachers as well as dancers : "I write as an educationalist who has found that movement is a valuable medium through which children and adults can be helped in their growth and development"
(North, 1971, p. V) . She addressed such issues as "education through movement or movement education" (North,
1973, p. 11) .
North's goals were not solely artistic. They were primarily developmental, but she accomplished her objectives by focusing her teaching on the form and structure of movement. She divided human movement into two categories : personal movement patterns that are characteristic of an individual; and functional activity or movement directed for an external and practical purpose. Dance is a third type:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 the creation of archetypical symbols of body movement that expresses ideas or feelings. "It is not the doing of the activity that is important in dance, but the linking of the inner being and the outer form" (North, 1971, p. x) . These symbols are communicated in a movement vocabulary: The meaning of the word "vocabulary" in movement is similar to its usual meaning in language. Movement occurs in "phrases" and "sentences," just as do speech and song. Each phrase or sentence is made up of movement "words," whose significance is related to the "words" that have gone before, and those that follow. (North, 1973, p. 15) In agreement with Russell, North acknowledged the child's primary communication to be pre-verbal and kinesthetic. She affirmed that children are often more attuned to the language of movement than adults, who have learned to rely on verbal communication. She recognized they have already mastered a great amount of kinesthetic ability by the time they enter school. She therefore saw the role of the teacher as a guide to "(a) help the children
retain their range and 'mastery' ; and (b) help them to
develop it in a way that is appropriate to their general growth" (North, 1973, p. 15). North accomplished her goals through teaching methods adopted from the Laban system. Like him, she structured movement into four aspects: (a) The body— what moves; (b) The quality or "effort"— how the body moves; (c) The space— where the body moves; (d) Relationships— with what or whom the body moves. (North, 1973, p. 153)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 The aspects were defined by four elements: weight, time, flow and space. These, in turn, were defined by qualities of: bound or free, direct or indirect, sustained or sudden, and sensitive or formal. Laban delineated eight variations with which to describe motion: thrusting, floating, pressing, flicking, slashing, gliding, wringing, and dabbing. This created a structure from which students learned to consciously experience and compose choreography. Laban's system spread to the United States. A Labanotation Bureau was established in New York City and Irmgard Bartenieff founded the Laban/Bartenieff Institute for Movement Studies (LIMS). While Laban's work applied to the rudiments of composition and a descriptive application
of body functioning, Bartenieff carefully examined the physiological functioning of the body and developed a series of "fundamentals," constructive exercises to create ease and flow in body movement. Laban's work incubated in the 1950s, but blossomed in the late 1960s, emerging in colleges across the nation. The strong structural and theoretical base, which systematized dance both philosophically and compositionally, made his approach appropriate for academia. The development of detailed movement study in this country owes its source to Laban's work, although many of the descriptions of movement will not be found in his writings because they have been developed and understood only since his death, and knowledge and experience drawn from other investigators as well as from other fields of research have been incorporated. (North, 1973, pp. 151-152) In contrast to Laban and his followers' focus on form
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71 and structure, Gladys Andrews, who later became known as Gladys Andrews Fleming, was one of the first American dance educators to base her teaching on the social and emotional development of the child using dance and movement as a tool. Hers was a child-centered teaching as opposed to a subject- or content-driven learning environment. She recognized the role of the teacher had changed from one of singular authority to that of a knowledgeable guide, assisting children in pursuing their personal discoveries. Now the teacher plays a supportive and guiding role in helping children to work toward a solution to their own problems. The children are encouraged to create, through patterns of movement and dance, their ways of doing, rather than to imitate set patterns. (Andrews, 1954, p. V) Andrews concentrated on the creative and expressive
aspects of movement as a catalyst for personal growth. She was among the first to address the needs of the "whole" child. Hers was an integrative process: Practical research workers, teachers and parents who have worked with children have come to realize the complexities, intricacies and interrelatedness of various individual aspects of growth. The child cannot be studied in parts; modern emphasis is upon the child as a whole. . . . From the time he is born, the child has a body, mind and emotions which are interrelated and interactive. Anything happening to one part affects the whole. (Andrews, 1954, pp. 1-2) In her approach to teaching, Andrews recognized that "no two children are exactly alike," and that each child develops at their individual rate, although there is a
generalized growth pattern at different stages of development. She focused on the teaching of dance and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 movement to enhance personal development physically, intellectually, emotionally, and socially. As a teacher at the School of Education of New York University, her work
became widely accepted by educators. In the late 1960s there was an explosion of new dance departments at the university level for many reasons. Before then only a few colleges or universities offered graduate work in dance. A new generation of dance educators was graduating from programs in higher education and, for the first time, dance earned recognition as a division within performing arts departments rather than as programs attached to physical education. Dance as an important element in education had gained the attention of the educational establishment. Geraldine Dimondstein and Naima Prevots collaborated in in a national project called the Central Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory (CAREL) , which was authorized by Title IV of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (CAREL, 1968, p. 1). Its mission was "to improve educational methods and materials and to reduce the lag between development and widespread use of new knowledge" (CAREL, 1968, p. 1). Several teams of teachers in a variety of areas were asked to develop and try out new educational curricula. The Aesthetic Education Program, of which Dimondstein and Prevots were members, was "conceived not as a single curriculum, but as a resource for curriculum
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 development" (CEMREL, 1973, p. 1). It included specialists from the disciplines of dance, music, theater, the visual arts, and literature "based on the philosophic position that the arts are crucial to a well-functioning, healthy society" (CAREL, 1968) . Each of these groups was to develop a "package" of educational materials. Dimondstein and Prevots created an educational curriculum in dance for elementary school children which culminated in their film, titled "Children Dance" (1970). It demonstrated successful techniques for teaching children creative movement in classrooms of northern Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia, a curriculum for dance as a tool for learning in the elementary school grades. Their approach, based upon the principles of Laban, used the exploration of movement to teach academic concepts and concepts necessary in other disciplines of learning. The 1960s also brought the rise of specialized performing arts high schools. In Detroit, Cass Technical High School established a credible dance program as early as the 1920s,^ but The High School of Performing Arts, established in Manhattan in 1948, was the first public
secondary school devoted to the performing arts.® Many other cities followed suit with the establishment of public
^ Katherine Ellis, past President of the National Dance Association, personal interview, March 22, 1997. ® Mr. Aronson, Assistant Principal of Performing Arts at Laguardia High School of Performing Arts, telephone interview, January 3, 1994.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 schools that specialized in the arts or, in particular, the performing arts. The District of Columbia Public School System created The Duke Ellington School of Performing Arts
in 1974.® On the elementary level, magnet schools, such as the District's Filmore Center for the Arts, were developed. They fulfilled the societal need for a multicultural education with social equality, the economic need to consolidate schools equitably, and the cultural need for better arts education. Their impact in providing an education in dance to young children of all economic situations has been invaluable. (Knowles and Sande, 1991, pp. 18-24.) A great amount of educational exploration occurred in the 1970s. It was an era of both financial and artistic expansion, and schools were opening their eyes to alternative possibilities. Yet modern dancers remained the
major advocates for the inclusion of creative movement and dance in educational settings. In spite of Dewey's prolific work, most schools had continued with the "traditional" systems of rote teaching. Armed with Dewey's principles, modern dancers were striving to convince educators of the importance of creative movement in the learning process. Laban's organized systemization of movement appealed to
Carol Foster, Arts Coordinator at The Duke Ellington High School of Performing Arts, telephone interview, January 2, 1994 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 academians, and dance, as an art form, gained academic
a p p e a l . Dancer Anne Green Gilbert has been using dance as a
teaching technique in schools since the 1970s. In 1977 her book. Teaching the Three R*s Through Movement Experiences, was published to help dancers and teachers apply dance as a teaching aid and understand its infinite creative possibilities. She was the first to use dance as a teaching tool with artistic craft as a secondary purpose. Gilbert, a dance educator who teaches in the schools of Seattle, Washington, uses creative movement and dance to teach academic skills in the classroom. As a pioneer, her work has had a great impact on both the school system in Seattle and the dance community in America. Not recognizing the educational value of dance, teachers usually consider dance a frill. Dance education in schools usually focuses on teaching dance as either a means of exercise or as entertainment. At best it is approached as an art form, but rarely is the connection made between learning dance and academic improvement. Classroom teachers often could not recognize the value to their students of experiencing dance. Anne Gilbert made those academic advantages directly apparent by applying the process of movement to the acquisition of information and academic problem solving. Teachers could not dismiss this form of learning as "frivolous" in their program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76 Although Gilbert adheres to the philosophy of John Dewey, of education through the active experience of "doing" (Dewey, 1938), and applies the concepts of Piaget (Gardner had not yet posed his theory of MI) , she never refers to them in her book. Her focus is on the effective application of movement as a teaching and learning tool in the
classroom. These movement experiences are not meant to replace the traditional methods of teaching "the three R's." Instead, they should be used along with these methods to increase motivation and learning. Neither are they intended as a panacea for the variety of ills plaguing m a n y of our schools. However, they hel p meüce the teaching and learning of basic academic skills more enjoyable and meaningful for both teachers and students. (Gilbert, 1977, p. 3)
Gilbert provides educational movement activities for children by presenting specific problems that they solve through using their bodies in a variety of ways. In answer to her self-posed question, "Why are movement experiences
important to the growth and development of a child?" (1977, p. 5), she discusses how out of touch most people have grown from our initial awareness of non-verbal communication and joy of movement. She does not refer to educational philosophy or the research of the cognitive scientists for affirmation of the importance of movement learning
experiences. She does, however, attest that "intellectual, physical and emotional growth are stimulated through movement experiences" (Gilbert, 1977, p. 5), and, as
testimony to this, has written a book filled with inspiring
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77 and imaginative problem-solving activities. Gilbert's work is a comprehensive and practical guide
which appropriately begins with an introductory section describing the "what," "why," "how, "when," and "where" of creative movement in the classroom. She then offers scripts written in the first person as examples of movement activities in five subject areas; language arts, mathematics, science problems, social studies and the visual arts. Within these major areas she includes a myriad of topics. Language arts involve the alphabet, reading readiness, vowels, consonants, blends, phonogram, digraphs, rhyming, spelling, synonyms, antonyms, homonyms, compound words, comparatives, syllables, stories, poems, and emotions. Mathematics involves math readiness, numbers,
counting, sets, computation, measurement and geometric shapes. Science explores the body, the five senses, seasons, weather, plants, animals, machines, electricity, magnets, planets, moon, stars, gravity and matter. Social studies investigates occupations, transportation, community groups, customs and cultures, holidays, physical environment, natural resources, government and the United States. The arts correlate visual, textural and design stimuli with movement. Gilbert is well respected nationally by dance educators and by educators within the Seattle district, but the concept of teaching academic subjects through movement is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 still generally considered an academic frill by teachers, administrators and parents. Until educational leaders are convinced that movement plays an essential and integral role in the "back to basics" movement, they will consider dance or creative movement a waste of their precious financial resources. While Gilbert's book offers a rich treasury of ideas to implement movement in classrooms, it does not provide the theoretical arguments or fuel necessary to convince educators of their necessity. This task was left to Dr. Susan Stinson, who emerged as the champion for dance in education as both a teacher and scholar. She has written numerous articles for groups such
as the National Dance Association (NDA), the American Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD), the Congress on Research in Dance (CORD), and the Society of Dance History Scholars (SDHS) as a prominent dance educator and scholar currently working within the schools. Renowned in the field of dance education, she shed light on both the benefits and difficulties of setting up dance programs. She has addressed innumerable issues concerning dance in the schools and has helped to increase the number of dance programs offered as well as to develop curricula, and has taught
methods of instruction.^
^ The author has attended several workshops and lectures delivered by Dr. Stinson at; the National Dance Association Convention, East Lansing, MI, October 7, 1994; the American
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 Stinson is a humanist whose approach to dance is both developmental and educational. Her work, first and foremost, delights in the child. Allthough she possesses the sharp, clear mind of a seasoned scholar, she is not imprisoned by the intellectual trappings of scholarly pursuit but, as an actively involved teacher, translates the
theoretical into the practical and holds the magic of
movement and children dear. Stinson focuses her keen intellect on the experience of dance. In Dance for Young Children: Finding the Magic in Movement (1988) she explores that which makes dance different from everyday, functional, mundane movement. How do we make movement significant? The first step is to pay attention to it. . . .To dance is to discover a new world of sensory awareness. Awareness of movement is made possible by the kinesthetic sense, and it comes from the nerve endings in our joints and muscles. . . . Dance as we mean it here, then, refers not just to body movement but to an inside awareness of the movement. However, dance as an art has to do not only with the body but also with the spirit, another dimension of the self. (Stinson, 1988, pp. 2-3) Stinson ' s approach to dance training is to help her students develop kinesthetic self awareness through aesthetic movement experiences. Probably all of us have experienced transcendent moments in our lives, times of total involvement when we feel deep connection, whether it is with movement, music, or even a sunset. It is difficult to find words to talk about these experiences, because the words often do not seem to make sense in a conventional way. Philosophers who study the arts refer to such
Association of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Conference, April 1996; and the Congress on Research in Dance, October 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80 experiences as "aesthetic." (Stinson, 1988, p. 3) The book is not meant to serve as a menu of creative dance ideas, but provides guidelines for constructing and conducting an effective class for whatever theme may be chosen. Its chapters lead the prospective teacher through lessons concerning the understanding of purpose, preparation, planning, and conducting of a class, with additional sections on trouble-shooting, the integrated curriculum, children with special needs, and ideas for a parent-child session. Throughout the book, the needs and experiences of the child remain primary. The structures are provided to facilitate learning experiences. In a short article titled "Body of Knowledge," published in Educational Theorv (Winter, 1995), Stinson addresses not the task of the educator, but the process of education. Written primarily for scholars and researchers, Stinson describes how the body can be experienced as the embodiment of knowledge as well as how knowledge can be derived from a kinesthetic awareness of the body. She refers to Eliot Eisner's work as well as to Howard Gardner, Martin Buber, and Einstein, weaving art, cognitive science, philosophy and mathematics into a tapestry of physical knowing. With subtopics such as "Process and Product: Research as Choreography" or "Data Gathering: Kinesthetic Perceptions," she transforms scholarly pursuits from the mental realm to physical experience. This type of knowing
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 is experienced internally as well as externally. In her conclusion she states: While not all of us are trained dancers, we all have the capacity to attend to what we are experiencing on a body level. We can allow ourselves to use all of our senses as we live in the world with others and try to understand them and be present with them. . . . Beyond feeling from the other side, we can also attempt to communicate beyond our own boundaries— not only "antiseptic" abstract ideas, but lived experience, by means of a language rich in sensory images, including kinesthetic ones. (Stinson, 1995, p. 53) Her article in Dance Education: A Lifetime of Experience (1996), a publication emerging from the proceedings of the first biannual Dance Education Conference of the National Dance Association, expounds further on "The Significance of Sentience in Dance Education." Never has someone provided such a vital argument for the importance of sentient experience in the acquisition of inner knowledge. Lamenting the educational hierarchy of mind over body, she states : There is little indication of change in the state of affairs noted by John Dewey in 1934, when he wrote "Prestige goes to those who use their mind without participation of the body and who act vicariously through control of the bodies and labor of others (Dewey, 1934, p. 21)." (Stinson, 1996, p. 8) The article is a call for the inclusion of the
kinesthetic and proprioceptive senses in education, which are not even listed in the traditional five senses of sight, sound, taste, touch and smell. "The kinesthetic sense expands our access to the world" (Stinson, 1986, p. 9). It takes the learner beyond passive sensation to active
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 participation. Stinson points out that teachers often fear this. "In the classroom, children are taught to ignore rather than pay attention to signals they are receiving from their bodies" (Stinson, 1996, p. 8). She blames this, in part, on a fear that sensuality will lead to sexuality. Reason does not need to disappear when we are in a sensory mode. In fact, Dewey (1934) notes that one characteristic of art is the way it brings together the sensory and the rational, when he states that "Art is . . . a way of having the substantial cake of reason while also enjoying the sensuous pleasure of eating it" (p.258). (Stinson, 1996, p. 9) Dr. Stinson, along with other national dance leaders,
was chosen to participate on the committee to formulate the national standards in dance. Well-respected by communities in dance, arts education, educational research, and the government, she has become a leading spokesperson for the inclusion of dance in school programs and what should constitute curricular standards. Since the focus of this conference is the dance standards, I shall conclude with a few comments in that direction. When we wrote the standards, we knew that we could not use affective words like joy, passion, or love in expressing outcomes for dance education. But I think I can speak for the rest of the committee when I state that these words were in our minds and hearts when we wrote the standards. We would be truly saddened if, in the process of aiming toward high standards, we lost what makes dance intrinsically satisfying. (Stinson, 1996, p. 15)
The Arts are Basic to Education: Advocates for the Cause
Coming To Our Senses
In 1974, David Rockefeller, Jr. chaired a 25-member
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83 panel of prestigious "representatives of the arts, education, mass communications, labor, arts patronage, government, and other fields" (Hanks and Quinn, 1974, p. viii), whose purpose was to study the arts in America. Fifteen days of panel meetings were held in New York, Memphis, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis. The report of their meetings, elaborated by the information culled from six research specialists, was published as a volume titled Coming To Our Senses: The Significance of the Arts in American Education (Hanks and Quinn, 1974). This Report, then, seeks to demonstrate that direct creative and re-creative experience— learning in the arts— is of unique educational value. It asserts that learning about the arts is learning about the rich world of sensation, emotion, and personal expression surrounding us each day. It claims that learning through the arts has the potential to enhance one's general motivation to learn and to develop ones respect for a disciplined approach to learning. (Hanks and Quinn, 1974, p.8-9)
While the report affirmed the importance of including the arts as basic to education, it finds arts education painfully lacking. "This Report appears at a time of contradictory trends. On the one hand, the arts are flourishing as never before in America. . . . On the other hand, arts education is struggling for its life" (Hanks and Quinn, 1974, p. 11). This concurs with John Goodlad's observation in his book. The Dvnamics of Educational Change, that "although among students art ranks at the top in regard to their satisfaction . . . when they are asked to rate the subjects as to which is the most important. arts are placed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 near the bottom" (Hanks and Quinn, 1974, p. 52). The Panel discussed the "back to basics" movement with A. Graham Down, who conceded, "We believe the arts are a part— and a considerably fundeunental part— of basic education" (Hanks and Quinn, 1974, p. 56). The Report went to great lengths to prove this point. Designed by Jan White, this graphically attractive publication (Hanks and Quinn, 1974) begins with an introduction of the panel and progresses to an explanation of "The crisis and the hope" (Hanks and Quinn, 1974, pp. 1- 11). A description of the development of the arts in America is provided in a chapter on "Roots and branches of learning and the arts: a review of traditions" (Hanks and Quinn, 1974, pp. 13-47). The importance of arts in elementary education is persuasively argued in "The arts: a better primer for our children" (Hanks and Quinn, 1974, pp. 49-87) . In each of the individual disciplines of drama, the visual arts, music, dance, media (film, video and photography), and creative writing, information is provided about its "place in the curriculum, present practices and recent trends" (Hanks and Quinn, 1974, pp. 69-79). "Creative energy and the adolescent" (Hanks and Quinn, 1974, pp. 90- 117) and "The arts at home in college" (Hanks and Quinn, 19774, pp. 120-134) provide descriptions of the arts in secondary and higher education. "Powers behind the
curriculum: teachers, artists and administrators" (Hanks and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 Quinn, 1974, pp. 138-169) both describes the current roles and practices of the "players," diagnoses problems, and prescribes possible remedies. The need for partnerships within the greater community was recognized in "Beyond the Schools" (Hanks and Quinn, 1974, pp. 172-195), and "The promise and problems of the media" (Hanks and Quinn, 1974, pp. 198-209) are addressed. The crux of the report is contained in two final chapters: "Analyzing the present, mapping the future" (Hanks and Quinn, 1974, pp. 212-245) and "Recommendations" (Hanks and Quinn, 1974, pp. 248-263). The creation of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in 1965 was recognized as a major political development that fostered the arts in education. The picture painted is not positive because serious and organized arts educations are found sorely lacking. The study revealed three basic facts: Americans do not consider the arts serious learning; the arts are not an academic objective; and there is no consensus among arts educators about what constitutes a good arts curriculum. "No one is quite sure how to go about teaching the arts as a whole, yet most will agree that it should be done" (Hanks
and Quinn, 1974, p. 142). The panel made recommendations in fifteen areas: (1) making art; (2) beyond "music and art"; (3) how children grow; (4) teachers; (5) artists; (6) leaders; (7) future artists; (8) local treasure; (9) sharing the wealth; (10) the ill, the isolated, and the handicapped;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86 (11) new technology, mass media; (12) higher degrees; (13) policy; (14) funding; and (15) research (Hanks and Quinn, 1974, pp. 249-263). In general, it recommended that a clear
definition of arts education be developed; that initiatives be made to transform arts education into serious learning; and that partnerships be developed to advocate and provide good arts education in schools. Because it requested that a Secretary of Education be added to the Presidential Cabinet (Hanks and Quinn, 1974, p. 260), it was influential in the creation of a Department of Education (DOE) in 1979,
separate from the combined Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) . Nowhere does it suggest the development of national standards for arts education.
Toward Civilization: A Report on Arts Education
The creation of the National Endowment for the Arts in 1965 was the first national statement that America valued its arts and artists. It was not, however, until 1988, with the publication of Toward Civilization: A Report on Arts Education. that NEA focused its attention on arts in American schools.
We need to help our children move toward civilization. As we stand on the threshold of the 21st century, we are concerned, and rightly so, with the quality of the education of young Americans and whether it is preparing them for the challenges of the future. Many of the challenges will, obviously, be scientific and technological— and our schools must give our children the tools to deal with them. Less obviously, many of the challenges will be cultural. They will pose questions concerning what it is to be an American and what our civilization stands for. Education in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 arts can help with this. (NEA, 1988, p. v) Toward Civilization is a report on the state of arts education in the United States that was mandated by Congress in 1985. It was presented to the President and Congress in 1988 "to identify the arts that should be taught in school, to present the reasons for studying them, to show why the present state of arts education in unsatisfactory, and to suggest avenues for its improvement" (NEA, 1988, p. v) . The report is also "intended as an open letter to the American people, to the education community, to those who love the arts and understand their importance in education. For it is in the people's hands that the future of arts education exists" (NEA, 1988, p. 2). It was compiled by leading members of the National Council on the Arts and members of the Endowment's Advisory Committee, comprised of leading artists, arts educators, educators, arts patrons, and political leaders. "We sought information, advice, and assistance from educators, artists, academics, professional associations, arts organizations, state and local agencies,
and others" (NEA, 1988, p. 3). Each chapter focuses on a different aspect of arts education and concludes with its own recommendations. Chapter I is an overview that defines why the arts are basic to education and the current state of the arts. It concludes that "years of neglect in arts education are evident," as "most Americans say they have never had any
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88 form of arts instruction at all" (NEA, 1988, p. 33). Extensive recommendations are suggested in several chapters: "Toward and Arts Curriculum, " "The Case for Testing and Evaluating the Arts," "Teachers of the Arts," "Research Priorities in Arts Education," "Leadership in Arts Education," and "The Role of the National Endowment for the A r t s ." In the second section, "Arts in the Classrooms," the President of the National Dance Association described dance in American schools as "virtually non-existent, just little pockets here and there" (NEA, 1988, p. 62). In 1985, there were no state requirements for elementary school teachers to take a course in dance. While some physical education programs required students to learn several weeks of folk or
square dancing, "dance is rarely treated seriously as an art" (NEA, 1988, p. 62). The report finds that "in general, arts education in America is characterized by imbalance, inconsistency, and inaccessibility" (NEA, 1988, p. 67).
The chapter titled "Toward an Arts Curriculum" points out that a 1985 report by the Council of Chief state School Officers found that "while 93 percent of state education agencies had established education goals, only one-fourth of
these had included specific reference to the arts" (NEA, 1988, p. 73). The chapter highlights six critical issues in arts curriculum: (1) What should the balance be between studying specific works of art which tell us about civilization
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89 and America's artistic heritage and studying the basic skills of creation and performance? (2) Which works of art and what artists should be known and understood by every elementary, middle, and high school student? (3) What should the balance be between study of Western art and the arts of other cultures and civilizations, among the various art disciplines, and between "classical" art, folk art and popular art? (4) What should be the balance between studying works of art for their aesthetic qualities, as pure form, and the study of works of art as narratives about people, history, society, and of ideas, values, beliefs? (5) What should be the balance between curricula and resources designed to teach arts as separate subjects and curricula and resources aimed at integrating arts study into other academic subjects? (6) What kind of curriculum should be developed for students with artistic talent? (NEA, 1988, p. 81) The recommendations focus on state and local solutions. National standards were not part of the agenda. However, in the section "The Case for Testing and Evaluation in the Arts," recommendation number three states: The U.S. Department of Education and the National Endowment for the Arts should work together to restore the National Assessment of Educational Progress assessments in visual art, music, and literature. The NAEP writing assessment should include creative writing. Before the NAEP reauthorization, methods for assessing theatre, dance, the design arts, and media arts should be developed, including development of prototype questions. (NEA, 1988, p. 100) If there is to be assessment, there must be standards to be assessed. The chapter "Teachers of the Arts" raises questions about who should teach the arts, teachers or specialists. It examines issues of teacher certification, staff development and recruitment. The chapter on "Research Priorities in Arts Education" states outright that "Research
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 in arts education should focus on matters that can actually improve that which is done in the classroom" and refers to "the lonely task of the researcher in arts education" (NEA, 1988, p. 117). "Leadership in Arts Education" is examined on the local, state and national levels for primary, secondary and higher education and in each of the arts disciplines. Its recommendations are a plea for unity,
cooperation, and greater consensus. The report concludes with a chapter on "The Role of the National Endowment for the Arts." It reviews its twenty- two-year history of "Arts in Education," beginning in 1966, and, of course, makes a case for its own development as the national advocate for arts education. The National Endowment for the Arts, which is to arts education what the National Science Foundation is to science education, should (i) make the case for arts education, (ii) facilitate collaboration among the four sectors concerned with arts education (governance, education, arts, business-producer) to make it a basic and sequential part of school instruction, and (iii) assist development and distribution of curricular, instructional, and assessment models for the benefit of state and local education authorities. (NEIA, 1988, p. 171) Less than a year later, conservative Republican senators, led by Jesse Helms, created a furor over the appropriateness of federal funding of the arts in America. Funds for the National Endowment were severely cut and the Endowment suffered a massive reorganization and chaotic downsizing. By 1992, the time the National Standards for Arts Education
arrived on the national agenda, the National Endowment for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 the Arts had lost much of its congressional support. ( Frohnmayer, 1993.)
Eliot Eisner: Educational Theorist for the Arts
During the 1970s and 1980s there emerged a group of advocates for arts education who greatly impacted the traditional educational community and, ultimately, the acceptance of dance education. Their focus was not dance. Dance, in fact, remained a step-child to music and the visual arts, but ultimately gained recognition while riding
on their coattails. Rising from a background in the visual arts, Eliot Eisner became an early spokesman for the importance of the arts in school curriculum. Eisner was ahead of his time. As early as 1976 he interconnected the arts, human development and education in a book by that title. In the preface of the book he divides education in the arts into two aspects, the social context and the course of individual human development. A social context creates the climate from which "to recognize and construct multiple meanings of events, to perceive and conceive of things from various perspectives" (Eisner, 1976, p. vii). This is supported by such cognitive theorists as Lev Vygotsky, "a Russian psychologist who was a great influence in countering the behavioral reign of Pavlovian domination" (Faber, 1994, p. 86) . Vygotsky, in his book Thought and Language (1962, published posthumously) , developed his theory of "the zone
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 of proximal development" which highlighted the importance of the environment on the learning process. (The dominant role of cultural context is also a central theme in the work of Jerome Bruner (Bruner, 1990), a professor at Harvard University who focused on the development of human thought,
learning, and the search for meaning.) In chapter one, "What We Know About Children's Arts and
What We Need to Know," Eisner presents the theoretical viewpoints of a number of theorists: G. Stanley Hall, who applied the biological concept of "ontogeny recapitulates
phylogeny" to artistic development; Alfred Binet, who developed tests to measure the intellectual capacities of children; Thorndike, who pursued psychological and diagnostic measurements; John Dewey's philosophy of learning through active experiences; and Sigmund Freud, Karl Jung, Herbert Read, and Rhoda Kellog's therapeutic approach toward art as the window to the unconscious. Howard Gardner had published Art and Human Development in 1974, which provided a developmental perspective on art and the cognitive processes. Eisner, in delineating the stages of artistic growth, echoes Piaget's views although not his terminology. Stage
one, "stimulation from materials" (0-3 years), involves pleasure derived from activity (paralleling the sensori motor phase). In stage two, "pictographs" (3-5 years), visual materials create visual forms that symbolize things.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 stories, images, and the invention of a public form (preoperational). The "representational" phase (5-11 years) reflects the concrete operational stage in its absolute realism and visual accuracy of accepted forms. Adolescence brings a sense of "aesthetic," formal operations in which abstract symbolism creates an awareness of form and
structure. But Eisner translates the consequences of these theories into educational consequences. His approach changes the role of "teacher" of art to that of "observer" of a creative process with deep meaning. In his basic belief that human creativity is unlocked thorough art,
Eisner holds a vision of children's art as a progression toward full humanity. Toward the end of the book, in chapter fourteen, Eisner addresses the "Implications of the New Educational Conservatism for the Future of the Arts in Education." He contrasts the ideal image of a school with the current situation in schooling: one of active intellectual involvement, space organized for both public use (physical) and private use (psychological), teachers as "guides," work organized around interests, and an environment that values students as worthwhile human beings; vs. a "back to basics" mentality of rote drill, discipline as "control" rather than an area of study, hostility toward students, teaching toward test scores as measurable evaluation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 He probes the sources of educational constraint for the arts in education. The arts are viewed as non-intellectual, as a hobby for "enrichment” that has little role in schools, viewed as ladders toward economic and social mobility. Students are taught to play the game by the rules rather than think creatively. For schools to be productive, they need a product. "Product" is a noun, while "process" is a verb. He is critical of school administrations that focus on "management," a corporate paradigm from the "factory model" of education. Eisner, an arts education activist, does not merely criticize but, in chapter fourteen, offers steps toward educational change. He suggests the arts seek allies in the field of neuro-psychology in recognition of right- hemispheric learning. He encourages public demonstrations to increase the visibility of the arts. He recommends an increase of transdisciplinary teaching to link the arts into other areas of learning. He advocates partnerships in the community. Finally, he urges universities to require the arts for admittance. It is due to the prolific and effective writing of Eliot Eisner over the past twenty years that some of these ideas have come to fruition.
Charles Fowler: A Voice of the Arts Educator
Dr. Charles Fowler entered the arena from a background in music education, as a music teacher in public schools and several universities. A respected writer and consultant in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 arts education, Fowler became education editor for Musical America magazine in 1974 and gained authority as a lecturer, consultant, and arts education advocate. He was listed as a "research specialist" in the panel report Coming To Our Senses. chaired by David Rockefeller, Jr. (Hanks and Quinn [eds.], 1974). Rather than providing a convincing theoretical approach extolling the benefits of arts education, as does Eisner, he concerns himself more with the avocational practicalities of its achievement. In the first chapter of the Arts and Education Handbook (1988), edited by Jonathan Katz, on "Opportunities for Cooperative Efforts," Fowler opens his
remarks with: The rationale underlying such joint efforts is the basic assumption that these endeavors are of mutual benefit. . . . To the education agencies whose primary concern is to transmit civilization's cultural attainments to new generations, the arts as they exist in society are a concrete manifestation of one of the higher orders of human achievement. No art can thrive without education; no education can be complete without the arts. Given this confluence of interest, arts agencies can— and should— work together. (Fowler, 1988, p. 4) Fowler recognizes that the visual arts and music receive greater acceptance in schools, and that "many programs, for example, are not truly comprehensive. They often lack a dance, theatre, and creative writing component" (Fowler, 1988, p. 6). He realizes that "ideally, every school system should have dance, theatre and creative writing specialists in addition to specialists in music and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 visual art. But such programs are expensive, and school systems do not readily see their educational value" (Fowler, 1988, p. 11). He offers suggestions in the areas of "Curriculum Development," "Collaborative Programs and Projects," "In-Service Education," "Certification," "Facilities/Materials," "Research Information/
Dissemination," and "Advocacy." In conclusion he states: Citizens of the United States will value the arts to the extent that education provides that understanding. And it may be safe to conjecture that this country will achieve no major new level of excellence in arts education until the expertise of the arts education communities, working together, can be brought to forceful focus on the field. Cooperative efforts are necessary if the arts are to be established as basic in American education. To these ends do such opportunities await. (Fowler, 1988, p. 39) His tone is not so optimistic in Can We Rescue the Arts for America's Children? Coming To Our Senses— 10 Years Later (Fowler, 1988). Writing to sound another alarm. Dr. Fowler is reminding the nation that, not only was little improvement gained in the ten years since Coming To Our Senses was published by the Rockefeller panel, but the 1980s brought a regression in the arts in education movement with the rising tide of "back to basics" which focused on the "three R's." This development was encouraged by the publication of A Nation At Risk.
Not surprisingly, with the nation edging toward the abyss, the arts did not fare well. One does not fiddle while Rome burns. About the closest the commission came to giving any true educational recognition to the arts was to acknowledge that some observers "are concerned that an over-emphasis on technical and occupational skills will leave little time for studying
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97 the arts and humanities that so enrich daily life, help maintain civility, and develop a sense of community" But it was only a nod. (Fowler, 1988, p. 23) Can We Rescue the Arts for America's Children? (Fowler, 1988) is a beautifully designed, glossy, short volume with contemporary graphics and a great many photographs (although only two are of dancing) . In part one, which describes "A Rationale Then" and "A Rationale Now," Fowler depicts "A Catastrophe in the Making." "With all the ferment during the past decade, the arts cannot be said to thrive in
American education, and overall their position appears to have diminished" (Fowler, 1988, p. 3). In part two, "The Nod and Nudge for Educational Reform," he mentions the
creation of national standards in a description of school reform of the 1980s: They call for greater academic emphasis in general and for standards of excellence that accrue from studies that are both demanding and substantive. The reports represent a reaction against the leniency and permissiveness of schools in the seventies. (Fowler 1988, p. 34) He continues : The arts exist in this milieu. Indeed, the National Commission of Excellence in Education recommend that the arts require "rigorous effort" and that "they should demand the same level of performance as the Basics."9 The expectations that educators make more demands upon students has been applied to top arts teachers as well. It is impossible at this time to assess the effect this crusade for higher standards is
® Quoted from John Goodlad, A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future (1984, p. 142). ’ Fowler quotes from Course Offerings and Enrollments in the Arts and the Humanities at the Secondary School Level (National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, D.C., 1984).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98 having on arts curricula, but it is safe to conjecture that it will alter how the arts are taught, perhaps considerably. (Fowler, 1988, p. 34) Fowler scatters policy questions throughout his practical research such as: "What arts will be taught?" "Who should teach the arts?" "The media— friends or foes?" "Community resources— what roles?" In an eloquent, heartfelt plea he attests: Those of us who believe in the importance of the arts in American education are not fighting for the arts alone. We believe in a value system beyond materialism, beyond pop culture, beyond crass commercialism. We believe that the arts generate the mechanisms of human perception and understanding, of creativity and communication, and of thought and feeling that are essential to the conduct of life and society. They are fundamental enablers that can help us engage more significantly with our inner selves and the world around us. In this technological age, perched on the edge of star wars, the arts are needed more than ever because they reaffirm our humanity. (Fowler, 1988, p. 41) After a brief history of arts education policy and reform on the national, state and local levels, he looks at who the "new players" are and what are the "new realities." As major influences, he names federal entities such as the National Endowment for the Arts (created in 1965) and the Department of Education, which was separated from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in 1979. He describes the various national arts associations: the American Council for the Arts (ACA) ; the Getty Center for Education in the Arts, which focuses on the the teaching of visual arts in a system they called "Discipline-Based Arts Education; the Music Educators National Conference; and the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 American Association of Theatre for Youth (AATY), which grew from the ashes of the defunct American Theatre Association. He does not mention the National Dance Association (NDA) as a "new player." Once again, dance takes a back seat to the other arts. NDA was included, however, in a 1987 Ad Hoc National Arts Education Working Group of some thirty organizations
that issued a policy statement entitled "Concepts for Strengthening Arts Education" (cited in Fowler, 1988, pp. 145-147). However, future creation of national standards
for arts education was not mentioned, although the report lay the groundwork for their development. It provided eleven philosophical and operational concepts: (l) the arts should be taught as disciplines to all students; (2) regular
instruction and arts experiences in the various arts must be a basic part of curricula; (3) arts curricula should develop skills in and knowledge about the arts; (4) all teachers should be encouraged to incorporate the arts into their
instruction; (5) the pedagogical preparation for teachers should have stronger arts components; (6) pre-service and in-service training of both teachers and artists should be augmented; (7) resources for arts education programs must be identified, integrated, utilized and expanded; (8) the goals and standards of arts education associations must respect the criteria and bureaucratic processes of local school systems; (9) cultural arts organizations should support arts
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100 education, as increased cultural literacy will strengthen them; (10) a coordinated policy-msücing process must be
established for airts education; (11) basic research, model projects, and advocacy efforts are paramount for building a powerful community constituency at local, state and national l e v e l s .
In his conclusion, Fowler claims: We do not need more and better arts education to develop more and better artists. We need more and better arts education to produce better educated human beings, citizens who will value and evolve a worthy American civilization. . . . Because of this, the arts should be granted major status in American schooling. (Fowler, 1988, p. 152)
David Pancrantz: Arts Education Research
Dr. David Pankrantz advanced the cause of arts in education as a well-respected scholar and researcher. Formerly the director of program development at Gateways, the Center for Arts Education in Chicago, he served as an arts education and arts management consultant who became a Lecturer in Arts Management in the Department of Performing Arts at The American University. He then went on to become the Director of the Getty Institute for Arts Education. From his visible position of leadership, he has been active in the American Council for the Arts (ACA) and an advocate for the creation of The National Standards for Arts E d u c a t i o n .
In 1988, Pankrantz contributed to the ACA Arts Research
Seminar Series (ACA, 1988) with two entries: "Adults and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 Arts Education: A Literature Review" (pp. 11-22); and a "Selected Bibliography" (pp. 93-100) , which also focuses on arts education for adults. The following year, with Kevin V. Mulccihy, Pankrantz co-edited the ACA publication The Challenge to Reform Arts Education and wrote an opening article, "Arts Education Reseeurch: Issues, Constraints and Possibilities." He points out the diversity of thinking about arts education, from the perspective of educators as well as of those involved from the inside: In an era alarmed by the mediocrity of American education, "excellence," "substance," and "rigor" have been the watchwords of the education reform movement in the eighties. . . . Views range from concepts of the arts as nonacademic, extracurricular activities that are worthwhile only for certain students, ^ to the arts as essential elements in the education of all students.^ (Pankrantz and Hulcahy, 1989, p. 1)
^ See e.g.. National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1983); Action for Excellence (Denver: Education Commission of the States, 1985); and Investing in Our Children: Business and the Public Schools (New York: Committee for Economic Development, 1985). ^ See John I. Goodlad, A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984); Ernest Boyer, High School: A Report on Secondarv Education in America (New York: Harper and Roe, 1983) ; Academic Preparation for College: What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do (New York: College Board Publications, 1983); Mortimer J. Adler, The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto (New York: Macmillan, 1982); and William J. Bennett, First Lessons: A Report on Elementarv Education in America (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986). In reference to "why change in arts education is so challenging" (Pankrantz, 1989, p.4), he refers to Charles
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 Fowler, among many others, citing the many dilemmas he raises. Pankrantz paints an even gloomier picture than Fowler, but his answer to the painful issues lies in in underdeveloped field of research on arts education: "research on arts education curricula" (Pankrantz, 1989, p. 12) and "research that investigates issues of teacher education and in-service training in the arts" (Pankrantz, 1989, p. 12) . He feels that the "key element in bridging the gap (between research, policy and practice) lies with
teacher preparation in the arts" (Pankrantz, 1989, p. 14). He agrees with the conclusions of Toward Civilization and advocates a unified and coordinated research agenda. Nothing in his writing, however, predicts the upcoming creation of national standards for arts education. Yet their development was certainly in the wind, as pointed out by Diane Ravitch, who served as Assistant Secretary for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) in the U.S. Department of Education. In her book National Standards in American Education, she points out, "My assignment from Secretary Lamar Alexander was to promote public understanding of the national education goals and of the value of high standards for all students" (Ravitch, 1995, p. xi). Recognized as a leading educational historian (as an Adjunct Professor of History and Education at Teacher's College, Columbia University), and author of The Great School Wars: New York Citv. 1805-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 1973 (1974), The Troubled Crusade: An American Education (1983), and The Schools We Deserve: Reflections on the Educational Crises of Our Time (1985), Ravitch wrote National Standards in American Education at the invitation of the Brookings Institute, where she accepted a post after her eighteen-month term at the Department of Education. At DOE she had been totally consumed with "the role of standards in improving education" (Ravitch, 1995, p. xi) . Ravitch's book is a hard-nosed, complete, and politically
bipolar account of the policies, politics, and issues surrounding national standards. While the arts have been battling their own brand of controversy, the creation and assessment of national standards has been a difficult issue for all subjects of academic study. Ravitch's account defines what standards are, their historical significance in education, their role in
educational reform, and the politics surrounding their development and acceptance. In reporting the arguments in opposition to establishing national standards she lists:
1. National Standards will be minimal, reduced to the lowest common denominator, especially if they are controlled by a federal agency. 2. The government might impose controversial values and opinions. 3. How much control should the state have over children's minds? 4. National standards based on traditional subject matter will narrow the curriculum. 5. National testing will harm children and distort priorities in the classroom. 6. National standards and national tests will do nothing to help poor inner-city schools. 7. National standards and assessments will not expand
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 equality of opportunity. 8. National standards and assessments will not improve achievement because most teachers will ignore them and do what they have always done. 9. The failure of national standards and testing will undermine faith in public education and pave the way for privatization of education. (Ravitch, 1995, pp. 18- 24) Ravitch points out that "without valid standards and assessments, there is no way to identify low-performing schools or determine whether all students are receiving equal educational opportunity. It is hard to come up with a good reason for limiting the public's right to know about school performance" (Ravitch, 1995, p. 24). Yet she is far from defensive about these criticisms. She agrees that: National standards and assessments will accomplish little by themselves. Unless they are accompanied by better teaching, a better school environment, better instructional materials (including new technology), and more highly motivated students, student achievement will not improve. (Ravitch, 1995, pp. 24-25) She views the criticisms as cautions which "must be
rigorously guarded against to protect the integrity of the entire process" (Ravitch, 1995, p. 25). Her case in support of the national standards and assessments claims: 1. Standards can improve achievement by clearly defining what is to be taught and what kind of performance is expected. 2. Standards (national, state, and local) are necessary for equality of opportunity. 3. National standards provide a valuable coordinating function. 4. There is no reason to have different standards in different states, especially in mathematics and science, when well-developed international standards have already been developed for these fields. 5. Standards and assessments provide consumer
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 protection by supplying accurate information to students and parents. 6. Standards and assessments serve as an important signaling device to students, parents, teachers, employers, and colleges. (Ravitch, 1995, pp. 25-27) Although some of these arguments involve opposite opinions from each of the sides, Ravitch explains rather than defends each position. Educational content and curriculum in the United States has traditionally been a patchwork of expectations set by local and state jurisdiction. Ravitch asserts that the movement to set national standardsbegan with the decision by President Bush and the governors to set national education goals. From the outset, it was not clear where responsibility would lie for implementing the goals, nor was there any agreement on who would establish national standards or devise national examinations. . . . The only consensus on issues of implementation was that any national standards and assessments should be voluntary, not mandatory, and national, not federal. (Ravitch, 1995, p. 28) In an administration wary of federal control. Bush did not offer legislation to establish national standards. This was left to the Clinton Administration. There was broad consensus, however, on the following points: 1. What students should know and be able to do must be clearly defined (content standard), so that they, their teachers, and their parents know and understand what is expected of them. 2. Content standards should define what is to be learned, not the kind of behavior, attitudes, or personal qualities that students should display when the course is concluded. 3. Tests should be aligned with content standards so that students know that they will be tested on what they have been taught. 4. Content standards should be used to reform examinations, textbooks, teacher training, teacher education, teacher certification, and other part of the educational system.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 5. All students should be expected to learn mathematics, science, English, history, geography, civics, the arts, and a foreign language. Although some ability grouping may be necessary for students at the extremes, curriculum tracking should be discouraged or eliminated because it excludes students from the opportunity to learn the knowledge and skills that are needed for good jobs and post secondary education. 6. Teachers should encourage students to think, to apply what they have learned to novel situations, and to develop the ability to explain how they arrived at the answer to problems. 7. Parents and teachers should stress the importance of effort, rather than ability, as key to success in s c h o o l . 8. Tests should stress achievement (what is learned in class) rather than aptitude. 9. Tests should be designed to determine whether students really understood what they have studied, rather than simply having them pick a correct answer from a series of boxes. 10. Public agencies should pay more attention to results (whether students are performing at high levels) and regulate less (that is, leave schools and teachers free to do things their own way so long as they aim for high performance for all students) . (Ravitch, 1995, pp. 133-134) "These ideas became guiding principles in the growing movement to establish national standards and national assessments" (Ravitch, 1995, p. 134) . Ravitch concluded by providing a list of "some issues on which everyone can work": 1. Congress should remember that the intent of the national academic standards are national, not federal, whose overriding goal is to improve student achievement. 2. Congress can substantially improve Goals 2000 by adopting changes concerning government control. 3. The national content standards should remain voluntary and be regularly revised. 4. Congress must continue to support the National Assessment of Educational Progress which tests national and state samples on a regular basis. 5. States and districts should create report cards for individual schools and districts. 6. A reliable system of standards and assessments will
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107 make it possible for districts and states to monitor school quality and target assistance where it is n e e d e d . 7. Parents must let their children know that nothing is more important than getting a good education and that they must apply themselves earnestly to their school work. 8. Every school and school district should reexamine its standards for promotion and graduation to determine whether students are learning the skills and knowledge they will need for college, citizenship, personal development and work. Educators should also call on parents, local employers, colleges, and civic leaders to help establish academic standards and standards for student conduct. 9. Colleges and universities should set entry standards that reflect high graduation standards and omit the need for remedial courses in higher education. 10. Employers should insist on high school transcripts, including teacher recommendations, when hiring so students know their work in school will count in the world of work. 11. Schools should teach standards of comportment and fundamental skills needed to succeed in the workplace as well as academic standards. 12. Adults of this society must resolve to take action against the violence, disorder, and crime that threatens too many children. Stronger bonds among teachers, parents, and students will facilitate a sense of community and higher standards of learning. (Ravitch, 1995, p. 181)
As a final conclusion, Ravitch concedes, a system of standards and assessments, no matter how reliable, will not solve all the problems of American Education. It will not substitute for the protection of a loving family, it will not guard against the violence of the streets, it will not alleviate poverty, and it will not turn off the television at night. But a system of standards and assessments might help to focus the priorities of the educational system on teaching and learning, which is no small matter in a world where what you are and what you can aspire to depends increasingly on what you know. As a society our goal must be . . . that all children in America have equal educational opportunity . . . and that we do not waste the educational potential of even one of our citizens. (Ravitch, 1995, p. 186)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108 The Road Toward the Creation of National Standards
A Nation at Risk
In 1983 several major studies appeared, but the blockbuster that dwarfed all others in influence and media attention was A Nation at Risk, prepared by the National Commission on Excellence in Education at the request of U.S. Secretary Terrell Bell. The rhetoric of the report was dramatic ; it warned that "the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our future as a nation amd people. (Ravitch, 1995, P. 52)
U.S. Depairtment of Education, A Nation at Risk (1983).
A Nation at Risk is a very short, direct warning shot that stunned the nation. The alarm sounded shocked a
complacent America. The report's opening remarks set the tone:
Our nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world. . . . Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems that helped make those gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of educational disarmament. (DOE, 1983, p. 5)
The National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) was contracted on August 26, 1981, to present a report on the quality of education in America by April of 1983, a deadline it met. Chaired by David Pierpont Gardner, the Commission was composed of eighteen leaders in education and business from fifteen different states. Its purpose was to help define the problems afflicting American Education and to provide solutions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 The findings "conclude that declines in educational performance are in large part the results of disturbing inadequacies in the way the educational process itself is often conducted" (DOE, 1983, p. 18). The report focuses for the most part on high school performance and college entrance requirements. It divides its findings and recommendations into the categories of content, expectations, time, and teaching. Its findings regarding content are critical of a secondary education that has been "homogenized, diluted, and diffused to the point that they no longer have a central purpose. In effect, we have a cafeteria-style curriculum in
which the appetizers and desserts can easily be mistaken for the main courses" (DOE, 1983, p. 18) . Generalized statistics are provided to bear this out. It criticizes low expectations, from the amount of time spent on homework and low subject requirements to a lack of rigorous testing procedures and low college entrance requirements. It compares the amount of time American students spend in school with the system in England, finds it lacking, and points out that actual productive study time is far less. Regarding teaching, it finds the academic level of American teachers is low, their training weighted with courses in educational methods rather than subject matter. It noted salaries are insufficient and there is a widespread
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110 shortage of teachers. The report's recommendations are succinct, clear, and to the point; each providing a series of suggestions for its
implementation: Recommend ation A: Content We recommend that State and local high school graduation requirements be strengthened and that, at a minimum, all students seeking a diploma be required to lay the foundations in the Five New Basics by taking the following curriculum during their 4 years of high school: (a) 4 years of English; (b) 3 years of mathematics; (c) 3 years of science; (d) 3 years of social studies; and (e) one-half year of computer science. For the college-bound, 2 years of foreign language in high school are strongly recommended in addition to those taken earlier. Recommendation B: Standards and Expectation We recommend that schools, colleges, and universities adopt more rigorous and measurable standards, and higher expectations, for academic performance and student conduct, and that 4-year colleges and universities raise their requirements for admission. This will help their students do their best educationally with challenging materials in an environment that supports learning and authentic accomp1ishment. Recommendation C: Time We recommend that significantly more time be devoted to learning the New Basics. This will require more effective use of the existing school day, a longer school day, or a lengthened school year. Rec ommendation D: Teaching This recommendation consists of seven parts. Each is intended to improve the preparation of teachers or to make teaching a more rewarding and respected profession. Each of the seven stands on its own and should not be considered solely as an implementing recommendation. 1. Persons preparing to teach should be required to meet high educational standards, to demonstrate an aptitude for teaching, and to demonstrate competence in an academic discipline. 2. Salaries for the teaching profession should be increased and should be professionally competitive.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ill market-sensitive, and performance—based. 3. School boards should adopt an 11-month contract for teach ers. 4. School boards, administrators, and teachers should cooperate to develop career ladders for teachers that distinguish eunong the beginning instructor, the experienced teacher, and the master teacher. 5. Substantial nonschool personnel resources should be employed to help solve the immediate problem of the shortage of mathematics and science teachers. 6. Incentives, such as grants and loans, should be made available to attract outstanding students to the teaching profession, particularly in those areas of critical shortage. 7. Master teachers should be involved in designing teacher preparation programs and in supervising teachers during their probationary years. Recommendation E: Leadership and Fiscal Support We recommend that citizens across the Nation hold educators and elected officials responsible for providing the leadership necessary to achieve these reforms, and that citizens provide the fiscal support and stability required to bring about the reforms we propose. (DOE, 1983, pp. 24-33) The report concludes with a pep talk, "America Can Do It" (DOE, 1983, p. 33), and "A Final Word" (DOE, 1983, p.
36)
Children born today can expect to graduate from high school in the year 2000. . . . It is their America and the America of all of us, that is at risk; it is to each of us that this imperative is addressed. . . . Americans have succeeded before and so we shall again. (DOE, 1983, p. 36)
America 2000: An Educational Strategy
America responded with a "back to basics" movement that, for the most part, considered the arts frivolous and inferior to "the three Rs." The arts were not on the national agenda. In 1988, when President Bush took office, he swore he would become known as the "Education President."
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112 In 1989 he convened the "Charlottesville 51," a conference with the state governors gathered to set goals for American Education. The outcome of this convention was "America 2000: An Educational Strategy" (DOE, 1991). The document outlines six educational goals, four tracks delineating the goals served, strategies toward their accomplishment, and specific action to be taken. The six goals, to be achieved by the year 2000, were: 1. All children in America will start school ready to l e a r n . 2. The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent. 3. American students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography; and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our modern economy. 4. U.S. students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement. 5. Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. 6. Every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. (DOE, 1991, p. 3) It was expected that the four-part education strategy would enable every American community to achieve these goals. A strategy, and "specifics" were delineated in four "tracks" to address the goals (DOE, 1991, pp. 13-28): (1) "For Today's Students: Better and More Accountable Schools" served all six goals, but especially #2, #3, and #4; (2) "For Tomorrow's Students: A New Generation of American
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113 Schools" provided the "principal standards against which every New American School will be measured" and served all six goals; (3) "For the Rest of Us; (Yesterday's Students/Today's Work Force): A Nation of Students" served all six goals, but especially #5; and (4) "Communities Where Learning Can Happen" served all six, but especially #1 and #6. Additional sections were provided answering "Who Does What?" and other basic questions that were expected to arise from the public about the cost, implementation, and role of community.
In Track 1, the "Specifics" advocated the creation of "World Class Standards :" Standards will be developed in conjunction with the National Education Goals Panel. These World Class Standards— for each of the five core subjects— will represent what young Americans need to know and be able to do if they are to live and work successfully in today's world. These standards will incorporate both knowledge and skills to ensure that, when they leave school, young Americans are prepared for further study and the work force. (DOE, 1991, p. 13) It also advocated the development of American Achievement Tests, a voluntary nationwide examination system based upon the five core subjects in conjunction with the World Class Standards. "These tests will be designed to foster good teaching and learning as well as to monitor student progress" (DOE, 1991, p. 13) . However, nowhere in the document is the role of "culture" discussed or are the arts mentioned.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114 Goals 2000: The Educate America Act
The arts community in the United States rallied. Fueled by the document Toward Civilization (NEA, 1988), organizations such as The National Dance Association (NDA), Music Educators National Conference (MENC) , and the National Association for Art Education (NAAE) sprang into action to form new coalitions and consensus projects to fulfill the NEA recommendations and assert pressure on Capitol Hill. When Clinton was elected, they were vocal and he listened. The Clinton Administration responded with Goals 2000: The Educate America Act, which beccune his centerpiece of public policy for America's schools. Rather than rest with
the education issue as a "strategy," Clinton sought to enact his initiative into law. The legislation drove much of the philosophy and action of the U.S. Department of Education as the first statement of goals for all students to be drafted
by Congress. Goals 2000: The Educate America Act^° reflects a new role for the federal government as a consensus builder for common outcomes of our educational system. Rather than prescribing instructional means, the new federal policy simply sets the goals through the collective wisdom of the
country's intellectual resources and invites the states and local districts to define the means for attaining them.
Structured as Titles I through V, this 138-page document was presented before the first session of the 103rd
Hereafter referred to as Goals 2000 or the Goals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 Congress on April 22, 1993. It was approved by the House of Representatives on October 13, 1993, as H.R.1804, but a different version was approved by the Senate as S.1150. This necessitated its going into "conference committee" in order to mediate a joint measure, and the final rendition did not pass the Senate until 1:00 a.m. on March 26, 1994. This was after the National Standards for Arts Education (CNAEA, 1994) and the accompanying Assessment Frameworks and Specification Exercises (NAEP, 1994) had been accepted by the Department of Education. Goals 2000 was formulated: To improve learning and teaching by providing a national framework for education reform; to promote the research, consensus building, and systematic change needed to ensure equitable educational opportunities and high levels of educational achievement for all American students; to provide a framework for reauthorization of all Federal education programs; to promote the development and adoption of a voluntary national system of skill standards and certifications; and for other purposes. (Goals 2000: The Educate America Act. 1994.) Title I presents seven national educational goals. Title II establishes bipartisan bodies of governance for building and maintaining a national consensus for educational improvement. Title III provides a mechanism by which state and local institutions can build and maintain systemic educational improvements with top-down and bottom- up reforms. Title IV establishes guidelines by which to
determine the schools eligible to receive national funds. Title V, which may be cited as the "National Skill Standards
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116 Act of 1993," establishes a National Skill Standards Board to stimulate the development and adoption of a voluntaury national system of skill standards, assessments and certification.
Goals 2000; The Educate America Act differs greatly from President Bush's America 2000 (1991) in that it: (1) encompasses the arts as a core discipline basic to education to be included in Title I; (2) specifically embraces all minorities and disadvantaged populations in its goals, organization, and funding; and (3) establishes both a top- down and bottom—up structure through which to implement its goals, objectives, and mandates. It is referred to as a
"democratic" document in that it provides for an all- inclusive means by which every American can have an equal opportunity to learn. Title I lists and defines Clinton's seven goals. By
the year 2000: (1) all children in America will start school ready to l e a r n . (2) the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent. (3) United States students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, arts, history, and geography, and every school in the United States will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so students may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further earning, and productive employment in our nation's modern economy. (4) United States students will be the first in the world in mathematics and science achievement. (5) every adult United States citizen will be literate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. (6) every school in the United States will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. (7) every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional and academic growth of children. (Goals 2000: The Educate America Act, 1994, pp. 8-16) Although these appear similar to Bush's goals, there are major differences in both content and philosophy that concern the arts in education. The arts are listed for the first time as a basic academic discipline in which competency must be demonstrated. Their inclusion is a major political leap for arts education that will have enormous ramifications on the understanding and participation in the
arts for all Americans. The newly created final goal, number seven, calls for parental participation and involvement in promoting the social, emotional and academic growth of children. It
extends the purpose of education beyond the purely intellectual development of the mind to include the education of the whole child within a family and community. These purposes are congruent with those of arts education and therefore support the inclusion of the arts disciplines as basic to education. Titles II and III establish the governing bodies designated to implement the Act. Title II institutes a National Educational Goals Panel whose purpose is:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118 (1) building a national consensus for education improvement; (2) reporting on progress toward achieving the National Education Goals; (3) periodically reviewing the goals and objectives . . . and recommending adjustments . . . in order to guarantee education reform . . . to provide guidance for quality, world class education for all students; and (4) reviewing and approving the voluntary national content standards, voluntary student performance standards and voluntary national opportunity-to-learn standards certified by the National Educational Standards and Improvement Council, as well as the criteria for the certification of such standards, and the criteria for the certification of State assessments or systems of assessments certified by such Council. (Goals 2000: The Educate America Act, 1994, pp. 16-17)
The National Educational Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC), provided for in Part B of the Title, is a nineteen-member body appointed by the President from nominations submitted by the Goals Panel. Its purpose is to: (1) certify voluntary national content standards and voluntary national student performance standards that define what all students know and should be able to do. (2) certify challenging state content and student performance standards submitted by States .... (3) certify voluntary national opportunity-to-learn standards that describe the conditions of teaching and learning necessary for all students to have a fair opportunity to achieve the knowledge and skills described in the voluntary national content standards and the voluntary national student performance standards certified by the National Education Standards and Improvement Council. (4) certify comprehensive State opportunity-to-learn standards submitted by States on a voluntary basis . . . . (Goals 2000: The Educate America Act. 1994, p. 29) Included in these titles are the "Voluntary National
Opportunity-to-Learn Standards" that the author helped to write for dance. This was one of the issues that created
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 the discrepancy between the House and Senate versions of the Bill that sent the Goals to conference committee and delayed its passage. It was included in the final bill. Title V, the "National Skill Standards Act of 1993,"
was instituted with the purpose of establishing a National Board to "serve as a catalyst in stimulating the development and adoption of a voluntary national system of skill standards and of assessment and certification" (Goals 2000. 1994, p. 116). Composed of twenty-eight members, the Board would establish "voluntary partnerships to develop a skill standards system" (Goals 2000. 1994, p. 126) and serve to represent the greater community in the research, development, assessment, certification and revision of skills standards. It would work in cooperation with the National Education Standards and Improvement Council "to promote the coordination of the development of skill standards . . . with the development of voluntary national content standards and voluntary national student performance standards . . ." (Goals 2000. 1994, p. 134). In full anticipation of the passage of the Goals. the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) authorized the
Arts Education Consensus Project to prepare for a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for arts education planned for 1996. In September, 1992, the project began to define the content of arts education and to design an arts
education assessment framework and the specifications for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 the arts education assessment. This was the first time in the history of the United States that dance, as one of the arts, was included in the national agenda for educational goals, standards and assessments.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER III AN ANALYSIS OF THE DEBATE
On March 26, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed into law Goals 2000: The Educate America Act. National standards for education were legally established for the first time in American history. These voluntary standards, developed by a grassroots consensus process led by the Department of
Education, are intended to provide guidelines for student achievement for grades K-12 in the nine core academic subjects of English, mathematics, science, foreign
languages, civics and government, economics, history, geography, and the arts, which include dance, music, theater, and the visual arts. The National Standards are a statement of "what every
American student should know and be able to do"^ by the year 2000. Never before in this country's history had the arts been considered a core subject on a par with the academic subjects advocated by the "Committee of Ten"^ at the turn of
A phrase used by the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) and adopted for use by the Standards effort. ^ The "Committee of Ten" met in 1892. The ten leading educators of the time, led by Charles Eliot, President of Harvard University, determined what constituted good preparation for college by secondary schools. It developed a system involving the core subjects of English, mathematics, science, social studies (history, natural 121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122 the century. It is a statement that embodies a vision for the arts as well as education. This vision addresses the highest potential that can be reached by every American child. It sets standards for all children, including those from diverse cultures or with special challenges. It is a vision of education that supports every child's opportunity to learn what is necessary to take a responsible position in America's complex society and a global economy. Within this vision, it leaves the specific curriculum to the states and local districts to develop according to their values and beliefs. The arts play a crucial role in this vision by teaching students about their rich cultural heritage and providing tools to understand the meaning of their learning. Dance, in which the human body is the instrument, embodies this learning in an active, all-embracing medium that, as a kinesthetic and natural mode of expression, holds particular delight and immediacy for children. In 1989, reaction to the "Charlotte 51" meeting of the National Board of Governors and the complete exclusion of the arts "galvanized the arts education world" (Philip, 1997). By the time President Clinton took office in 1992, the arts were a force with a unified voice. Clinton announced his intention to listen by appointing Richard
history and geography), and languages (which included Latin and Greek) that remains the basis of most high school curricula.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 Riley to be U.S. Secretary of Education. As Governor of South Carolina, Riley had demonstrated full support for arts in education. When he assumed office as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education in 1992, he made the creation of national standards and assessments for arts education a priority and "in one of his early statements as U.S. Secretary of Education, called for the recognition of the arts 'as a vital part of our effort' to improve the
quality of education for all children" (NISACA, 1997, p. 2). He was an enthusiastic advocate for their inclusion in Goals 2000 as a core subject that was basic to education. The stage was set. There were a great many events that led to the development of standards for arts education and a great many organizations built the structures for their creation. These associations, alliances, coalitions, committees, councils, federations, leagues, and societies weave and interact in a complex fabric. (See Appendix F.) Running parallel with the creation of the standards were those organizations formulating assessment frameworks and exercises. They created a sequencing and a layering that was both complex and confusing.
Events Leading To The Formation of National Standards in the Arts
The initial step toward the development of a unified vision for arts education was the creation of a loosely knit
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 coalition of four major national arts associations: American Alliance for Theatre and Education (AATE), Music Educators National Conference (MENC), National Art Education Association (NAEA), and National Dance Association (NDA). Composed of the Executive Directors and Presidents of each of the contributing organizations, this group, informally called DAMT (for Dance, Art, Music, and Theater), united to serve as the national voice for arts education in the United States. Together, they represent all levels and all fields of specialization within arts education and work to fulfill their mandate to advance education in all the arts. (DAMT, 1992, p. 1) Their initial purpose was the creation of The National Arts Education Accord (DAMT, 1992), a manifesto developed as a statement representing the beliefs, objectives, and positions of the four leading organizations to provide a unified vision of education in all of the arts. This document served as both advocacy for the arts and as a guide for the Task Forces in the creation of The National Standards for Arts Education. At the same time, the Getty Center for Education in the
Arts^ approached the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), insisting that arts be part of the national assessment. The Getty Center, along with the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) , funded the initial movement to
^ The Getty Center in 1996 became the Getty Institute for Arts Education.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 make the arts part of the national assessment. NAGB agreed in August. (Philip, 1997 [interview. May 19].) The inclusion of arts assessment by NAGB propelled the development of standards. Dr. Frank Philip asserts that "the standards were driven by assessments" (Philip, 1997). The movement for assessments preceded the creation of
standards and lent them credibility. They "became another legitimate factor in supporting standards." DOE (the U.S. Department of Education) started talking about the need for standards. When Goals 2000 was initiated, they were "authorized by inclusion" (Philip, 1997). The National Council of State Arts Education Consultants (NCSAEC) was established in September, 1991, "to enable state arts education specialists to respond decisively through a common forum to national issues which effect arts education" (NCSAEC, 1992, p. 12). The formation of NCSAEC involved state Directors of Arts Education. "The
group decided to analyze the various state arts education
curriculum documents for common content categories" (NCSAEC, 1992, p. 12). "The state people met together to create a
synthesis of State Frameworks, a de facto standards" (Philip, 1997). An approach that identified common content was formulated in order to arrive at a national consensus about what the outcomes of arts education ought to be. The resulting document, A Summarv of State Arts Education Frameworks (NCSAEC, 1992), served as a model for the both
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126 the standards and assessments committees. It was a bottom- up grassroots effort.
In the winter of 1992, a process for the creation of standards and assessments integrating professional arts organizations was launched by Diane Ravitch, Assistant Secretary of DOE, and Francine Alexander, who had moved from the Department of Education in California to DOE in 1991 to head arts initiatives (Philip, 1997).
Funding
The push for national standards began in January, 1992, when the National Council on Education Standards and Testing (NCEST) called for a system of voluntary national standards and assessments in the "core" subjects of math, English, science, history, and geography, "with other subjects to follow." The arts were the first of the "other subjects" to receive federal funding. With the passage of Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the national education reform legislation that includes development of world-class standards, the arts have been recognized for the first time as a fundamental academic subject. (CNAEA, 1994) The DAMT group, consisting of presidents and executive directors of the four major arts organizations, met in Reston, Virginia, to work on a grant proposal to create national standards for arts education.
In January of 1992, leaders of the national professional organizations in dance, drama/theatre, music and the visual arts proposed the preparation of national standards in the four arts areas addressing the specific needs of each discipline. The ad-hoc group, formerly known as DAMT (Dance, Art, Music, Theatre) changed its name at this meeting to The Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. The Consortium was the first group to teüce advantage of the early drafts of the summary of frameworks as one model for consideration, and has since been awarded a $500,000.00 grant over two years from the U.S.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127 Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Endowment for the Arts to complete the standards for arts education. (NCSAEC, 1992, p. 13) Funding of one million dollars was received in stages, beginning in the Spring of 1992, from the Department of Education (DOE), the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA), and the National Endowment of the Humanities (NEH) to begin the two-year project in June 1992 (Senko, 1997 [interview July 1]). The process, to be completed by April of 1994,
culminated in the acceptance of the Standards by Secretary Riley on March 11, 1994. The purpose of the grant as stated in the proposal was "to provide national leadership to create world-class standards for the arts in education through a national consensus process" (Senko, 1997 [interview July 2]). The larger purpose, as summarized in an unpublished memorandum,
was to develop national standards for each of the four arts disciplines— music, visual arts, theatre, and dance— in grades K-12. These voluntary standards describe the knowledge, skills, and understanding that all students should acquire in the arts, providing a basis for developing curricula. (CNAEA, memorandum [n.d.]) The grant to create national standards for arts education went into effect immediately. The Music Educators National Conference (MENC), on behalf of the newly renamed Consortium of National Arts Education Associations (CNAEA), was assigned as administrator. As legal entity for the grant it assumed responsibility for disbursements. Dr. John
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128 Mahlmann, as Executive Director of MENC, became project
d i r e c t o r . Funds for the grant came in installments which had to be applied for periodically. The grant monies covered
expenses for: 1. the ten major meetings of the National Committee for Standards in the Arts and their Chair 2. the Subcommittee meetings 3. the Task Force Committee meetings 4. the Coordinating Council meetings 5. salaries, wages, and benefits for the administration staff 6. consultation fees— honoraria for the National Committee Chair and members and Task Force Chairs and members 7. travel expenses for the National Committee, the Coordinating Council, and the Task Force Chairs and members 8. phone, facsimile, postage, and duplication expenses
9. publishing and research 10. printing 11. layout and design 12. publicity 13. room and equipment rentals
14. four public forums : Albuquerque, New Mexico; Washington, D.C.; Sacramento, California; and Kansas City, Missouri. (A forum in Boston, Massachusetts, was funded locally.) (Senko, 1997 [interview, July 2].)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 MENC was responsible for administrative responsibil ities: budgeting, logistics, general communications,
publicity, publishing, disseminating the draft for consensus, the routing of the various copies and draft versions, and as a general clearing house for arrangements (Senko, 1997 [interview July 2]). It served as the liaison with the funding agencies and eunong all participants in the process of the project. Rebecca Hutton, Executive Director of NDA, kept records for the Dance Task Force and submitted invoices for NDA (Kimball, 1997 [interview. May 22]).
The Formation of The Dance Task Force
Simultaneously, a conference was called in Annapolis in June, 1992, to discuss an "Arts Education Research Agenda for The Future." The conference was funded by a joint effort of DOE and NEA. Key "players" were Douglas O'Fallon, Director of Education at NEA, and Douglas Herbert, who later replaced O'Fallon at NEA. It involved a small group, less than one hundred people from all of the arts. (Kimball, 1997 [interview May 22].) Mary Maitland Kimball, then President of the National Dance Association, was asked to submit names of prominent figures and researchers in the field of dance. She provided a list of twenty-five to thirty names, reflecting geographic and ethnic diversity. The organizers of the conference, after consulting Kimball about the list.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 ultimately selected the committee. As it happened, each of the committee members chosen was a dance researcher active in the National Dance Association: Mary Maitland Kimball, Chair; Rayma Beal; Mary Alice Brennan; Colleen Callahan; Sarah Hilsendager; Dianne S. Howe; Rebecca Hutton; Luke Kahlich; and Sue Stinson. Immediately afterwards, Kimball was notified that a Dance Task Force was needed promptly in order to fulfill the terms of the grant received to create national standards in the arts. "The dance representatives to the Annapolis conference worked so well together as a team, and represented such a wide geographical area, that it was decided they would remain as the basis of the writing task force for the Standards" (Kimball, 1997 [interview May 22]). Colleen Callahan was the only member who declined. Music and the visual arts had a previous history of
written standards and assessments, but dance had no precedent nor paradigm to lend direction. The committee met to write for the first time in August. In less than a
month, the first draft had to be submitted to MENC in Reston, Virginia, to be reviewed by the Oversight Committee. Sometimes the Dance Task Force met independently and
sometimes with writers. Between meetings there was continual communication through e-mail, facsimile, mail, and phone. The group never met with the other Task Force Committees or appeared before the Oversight Committee. The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131 drafts prepared of the standards document would be presented to the Oversight Committee by their chair, Mary Maitland
Kimball. (Kimball, 1997 [interview. May 22].)
The Coordinating Council
The Consortium of National Arts Education Associations (originally DAMT), comprised of the Presidents and Executive Directors of the major arts organizations, became the Coordinating Council, a committee that functioned in an
advisory capacity to the task forces. Kimball, for the first year, was thus a member of the Coordinating Council (as president of NDA) as well as chair of the Dance Task Force. When Katherine Ellis began her term as President of NDA in 1993, she took Kimball's place on the Coordinating Council. Dr. John Mahlmann served as the Council's representative to the Oversight Committee, which ranked above the Coordinating Council since it reserved the power to "sign off" on the standards draft. (See Appendix E for organizational chart.)
The National Committee for Standards in the Arts
The "Oversight Committee"
In June, 1992, the National Committee for Standards in the Arts sprang into action. Members, comprised of educators, administrators, and representatives of the arts and the business community, were selected by MENC, acting in
cooperation with the funding agencies on the behalf of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132 Consortium. Many national arts organizations, interest groups, and prominent institutions were consulted in the grassroots effort. (Senko, 1997 [interview July 10].) Chaired by Graham A. Down of the Council for Basic Education, it was a "large and powerful government committee" (Kimball, 1997 [interview. May 22] ) of thirty-
four original members^ and was nicknamed the "Oversight Committee" (See Appendix D) . The committee was responsible for advising the task forces and had approval authority for
the standards document written by the task forces under the Coordinating Council. It directed the writers in a consensus building process, reviewing each draft of the standards unil the work of the task forces met with consensual approval. The only committee member who was involved in dance was Shirley Ririe, co-director of the Ririe-Woodbury Dance
Company in Salt Lake City, Utah. Libby Chiu, Director of institutional advancement at the Boston Conservatory, "was knowledgeable about ballet." Most of the Committee had little experience in dance and were consequently more involved in writing standards for the other arts. (Kimball, 1997 [interview May 22].) The first meeting of the National Committee for
^ Regrettably, two of the original members died before the committee's work was completed. Tribute is given to Gregory R. Anrig (1931-1993) and Terry Taylor (1946-1994) for their work on the National Committee for Standards in the Arts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133 Standards in the Arts was held in Washington, D.C., on June 30, 1992. The function and responsibilities of the
Committee were explained:^ Chairman A. Graham Down opened the meeting with a statement that the job of The National Committee for Standards in the Arts is to oversee development of the standards for the arts. He noted that the committee's "explicit charge is to think strategically," producing an agenda for curricula rather than a curriculum document, . . . asking the Committee to focus on what students should know and be able to do, because that Is the common agenda. (Minutes, June 30, 1992, pp. 1-2) Thirteen of the thirty-four members attended the
initial meeting, not counting representatives from the funding organizations: Ted Rebarber, representing Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch; Daphne Wood, deputy chair of the National Endowment for the Arts; and Gerry Martin and Tom Kingston, representing the National Endowment for the Humanities Chair Lynne Cheney. Eleanor Dougherty, from the Office of Educational Reform Initiatives (OERI) in
the Department of Education, remained the official liaison with the standards consortium throughout the proceedings. The first meeting defined the arena for the Committee. Important policy issues were confronted: 1. The purpose of the Committee. 2. What should be included in the document? 3. What categories of learning activities constitute cultural literacy in the arts? 4. What is the optimum balance between performance/creation and history/aesthetics? 5. In our culturally diverse society, to what extent should students learn about cultures outside the
^ Information about the proceedings of the Oversight Committee comes from the minutes of the ten major meetings and the International Symposium, housed in the MENC library.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134 Western tradition? 6. How should we integrate the arts with each other and with other subjects in the curriculum, while maintaining the integrity of music, art, dance, and theatre as discrete disciplines? 7. How can the arts instill in children the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship as stated in the goals of America 2000? 8. What role should technology play in arts education? 9. How can the standards best be disseminated and used to structure curriculum and assessment initiatives? 10. Next steps. (Minutes, June 30, 1992, passim) According to the plan, the committee would sign off on the standards document in the spring of 1994.
The Creation of a Subcommittee
At the second meeting, on October 6, 1992, it became evident that the entire Committee was a large body from diverse locations and that it was difficult for everyone to meet as often as necessary. Twenty-five of the thirty-four members were present, many of whom had not attended the June meeting. As Mary Maitland Kimball pointed out, logistics were "a problem because at most of the meetings, there were only fifteen to twenty-five members present, and maybe half had been to the previous meeting" (Kimball, 1997 [interview May 22]). Repetition of questions and explanations was therefore necessary. For convenience, as well as budgetary reasons. Down
suggested the formation of a subcommittee that would be able to work with the task forces between major meetings. Members accessible to Washington, B.C., were encouraged to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135 participate. The subcommittee consisted of: Gordon Ambach, Council of Chief State School Officers A. Graham Down, Chair of the Committee Harriet Fulbright, Center for Arts in the Basic Curriculum Edward Gero, Actor, Shakespeare Theatre; Director of the Ensemble, George Mason University Samuel Hope, National Officer for Arts Accreditation in Higher Education Barbara Laws, Teacher, Norfolk (Virginia) Public Schools Malcolm L. Richardson, President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities. (Minutes, October 6, 1997, p. 8 ) There were only two formal subcommittee meetings— December 8, 1992, and February 17, 1993; in between, the task forces consulted with individuals. A subcommittee specialist was attached to each task force. Kimball reports
that, as no member was an expert in dance, "nobody special was assigned to us, but we worked closely with Sam Hope. He was very helpful" (Kimball, 1997 [interview July 7]).
Issues Debated bv the Oversight Committee
Throughout the debates of the Oversight Committee, certain points about the nature of the standards remained in complete consensus between DOE and the committee members : • the standards are for all students • the standards should not legitimize the status quo; they should "aim at the ceiling rather than the floor," but should be written with a view to being attainable • standards should be designed to enable each of the arts to enjoy parity of esteem within the arts community • the standards should suggest connections across disciplines (Minutes, February 17, 1993, p. 1) It was also understood that "the standards are a set of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136 expectations— not a set of minimum competency tests— and they are voluntary" (Minutes, October 6, 1992, p. 2). At the opening meeting, Ted Rebarber, representing Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch, stressed the "importance of the fact that the arts are included along with other subject-matter areas in the development of voluntary standards. . . . He asked that the committee look at high expectation that should serve as the basis of nationwide reform and stressed the need to reach consensus about what student need to know." (Minutes, June 30, 1992, p. 1) To reach this consensus, however, there were many issues debated from differences of opinion and a variety of viewpoints. Information about these was researched in the minutes of the Oversight Committee meetings housed at MENC as well as personal interviews with Committee members. Many of these issues were not easily resolved, but persisted as problems throughout the development of the Standards. Some of the major issues debated were: 1. establishing a unified format 2. terminology 3. categories 4. level of difficulty of standards 5. specificity— standards vs. curriculum 6. "aesthetics"— values and beliefs 7. vision 8. inclusion for all students 9. teaching examples 10. relationship between assessments and standards
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137 EsteüDlishing a Unified Format
In the October 6th meeting, Gordon Ambach, as representative of the Council of Chief State School Officers, succinctly outlined three specific "charges" for the project as listed in the original funding proposal: 1. to provide content standards 2. to provide a common framework for instruction in the arts 3. to provide a coherent vision of arts education to guide deliberations (Minutes, October 6, 1992, p. 7) To coalesce as a united field of study and be published under the auspices of a single document, uniformity had to be achieved in both the vision of arts education and its format. Considering the individuality of each arts
discipline, its unique qualities and special educational requirements, this was not a simple task. Ambach, noting discrepancies in the layout of the initial prototype drafts that had emerged from the task forces, suggested the writers "reshape the document to reflect some commonality in overall types of standards." Rebecca Hutton, Executive Director of the National Dance
Association, spoke for the Dance Task Force when she stated they were concerned that some content was lost in fitting the standards to the format. "She noted that the task force chairs commented on the possible format, noting they did not want to lose the uniqueness of each art discipline, and expressed the need for a margin of flexibility." (Minutes, October 6, 1992, p. 6.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138 The groups were working from several models. For dance, the National Arts Education Accord (DAMT, 1992) was a primary influence. "We literally held the book in our hands during task force sessions" (Kimball, 1997 [interview, July 7]). Kimball explained that the Dance Task Force did not refer to A Summarv of State Arts Education Frameworks by NCSAEC (1993), but worked rather from the four categories in the Getty model of Discipline-Based Arts Education (DBAE, discussed below), which was well-known and well-understood by the task force members. By the December 8th meeting. Down commented "that the most exciting progress made to date is in the adoption of a unified format, which symbolizes the interdisciplinary
connections among the arts" (Minutes, December 8, 1992, p. 2). This was a major focus in the initial formation of the standards and persisted until the very end. The meeting on February 17, 1993, "was called to see how much agreement existed within disciplines." At that time, Paul Lehman, chair of the Music Task Force, admitted that agreement was reached on some items, but there was no consensus on other difficult ones. (Minutes, February 17, 1993, pp. 1-2.) Even in January of 1994, after the dance standards were officially accepted, the Dance Task Force continued further polishing. At the January meeting Kimball reported that the Dance Task Force had worked "to meet the demands of a uniform scope and sequence" (Minutes, January 31, 1994, p.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139 2) . Kimball said there had been some minor changes, especially in the field of technology. Although the content and achievement standards of each of the arts varied greatly, the final document achieved a unity of vision and approach in a clearly unified and concise format.
Terminology
Kimball commented that the creation of a common
terminology was a major, difficult issue to be focused on early in the process (Kimball, 1997 [interview May 22]). Definitions were sometimes at variance; e.g., the meaning of "rhythm" is different for each discipline. The Oversight Committee wanted a common language across the arts. In addition, few members of the Oversight Committee understood the vocabulary of dance. Common terminology for dancers often lacked clarity for those involved in the other arts. "Most committee members understood the need for a music vocabulary, but not the need for a movement vocabulary. It was an uphill struggle to get the Oversight Committee to understand dance vocabulary." Kimball emphasized: "There was no framework for reference, and that was a hindrance." An education process was necessary in order to proceed. (Kimball, 1997 [interview May 22].)
On the other hand, it was argued that if the Oversight Committee members could not understand the terminology, how
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140 could the general public? Gregory Anrig emphasized that the writers must keep their audience's perspective in view. He requested that writers recognize that since most education in the arts is delivered by nonspecialists, the audience for the documents needs to be nonspecialists. He cited the example in the dance standard prototype of "appropriate movement vocabulary," saying that some of the terms used were not likely to be understood by nonspecialists. (Minutes, October 6, 1992, p. 6) Down succinctly identified the conflict that needed to be reconciled: "First, the need for developing a document that uses the language of professionals; and second, the need for using language in the standards that is instantly comprehensible by the multiplicity of publics that must eventually use them" (Minutes, March 8-9, 1993, p. 2). Language was a problem in general. Originally, the standards in dance were divided into categories defining the nature and "value" of dance, but the word "value" had to be removed; it was not "politically correct" because schools may not be permitted to "teach values." "Words came in and out of favor." (Kimball, 1997 [interview May 22].) Verbiage was a political issue. What kept us sane is realizing what this did for the field. Nobody had ever questioned the math standards which had used the word "value." Arts wanted to be correct and so scratched the word from the document, although we did keep the word in the introduction. (Kimball, 1997 [interview May 22].) Kimball raised the issue of including a glossary, which the original dance standards had included, and suggested including one for each discipline. "She noted that the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141 practitioners in the field really want a glossary" (Minutes, February 17, 1993, p. 4). Roger Mandle, President of the Rhode Island School of Design, pointed out that, although a glossary was "highly desirable," it would raise controversial issues concerning which words were included and how they were defined. Paul Lehman, chair of the Music Task Force, stated that a glossary would be helpful if limited to the absolute minimum number of entries. Jeanne Rollins, chair of the Visual Arts Task Force, agreed that a glossary would be useful. In conclusion. Down suggested that each task force chair develop a short glossary to go out with the next draft.
Categories
The Getty model of Discipline-Based Arts Education
(DBAE)® was always a strong and pervasive presence in the philosophical and pragmatic thinking behind the creation of the Arts Standards. In this model, which was developed in relation to the visual arts, education is divided into four content areas: (1) production; (2) criticism; (3) history and culture; and (4) aesthetics. It is a system that is widely known and used, although feelings both in favor and against it are strong. It is worth noting that Leilani
® The term was coined in 1982 by the Getty Center for Education in the Arts when its newly formed research and developmen project. The Los Angeles Getty Institute for Educators on the Visual Arts, arrived at DBAE as its model for visual arts education.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142 Lattin Duke, Director of the Getty Center for Arts Education, was a prominent member of the committee. Initially the committee also relied on the content categories established in A Summarv of State Arts Education Frameworks by the NCSAEC (1992). These were: (1) creative expression and production/performance; (2) perception; (3) analysis and criticism; (4) aesthetics; and (5) historical, cultural and social contexts (NCSAEC, 1992, pp. 8-9). First, the headings were listed as nouns, then as gerunds. By the time the public draft was distributed, these were reviewed and pared down to: (1) Creating and Performing; (2) Perceiving and Analyzing; and (3) Understanding Cultural and Historic Contexts. The fourth category, "Aesthetics," had evolved into a section on the "Nature and Value of the Arts." Down proposed "to collapse this into one section dealing with all of the arts because these are hard to measure and it would encourage integrative connections (Minutes, February 17, 1993, p. 11). After a controversial discussion, he postponed the issue saying "there was also agreement that the categories need not be changed for the moment, but that changes could be considered" (Minutes, February 17, 1997, p. 11). Eventually it was decided to include "The Nature and Value of the Arts" in the introduction, as a vision statement for all the arts. At the same meeting there was a lengthy discussion about the possibility of omitting category headings
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143 altogether, but the consensus of the committee at that time was to "leave the existing categories in place for now, but see what the document looks like without labels as we revise" (Minutes, February 17, 1993, p. 15).
Content and Achievement Standards
Listed under these categories were the "content standards," with a subset of "achievement standards." There was consistent confusion about the distinction, so many attempts were made to clarify their definitions: The task force chairs had agreed on the following definitions to help focus development and achieve consistency in the treatment of the standards: content standard specifies what the student will know or be able to do; achievement standards specifies the student's level of attainment. The determination of the curriculum and the instructional activities designed to achieve the standards are the responsibility of the states and local school districts. The committee members present all agreed that these definitions were reasonable. (Minutes, December 8, 1992, p. 1) In addition, the achievement standards needed to be measurable so that they could be assessed. Nomenclature for the various levels within achievement standards was also an issue. It was decided to divide the levels for grade twelve into "proficient" and "advanced." Kimball said that: The dance task force assumed that the proficient standard would apply to the student who takes one or two courses, and that the advanced standards would apply to the student who takes more. Therefore, if a student did not take any courses, he or she would probably not meet the proficient level. (Minutes, 1992, December 8, p. 5)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 144 Along with the meaning of the terminology, the substance of the content and achievement standards had to also be consistent with that of the assessments. In the meeting on June 3, 1993, Ramsey Selden declared that the NAEP subcommittees had decided that "the content of the standards process should inform the NAEP project" and that
the current content standards were "very satisfactory as a basis for NAEP's need to establish content for assessment" (Minutes, 1993, June 3, p. 2). The NAEP board had identified three levels for testing:
1. Proficient, an ambitious standard appropriate for all students and one the educators would want the lion's share of all students to reach. 2. Basic, denoting partial mastery of that criterion in a way that would not be satisfactory but would be on the way toward this standard. 3. Advanced, a world-class standards that a substantial minority of students should achieve. (Minutes, 1993, June 3, p. 2) Asked whether the standards should realign to include the three levels, "he answered that it would not be necessary. He suggested that it would make sense for the achievement standard at each grade level to represent the assessment's 'proficient' level" (Minutes, 1993, June 3, p. 2).
Level of Difficulty of Standards
It was a policy decision to create high standards that, as Down stated, were "looking forward" toward "what every student should know and be able to do," rather than
standards that could be presently met in the schools now (Minutes, 1992, December 8, p. 2). For instance, at the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145 meeting on December 8, 1992, Paul Lehman, chair of the Music Task Force, "pointed out that the music standards for grade eight are substantially higher than the level achieved by most students today, and so they are forward-looking even for those students who do not elect music as part of their high school course work" (Minutes, 1992, December 8, p. 5). Dance was in an even more difficult position. Kimball expanded upon the particular problems for dance due to the fact there were so few dance education programs in America's public schools: Identifying 'proficient' as a level reached in grade eight assumes that students receive instruction up to that grade; in theatre or dance this is not necessarily so. She said that she would want to give districts a goal to aim for rather than minimize what could happen at the high school level based on the status quo. (Minutes, 1993, February 17, p. 7) While forty-three percent of schools claim to include dance curricula, only seven percent employ a dance specialist. Kimball noted that "today, dance educators cannot even assume exposure at grade four; for that reason, the dance task force wrote standards that are visionary but that students could reasonably be expected to achieve" (Minutes,
1992, December 8, p. 5).
Specificity— Distinction Between Standards and Curriculum
The degree of specificity and the distinction between creating standards versus designing a curriculum were issues
stressed by Down at the initial submission of the prototype
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146 standards, that remained a persistent concern throughout the
writing of the standards. The controversy was whether to make standards general and global, to give local regions autonomy, or specific and more directive, in order to provide exact guidance. The committees struggled with the balance. The music committee was very specific and prescriptive and was therefore told
"over and over again 'you are not writing a curriculum.'"
(Kimball, 1997 [interview. May 22].) Rebarber spoke about the dangers of over-specificity. He pointed out that, in the original proposals for all the standards projects, the standards were not intended to define everything that students should learn but only some things to which students should have access. He noted the need for leaving room for additions by teachers and localities. (Minutes, 1993, March 8-9, p. 6 ) Down said that "the content standards need to be content-rich, but the task forces must distinguish between writing content-rich standards and writing curricula" (Minutes, 1992, December 8, p. 2). Even in the concluding hours before final approval of the draft for publication, the Oversight Committee was "fussing" at the visual arts standards "because theirs was too general." This was an issue that remained central. (Kimball, 1997 [interview. May
22] .)
Vision Statement
It was envisioned that the standards document would
begin with a unified vision statement representing the four
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147 arts, and that it was the duty of the State Arts Consultants Task Force to write it. As the Oversight Committee progressed, additional content was fed into the process.
The category of "Aesthetics" (later, "The Nature and Value of the Arts") became the domain of the vision statement when they were rejected by the task forces as a standards
category. At the subcommittee meetings on December 8, 1992, and February 17, 1993, there were reviews of alternative proposed "vision statements." In the December meeting two statements, called "A" and "B," were presented, and a decision was made to combine both versions. In February, the resulting revision was presented by the State Arts Consultants! Task Force, along with an alternate. After discussion, it was the consensus of the committee to accept the alternate version, with further development by the Task Force Of The State Arts Consultants. During this process, the vision statement grew into a full introduction. Gordon Ambach "suggested that the main reasons for an introduction are to lead into the standards and to include the former fourth category regarding values" (Minutes, 1993, July 1, p. 8). In the minutes of the meeting in March, 1993, an appendix was compiled of a list of issues developed for
consideration in the introduction, consisting of twenty- seven primary questions to be addressed (see Appendix H).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148 These served as a basis for the work of drafting. After the State Arts Consultants Task Force had formulated a vision statement, a wordsmith, Bruce Boston,
was hired to polish the language. Joseph Polisi, Director of The Julliard School, suggested that copies of the introduction annotated by committee members be passed to the wordsmith (Minutes, 1993, July 1, p. 8) . This was done before the printing of the public draft. While there was a substantial difference between the public draft and the final document of the arts standards,
the introduction of the final standards document varied little from the public draft. Some of the headings were different, the most notable being the change from "The Nature and Value of the Arts Are a Legacy" to "The Arts are Important to Life and Learning." Two headings were renamed to focus more pointedly on the standards. When language was changed, it was to serve the aim of multicultural inclusion or to communicate with stronger force and sharper impact. The intent of the two versions remained the same.
Inclusion— Arts Standards for All Children
Libby Chiu pointed out that the standards must be written to include all children: "the current standards seem to presuppose that all children have the full complement of abilities (e.g., kinesthetic, verbal). . . . [T]he standards must be written so as not to exclude handicapped children. "
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149 (Minutes, 1992, October 6, p. 2.) Chiu seemed to remain the champion for challenged children throughout the proceedings. In an art form such as dance, which usually depends heavily on physical ability, it was a continual challenge to remain inclusive of those less physically advantaged. It was easier to remain culturally inclusive, developing standards that would include all styles of dance from many diverse cultures. Nevertheless, as most of the committee was from a background primarily of modern dance and ballet, they had to remain aware of their personal
biases in developing the standards.
Creating a Sense of Joy in the Arts
While focusing on so many crucial issues, it became evident to the committee that the sense of vitality and joy that the arts impart was lacking from the document. In the very first draft, C. James Lawler, a representative from the corporate community, observed: that the standards as written are high in the area of ability rather than knowledge and awareness. He noted that the essence of why people need to be involved in the arts is missing from the document. He called for acknowledgement of the power of the arts for wringing emotion out of people which, he said, only shows up in the theatre standards. (Minutes, 1992, October 6, p. 2) It was still a problem several drafts later. In March, 1993, "some members of the committee asked for a reworking of the tone of the document." Richard Gurin, President and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150 Chief Executive Officer at Binney & Smith, Inc., "characterized the current draft as 'serious,' without much
pleasure or fun." He pointed out that most performers and practitioners have fun and asked for the addition of the dimension of enjoyment. Harriet Fulbright agreed. Ririe asked for the addition of passion emd vision, saying that the document needs to be inspiring. (Minutes, 1993, March 8-9, p. 4) Polisi, at the same meeting, pinpointed the inherent conflict. "The committee was asking for both joy and legalisms, but it cannot contain both. He asked for the identity of the audience. Down implied that the document had to address all possible readers. Polisi said that, in that case, it must do so as briefly as possible. (Minutes,
1993, M a rch 8-9, p. 4.) It was decided to relegate a sense of joy and inspiration to the vision statement in the introduction— that "the vision statement be reserved for putting forth a rationale and expressing passion" (Minutes, 1993, March 8-9, p. 5) . However, Shirley MacKechnie, the Australian representative to the International Symposium (December, 1993) , observed in her critic[ue of the Standards that, "the vision in the first part is inspiring," while she heavily criticized the dance standards for their lack of aesthetic vitality. They don't get at the core of the art form. The ultimate value of the study of dance lies in a way of knowing (both sensory and aesthetic) that resides in the kinesthetic and in the exercise of imagination and aesthetic discrimination and skill. . . . The way these
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151 things are conveyed in dance are the heart of the matter. No amount of contextual analysis will revive a dance that was never alive in the first place. ("International Symposium Notes" [unpublished minutes of the proceedings of the Symposium of National Standards for Education in the Arts], 1993, p. 11)
Teaching Examples
Throughout the proceedings. Down was pushing for the inclusion of teaching examples in the standards, but the committee consistently refused. In arguing for their inclusion, he noted that, although earlier the committee had decided they would not be needed, the "standards under preparation for some other disciplines are enriched" by their inclusion, and he asked the committee to reconsider their use, either with the standards or as a separate entity. (Minutes, 1993, June 3, p. 2.) Down reminded the committee that the idea of teaching examples was included in the original funding proposal, but the committee had decided to omit them because their inclusion would make the document too long to have an impact on a lay audience. Down noted, however, that the standards efforts in some other disciplines are making good use of teaching exeunples and asked that the committee consider their decision again at a future meeting. (Minutes, 1993, June 3, p. 5)
At the next meeting. Down again made a plea for the inclusion of teaching examples, arguing that "every other discipline currently developing standards is including teaching examples." Eleanor Dougherty of DOE concurred, reporting that the "history [task force] is including short, paragraph-like teaching examples. Civics is doing the same.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152 The science examples are slightly longer (running a page or two and being called 'vignettes')." After a discussion, it
was decided to postpone a decision. Ambach suggested releasing the draft in its current state for public dissemination. (Minutes, 1993, July 1, p. 11.) Under pressure, the committee decided to construct vignettes as a separate document. They felt that, if they were included in the standards document, some teachers or practitioners would confuse the vignettes as the standards
or as prescribed curricula. At the final meeting in March 1994, Paul Lehman voiced a widely-shared concern "about publishing the vignettes in the format that the standards used because the vignettes are a little too definitive. He suggested publication in a format that emphasized the vignettes' illustrative nature." (Minutes, March 11, 1994.) Vignettes were worked on, but there proved to be so many problems in their execution that the project was abandoned as a committee venture, to be completed by
individual arts organizations some time in the future.^
The Relationship Between the Standards and the Assessments
Directly related to the creation of the National Standards was the parallel development of assessment
As it turned out, the math standards, and especially the history standards were severely criticized by the public for the content of their teaching examples. The arts standards had avoided the possibility of being completely negated for an element extraneous to their main purpose.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153 mechanisms. The relationship between the writing of The National Standards for Arts Education and the creation of Assessment Frameworks and Specifications was symbiotic and reciprocal; there was continual overlap between the The National Committee for Standards in the Arts and the NAEP Arts Education Consensus Project that created the Assessment Frameworks and Specifications. Chair Grediam Down served as chair of the steering committee for the NAEP Arts Education Consensus Project. Dr. Frank Philip, co-chair of the State Arts Consultants Task Force which was responsible for
shaping the vision statement for the standards document, was also consensus coordinator for the NAEP Consensus Project. Ramsey Selden, project director for the NAEP Arts Education Consensus Project, reported often to the Oversight Committee. In addition, many participants were involved with both projects: Harriet Fulbright, Keith Geiger, Edward Gero, MacArthur Goodwin, Michael Green, Richard Gurin, Tom Hatfield, Samuel Hope, Rebecca Hutton, Paul Lehman, John Mahlmann, Joan Peterson, Laura Gardner Salazar, Kent Seidel, Albert Shankar, Scott Schuler, and Barbara Wills. There was accordingly a great amount of interchange and communication between the two. Historically, the push for assessments by the National Assessment Educational Progress (NAEP) was initiated prior to the standards project. National assessments for education had been in operation since the inception of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 154 NAEP's first assessment in 1969 (in science), while national standards had never before existed. In 1989, in reaction to the six goals set at the "Charlotte 51" meeting of the National Board of Governors that year, and their exclusion of the arts, the Getty Center for Education in the Arts approached the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), the governing board for the NAEP assessments, insisting that arts be part of the national assessment. Getty and money from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) funded the initial movement to make the arts part of the national assessment. (Philip, 1997 [interview. May 19].) NAGB decided to include the arts as part of its national assessment, a decision which propelled the arts into the development of standards. In 1991, the year America 2000 was published. Francine Alexander, of the Department of Education in California, came to the Department of Education (DOE) to head the project. The State Collaborative on Assessments and Student Standards (SCASS) Arts Project was initiated in October when the "Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) convened a consortium of states interested in developing a large- scale, state-level assessments in arts education" (Philip, 1997 [interview. May 19]).
The SCASS/Arts Education Consortium grew from the needs identified by the National Council of State Arts Education Consultants, an organization formed in 1991 to address mutually identified needs of arts education in state departments of education. The SCASS/Arts Education Consortium grew from this organization as a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155 way to support the collaborative development of assessment related projects while allowing states to tailor the products to meet their unique needs. The principle need identified was for collaboration and technical assistance in developing and using exemplary assessments in the arts. (Welch and Shuler, 1996, p. 1) The National Council of State Arts Education Consultants (NCSAEC) was established in September of 1991 "to enable state arts education specialists to respond decisively through a common forum to national issues which effect arts education" (NCSAEC, 1992, p. 12). Funded by a grant from The Getty Center for Education in the Arts, with the Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) acting as the fiscal agent, an initial meeting was held in Chicago, Illinois on September 5-8, 1991. "The number one priority of the group
was student assessment in the arts" (NCSAEC, 1992, p. 12). As an outcome of the meeting, state arts consultants were invited to participate in a Student Assessment Consortium. Ten states and American Samoa each sent an arts content specialist and assessment specialist to a convention in De Moines, Iowa, in which the Goals were initiated. It was a national meeting for state Directors of Arts Education, convened to talk about standards and assessments for the arts. The "state people met together to create a synthesis of State Frameworks, a de facto standards" (Philips, 1997). Because they were part of the Goals. these
standards were "authorized" by inclusion. "As a first step toward developing student assessment.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156 the group decided to analyze the various state arts education curriculum documents for common content categories" (NCSAEC, 1992, p. 12). This provided the basis
for the Consortium which looked at how the arts were to be assessed. It was a bottom up, grassroots effort. At an Arts Education Assessment Symposium held in
December, 1991, sponsored by the NEA and CCSSO, representative members of the newly formed NCSAEC shared their state's experiences in arts assessment. An approach which identified common content was developed in order to arrive at a national consensus of what the outcomes of arts education ought to be. A Summarv of State Arts Education Frameworks (NCSAEC, 1992) was developed. At the very first meeting of the National Committee for Standards in the Arts on June 30, 1992, a statement was made by Daphne Wood Murray, Deputy Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, "that the synergy between NAEP and
the effort to develop arts standards will be very important." In the December, 1992, meeting. Dr. Frank Philip (then co-chair of the State Arts Consultants Task Force and Arts Consensus Coordinator at CCSSO for the NAEP process) stressed the coordination necessary between the two processes: Steering and planning committees for the NAEP Arts Education Assessment Project would be named in the next two weeks and that they would meet in January. The assessment process was, he noted, well synchronized with the standards process. He noted that Down will chair the steering committee. He said that they
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157 planned to pick up the vision of arts education from the Arts Standards project and look at the standards in terms of their assessment potential. (Minutes, 1992, Dec em b e r 8, p. 12) NAEP coordinated its timetable in conjunction with that of the standards. The NAEP Arts Consensus Project was planning on producing a draft in September, to have ready for review by December and for delivery and dissemination by March, 1994. A representative from NAEP attended every Oversight Committee meeting. In the meeting on February 17, 1993, Reunsey Selden, of
the NAEP Arts Education Consensus Project, stressed that: The NAEP steering committee has said that it is critical that the standards be used as content for assessment. They want to ensure a two-way flow of information. They hope that the assessment effort will be able to provide guidance on standard development; they ask that the standards committee be receptive to reactions, questions, and suggestions about the standards. This should make the standards more useful for the assessment effort as it develops. Down responded that the standards committee will be very happy to collaborate with the activities of the NAEP Arts Education Consensus Project. (Minutes, 1993, Febr uary 17, p. 15) Ramsey Selden described the structure of the National Assessment Consensus Project at the meeting on March 8-9, 1993. He pointed out that the subject matter tested must, by law, be the result of "a national consensus process, which is the responsibility of the National Assessment Governing Board. The project itself is carried out through a contract for the governing board" (Minutes, 1993, March 8- 9, p. 14) . The assessment was carried out through two
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158 committees: a thirty-two—person planning committee of specialists from arts disciplines and arts educators that developed a framework for assessment; and a steering committee, drawn from general education constituencies, the public, parents, the business community, and potential users such as museum or theater operators. The function of the steering committee was to provide policy oversight. During the inaugural meetings, January 19-21, 1993, the steering committee took a formal position that their content should be very similar and consistent with one another. It was felt to be inappropriate to develop an assessment not based in the content domain of the national standards for instruction; NAEP is regarded as a recipient of the standards— a project to apply the standards. (Minutes, 1993, March 8-9.) Selden stated: "The specific direction given was that NAEP needs special communication with standards; it needs to be able to comment and provide advice on the standards to make them more effective for incorporation in the national assessment." He asked that this vision be considered as a working relationship. He then went over the timetable outlined previously by Philip and described "phase two," the development of an assessment to be implemented with the writing of items, development of scales, and the collection of information. "Down said that he and Selden would work out a plan to achieve these objectives." (Minutes, 1993, March 8-9, p. 15.) Asked by the author whether she felt the Standards were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159 driven by the Assessments. Kimball replied: It worked both ways. NAEP had copies of the standards drafts as they created their Fraunework and Specifications and exercises. NAEP is based on the standards. In one case their categorization of Creating-Performing-Responding dictated the wording of the Standards and its description of knowledge and skills. The Standards caune first but at some point they were parallel. After the first major draft of assessments came out we had to go back and see if they were parallel, but the assessment people had drafts of standards. (Kimball, 1997 [interview May 22].) Kimball dubs the assessments "user friendly, " especially in terms of their language. The coordination of terminology and vocabulary was essential. In her view, the synchronizing of draft schedules had its negative effect. "Their deadlines made ours harder. For a discipline such as dance, which had no previous standards as models, the writers felt great pressure to develop quality content within difficult time lines." (Kimball, 1997 [interview July 7].) Although this was difficult, it may, in the end, have acted as a spur. Margaret Senko points out, "it was not that we were driven by NAEP deadlines, it was the funding push that was driving us" (Senko, 1997 [interview July 1]). This was true of both committees.
Grassroots Efforts and Review
It was both a philosophical and political priority that the standards were voluntary and created from a grassroots effort rather than federally mandated from Capitol Hill. An enormous effort was made to obtain public approval and so.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 160 in the summer and fall of 1993, a draft was widely distributed in booklet form for public review and revision.
The focus of the meeting on June 3, 1993, was the preparation of this draft. John Mahlmann opened the meeting, characterizing it as a preliminary look at the current drafts of the standards documents to identify any necessary finishing touches to the sections for dance, music, theatre, and the visual arts. . . . On July 1, the committee will be asked to approve the documents for wide dissemination. (Minutes, 1993, June 3, p. 1) Graham Down reported that the funding agents felt the arts standards "were in good shape relative to the other standards projects." He identified four issues: 1. Considering it unlikely that all four discipline groups would be at the same point of development, he asked "the committee to consider whether the existing documents are serviceable." 2. In reference to a memo circulated by Leilani Lattin Duke concerning the collapse of the "Nature and Value of the Arts" category, he asked the committee members to consider whether the act of incorporation into the other categories was being accomplished explicitly enough to meet the terms of the compromise. 3. He asked whether current documents showed a clear delineation between content standards and achievement standards, suggesting that, in some cases, the differences were not as sharp as they should be. 4. He raised the issue of teaching examples, noting that earlier the committee had decided they would not be needed, but "that standards under preparation for some other disciplines are enriched" by their inclusion and asked the committee to reconsider their use either with the standards or as a separate entity. (Minutes, 1993, June 3, p. 2)
There was lengthy discussion about each of these issues. While the Committee realized there were still many questions to be resolved, Kimball "suggested that the best course would be to let the public look at the standards as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161 they stand and to see what comments are received" (Minutes, 1993, June 3, p. 4). A month later, the final draft document had to be released for dissemination to the public. Down opened the meeting with a reminder to committee members that the draft under consideration represented step one in a national review process. From this point, he said, the document will go out to various forums and organizations for review. . .. Down noted that the committee's endorsement was needed only to release the draft for review to the general public. . . . By January l, he noted, the schedule calls for all responses to be collated and integrated into the draft. (Minutes, 1993, July 1, p. 1) Methods of dissemination and implementation were also discussed both for the draft and the final document. Joseph Polisi pointed out that "implementation of the standards would be complicated by the fact that arts instruction had no supporting infrastructure in many areas of the country." He suggested "a campaign for artistic capital, structured the way a fund raising campaign might be run." (Minutes, 1993, July 1, p. 10). Gregory Anrig suggested that advocacy efforts build on existing efforts. Ann Lynch "pointed out the need to broaden any coalition beyond artsprofessionals to parents, school board members, and other people who have no real handle on the issues facing arts education" (Minutes, 1993, July 1, p. 11). After a discussion. Down, Polisi, and Lynch offered to meet to organize possible advocacy efforts-
Permission was sought to release the draft standards as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162 they stood for public scrutiny. Down asked if any member of the committee was unwilling to sign off on the current document as a first draft. "He specified that the approval would be made with the understanding that the changes suggested in the meeting will take effect and that the final document would be reviewed in January. There was no dissent." (Minutes, 1993, July 1, p. 10.) Dougherty "offered her congratulations on entering a new phase," stating that the arts standards were the first standards released for broad, public review (Minutes, July 1, 1993, p. 13) . The second phase of grassroots public efforts went into effect. Public forums on all the arts were held across the country to collect testimony from the general population. Funded by the grant, hearings were set up in Sacramento, California; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Kansas City, Missouri; and the District of Columbia. A forum was also held in Boston, funded by local organizations. The public attending had access to the Standards draft. At each meeting, fifteen to twenty local speakers voiced their views about the Standards. Some speakers extolled the benefits of arts education. The committee representatives were not allowed speaking time. Their "job was to listen," and "take notes on comments" (Kimball, 1997 [interview May 22]). They could
not respond to the speeLkers, but were asked to be available afterwards to answer people's questions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163 "Everybody who testified was in favor of the Standards 1 No one spoke against them" (Kimball, 1997 [interview May 22]}. Kimball reported that the issues most frequently raised concerned: 1. The large number of standards and confusion between the content and achievement standards. 2. The inclusion of people with challenges and concern about appropriate accommodations for them. 3. The use of the Getty model of Discipline-Based Arts Education (DBAE). The question arose, "Should aesthetics be a separate issue?" Leilani Lattin Duke, as Director of the Getty Center for Education in the Arts, was in favor of employing their model. (Kimball, 1997 [interview May 22].) As a result of the grassroots effort and the responses received, the decision was made by the task forces to remove the categories from the document, leaving content and achievement standards intact. The dance standards were simplified by the decision to remove the categories. "The categories gave a scaffold with which to build the standards, and once the standards were built the scaffold could be taken away" (Kimball, 1997 [interview July 7]). The Dance Task Force pared the remaining "content standards" and "achievement standards" into those approved for the final draft. These included seven content standards, consistent for all grades, and one hundred achievement standards that were simplified further to the ninety-seven included in the final document. (The achievement standards consisted of twenty-six for the (grades) K-4 level; thirty-one for the 4-8 level; and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164 twenty-four "proficient" and nineteen "advanced" for the 9- 12 level.) Kimball "characterized these numbers as absolutely realistic for curriculum developers and teachers across the country" (Minutes, 1993, December 9, p. 4). As Kimball repeatedly stressed: "The Standards were a
grassroots effort. They Ccune from the people, not D.C.l" (Kimball, 1997 [interview. May 22].)
World-Class Standards
On November 19-20, 1993, CCSSO and the Council for Basic Education, with support from the Getty Center for Education in the Arts, co-sponsored an international invitational symposium called National Standards in the Arts. An International Perspective.
On November 19-20, 1993, more than 20 individuals involved in developing voluntary national standards in the arts met in Washington to hear seven experts in arts education from other nations discuss standards and curricula in their countries. The purpose of the meeting was to consider ways in which their experiences in standards setting might inform our efforts here. (Ambach and Down, 1993 [unpublished Memorandum, December 6]) The participants included representatives of six countries that have national standards for arts education:
Australia - Dr. Shirley McKechnie, Chair, Australian National Dance Council;
Brazil - Dr. Ivone Mendes Richter, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (Inter Arts);
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165 England - 1. Dr. Ken Robinson, Department of Arts Education, University of Wêtrwick; 2. Dr. John Steers, General Secretary, National Society for Arts and Design; Germany - Professor Dr. Herta Renk; Japan - Dr. Yasuharu Takahagi, President, International Society for Music Education; Netherlands - Peter Hermans. The chairs of the task forces were in attendance, as well as nine members of the Oversight Committee, three members of the Coordinating Council, and representatives from major government education agencies. The question to be answered was: "Are these world-class standards?" One of the criteria in Goals 2000 for the certification of any standard by the National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC) and National Education Goals Panel (NEGP) is whether our proposed standards are "internationally competitive" and comparable to the "best standards" in the world. Our international guests offered helpful advice and constructive criticism which in turn generated powerful discussion regarding the quality and potency of the draft standards in the arts. The discussion of the draft standards for arts education in this manner resulted in many new ideas and possibilities as to what the final arts standards should look like. (Ambach and Down, Memorandum, December 6, 1993) The invited representatives had received only the publicly distributed draft. "Their feedback was therefore not as helpful as might have been because major revisions had already been made to the draft reviewed" (Kimball, 1997 [interview. May 22]). In the opening remarks, Gordon Ambach provided an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166 explanation of Goals 2000 and the related voluntary standards ("International Symposium Motes," November 19, 1993, p. 1). Roger Handle accentuated that the national standards were not mandated by the federal government, a fact that was "very surprising" to the visiting international representatives (Kimball, 1997 [interview, July 7]) . Ken Robinson of England began session I with an overview, offering suggestions for the standards document in
general. He looked at four areas: (1) setting standards, in which he saw some generic problems; (2) arts rationale, particularly the issue of how it is presented in the
document; (3) conceptual structure, or standards as a conceptual mapping exercise of the field; and (4) the Standards : comments on the standards that emerge from the conceptual mapping. He felt the rationale for the arts and "objectives for including them must be plausible to people not in the field of arts education," and that "in some places the draft standards overstate the case, and the language should be modified." He warned of "MacNamara's Fallacy"— "care must be taken that the important content is measured, not that the measurable content becomes important"— and "Chinese Whispers," an admonition "that good intentions in standards making become subverted down the line." His final point, one he addressed more fully later in the proceedings, was that "standards must be based on a view of progression— i.e., what do children get better at through the grades?" ("Summary Notes" [unpublished summary of the International Symposium], 1993, p. 3.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167 Session II addressed the dance standards. Shirley McKechnie, National President of the Australian Dance Council and the National Affiliation of Arts Educators, focused on dance as an "art" form in her critical comments about the dance standards. She answered the "five questions put by Graham Down to respond to the draft standards" ("Summary Notes," 1993, pp. 3-5): 1. Do the standards convey clearly and comprehensively what the art forms can deliver to educational deve1opment? No, because the question assumes that the art form is clearly understood, and that the standards do not get at the core of the art form. The ultimate value of the study of dance is to provide a way of knowing (both sensory and aesthetic) that resides in the kinesthetic, and also in the exercise of imagination, aesthetic discrimination, and skill. Dance conveys powerful images that can furnish insight into the human condition; the way that dance uniquely accomplishes this communication is the heart of the matter. The standards do not convey an awareness of the development of art and craft— i.e., the potent interaction between skills and imagination in the making and performing of dances. 2. Do the standards present a clear idea of what students should know? There is an undue emphasis on written and oral skills over basic dance skills. RE: Chapter Two statement urging radical changes in teacher education— The primary issue is the competence to bring together and deliver a broad range of effective instruction in dance, yet the standards do not propose a level of competence of teachers. At least half of the information a child rec[uires in dance comes from the body of the teacher through example and inspiration. Teachers need to move with quality, inspiration and skill. RE: Page 68 reference that students should demonstrate excellence in at least one form— The standards do not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168 specify what constitutes excellence. RE: Emphasis on communication in draft standards— In dance, the body is the instrument for communication, which can't occur if the movement statement is unclear, or if the child does not understand the connection between the visual and kinesthetic. 3. What are the strengths of the dance standards? The acknowledgment of the range of cultural and historical significance of dance; that dance has played a major role in defining cultural identity. 4. How could the standards be improved? Content and achievement standards often say the same thing: Many of the standards are written from the perspective of the physical educationist, rather than the dance artist. For example, good nutrition and health practices are mixed in, which have no relationship to communication and self-expression. These latter are best explored by understanding how space and time have been used, and how skill and originality have contributed. The word quality is used in a confusing way in the document; in dance, it usually means a kinesthetic intelligence. Development of technical dance skills— in the more advanced years, the movements specified are non challenging. Simple dances should be at early levels, with increasing sophistication at later stages. A pertinent standard of achievement— e.g., dances performed with confidence and focus, rhythm and style— needs to be included. Requirement for an "accurate description"— such accuracy is impossible at one viewing, even for an experienced dance critic; ability to ascertain major choreographic features is more realistic standard. 5. Do the standards promote the use of dance in the context of other subjects?
The draft standards do not consider the way concepts such as space and time are used in various forms. Dance is a spatial art like sculpture and architecture, and also exists in time like other forms of performance. Dance can be abstracted to pure form. Concern with images and metaphor for experience is common to all the arts, i.e., the search for form is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169 the search for meaning. This concept is key to understanding of relationship between the arts. Kimball, in her comments about the symposium, stated: "Japan and England found the level of our standards too challenging, especially creatively. Given their more restrictive philosophy of education, this was somewhat predictable. The German raised the issue of vesting central government with control versus local districts." In Germany, local districts create standards, not the German government. "Brazil didn't address dance much. They seemed versed in other arts." She recognized that Shirley McKechnie of Australia was most critical of the dance standards. "Theirs are more specific, more of a curriculum," and she was seeking more of a parallel to Australian national standards. (Kimball, 1997 [interview. May 22].) This, again, raised the major issue of standards versus curriculum; does setting standards in some way dictate the curriculum? England and Netherlands "performed a very helpful exercise": they flashed samples of the progression of Achievement Standards on a large screen in order to examine
their different levels. Sometimes a committee repeated essentially the same achievement standard with no development. Groups were directed to critically analyze the progressions. (Kimball, 1997 [interview. May 22].) The symposium, however, was held only two weeks before submission of the final draft to the National Committee. At
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170 the following meeting, Kimball stated that "the dialogue at the international conference was stimulating" (Minutes,
December, 9, 1993, p. 4). Nevertheless, she pointed out that the delegates at that conference had seen an earlier draft, and that many of the revisions they suggested had already been carried out. In particular, the document had already been simplified with the decision to remove the categories. (Minutes, 1993, December 9, p. 4) Major chëmges at this late date were therefore difficult- It would have been more helpful to have them early in our process and for them to have the latest draft, not the public draft which was already changed. We sent the international people the new draft after the symposium. Some people faxed back comments on the new draft, and in that response all were positive. The second draft was much improved. (Kimball, 1997 [interview. May 22].) According to Kimball, "the best thing that came out of International Conference was the overview each country gave" of their circumstances concerning arts education. (Kimball, 1997 [interview. May 22].)
The Final Push
The final draft of the Standards had to go to press in January of 1994 to be ready for presentation in March. There had been approximately six major drafts, although the number "is hard to say because in between there were innumerable ones— parts of things, parts of pages. Every time we were asked to send a draft to MENC it went to the Oversight Committee." (Kimball, 1997 [interview. May 22].) The draft of the dance standards that went before the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 171 Oversight Committee meeting on December 9, 1993, was an adaptation from the public review process. Down opened the meeting with a statement that the Arts Standards project had reached the point where definitive action on the standards was needed. He said the central task of the committee should be to decide if the current draft standards are both specifically and generally of the kind the committee could approve, and if not, why not." (Minutes, 1993, December 9, p. 1) Each of the task force chairs was asked to make a formal presentation on the process used to review the feedback of the public.
Mary Maitland Kimball reported on the consensus process leading up to the current draft of standards for dance. She said that comments had been gathered from three areas: public forums, written reviews, and the international symposium. She said that all of this input had been used in revising the dance standards. . . . The most significant fact she identified in the standards was that nobody testified against standards. The public seemed ready to move on with the process of educating students. (Minutes, December 9, 1993) Almost 200 responses were returned to the Dance Committee. Music had a return of 500-600, since MENC is a relatively large organization in comparison to NDA. (Kimball, 1997 [interview. May 22].) All the responses had to be read and catalogued. The task forces were responsible for telling the Oversight Committee their results and how they were derived.
In dance, each item was analyzed and compared based on a ratio. Kimball solicited the support of Dr. Fiora Connor- Kuntz, a colleague at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, to create a statistical analysis. Dr. Connor-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172 Kuntz could clearly point out the standards that needed revision, redrafting or rewriting. (Kimball, 1997 [interview. May 22].) All suggestions, even those which contradicted other comments, were weighed for inclusion in the revised draft. In the analysis of written responses, all data were entered, including a demographic analysis of all who responded. The Task Force considered all responses in a similar fashion. The lowest rate of recommendation of retention of a given standard was 60.3 percent; the highest was 88.4 percent. Kimball explained that statistically the public accepted the standards (Minutes, 1993, December 9, p. 4). "Actually, the percentage of response that agreed with the standards was very high." (Kimball, 1997 [interview. May
22 ].) She said that the current draft reflects the essence of what the dance community believes to be true, and what the American public has seen and ratified. . . . In particular, the document had already been simplified with the decision to remove the categories. With that decision, the dance standards had been collapsed from fourteen content standards to seven. (Minutes, 1993, December 9, p. 4) Kimball commented that "the standards offer the opportunity to tedce a stand on the fact that dance belongs with the arts and to get states to commit to that idea." The fact that dance would be included in school curricula "would be a significant change" (Minutes, 1993, December 9, p. 5). Leilani Lattin Duke commented that Kimball's
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 173 presentation was wonderfully clear and held it as a model for other arts. (Kimball, 1997 [interview. May 22].) The committee accepted the dance and music standards as reviewed. Kimball modestly remarked, "we were really lucky that they approved ours at that time"; possibly "they didn't have enough knowledge [about dance] to know where else to
question." (Kimball, 1997 [interview. May 22].) The theater group received minor suggestions. Visual
arts was sent back for further revision because its standards were too general. "Jeanne Rollins, chair, dealt with the criticism beautifully," Kimball commented. "Someone of lesser spirit might have been decimated."
(Kimball, 1997 [interview. May 22].) Ambach said that he did not feel the document was ready to present to Secretary Riley. He commented that "Goals 2000 and the accompanying requirement of certification raised the stakes" (Minutes, 1993, December 9, p. 15). He argued that the standards should not yet be released. "Mahlmann noted that the committee had already said that the music and dance documents were acceptable except for editorial changes; that the theatre and visual arts documents require more substantive work" (Minutes, 1993,
December 9, p. 18). He suggested that these task forces meet with Down or specialists on the committee in order to be prepared for final approval on January 31, 1994.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174 A Mechanism for Change
Down opened the meeting on January 31, 1994, by thanking the committee for their achievement on the standards, relating that he had received comments of support. "He stressed that the standards will never be perfect, but should be judged, like organic law, as something that will evolve" (Minutes, 1994, January 31, p. 1) . Mahlmann "agreed with Down that the standards would evolve, subject to review and revision; he said they would be of real value only when tempered by the reality of schools, students, and teachers" (Minutes, 1994, January 31, p. 1) .
Throughout the process, the Dance Task Force was well aware of the importance of building a method by which the standards could change. (Kimball, 1997 [interview. May 22].)
Because standards had never before been created or employed, it was inevitable that, once in actual practice, there would be a need for modification. Also, as times and needs change, flexibility is important. For these reasons. Goals
2000 authorized the creation of a National Education Standards and Improvement Council which would periodically review standards. This committee, unfortunately, was never
actually established; and plans for it were abolished in the 1996 budget bill signed into law on April 26, 1996. (DOE website, July 21, 1997; available at
h t t p ://WWW. ed .gov/G2K/. )
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175 Approval
In the January 31, 1994, meeting, the final form of the
standards document was discussed for approval. Aspects of the introduction were debated, as was the inclusion of a summary statement. "Down noted that the consensus of the committee was that the text was appropriate, that it should be printed as an appendix, and that it should also be printed as a separate brochure, preferably designed for
visual appeal" (Minutes, 1994, January 31, p. 11). Down finally announced that "the committee had looked at all aspects of the standards document: the summary, the introduction, and all four disciplines. He asked for an indication that all committee members were in favor of the document. There was unanimous consent." (Minutes, 1994, January 31, p. 12.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER IV OUTCOMES OF THE DEBATE
In March, 1994, precipitated by the omission of the arts from the the national education goals in America 2000. four coordinated and powerful statements about the
importance of arts education in the educational experience of all children came to fruition within the span of a single month. (See page 3.) The first, on March 5, 1994, was approval of the framework and specifications for a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in arts education by the National Assessment Governing Board. The second, on March 11, 1994, was the acceptance of the proposed voluntary
National Standards for Arts Education by the Department of Education. The third, on March 26, 1994 was passage of Goals 2000: The Educate America Act by Congress. The
fourth, on March 31, 1994, was the signing of the Goals 2000 Act into law by President Bill Clinton. March, 1994, was a watershed in the history of arts education. Dance, long neglected in the schools, took its place alongside music, theater and the visual arts in a national vision for arts education in American schools.
176
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177 The National Standards for Arts Education
The National Standards for Arts Education (CNAEA, 1994), including dance, music, theater and visual arts, were formally accepted by Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley at a press conference held in Washington, D.C., on March 11, 1994. The standards document was a product of the Consortium of National Arts Education Associations (CNAEA), which included national organizations representing each of the arts: the American Alliance of Theatre and Education (NATE),
Music Educators National Conference (MENC), the National Art Education Association (NAEA), and the National Dance Association (NDA). The consortium received a grant from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) to create a document that would determine
what the nation's school children should know and be able to do in the arts. The National Committee for Standards in the Arts, was developed, chaired by A. Grahcim Down, president of the Council for Basic Education, and composed of arts
education leaders from universities, conservatories, performing centers, arts centers, school systems, government agencies, and the corporate community. This committee guided the consortium in producing the National Standards for Arts Education.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178 The Standards are subtitled. What Every Young American Should Know and Be Able to Do in the Arts. It is a blueprint that outlines expectations and outcomes for public school students in the areas of dance, music, theater and visual arts at the benchmark grades of four, eight, and twelve. "They are intended to create a vision for learning, not a standardized instructional system" (CNAEA, 1994, p. 18). They do not prescribe a curriculum, but provide a general skeleton of the concepts and understanding children should develop in their active participation in and appreciation of the arts. The Standards are a statement of what every young American should know and be able to do in the four arts basic disciplines. They speak to both content and achievement. The Standards embody a vision that the arts help children discover who they are, give meaning to their lives, teach new ways of thinking, and develop "habits of mind" that are rich and diverse (CNAEA, 1994, p. 5) . They are democratic in that they advocate an education in the arts for "all" students, and explicitly state: All students deserve access to the rich education and understanding that the arts provide, regardless of their background, talents, or disabilities. . . . Thus, the arts should be an integral part of a program of general education for all students. In particular, students with disabilities, who are often excluded from arts prograuns, can derive great benefit from them— and for the same reasons that studying the arts benefits students who are not disabled. (CNAEA, 1994, pp. 7-8)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179 A "Summary Statement" distributed at the press conference on March 11 stated in its introduction that by the time children graduate high school: * They should be able to communicate at a basic level in the four arts disciplines— dance, music theater and the visual arts. This includes knowledge and skills in the use of the basic vocabularies, materials, tools, techniques, and intellectual methods of each arts discipline. * They should be able to communicate proficiently in at least one aurt form, including the aüaility to define amd solve artistic problems with insight, reason and technical proficiency. * They should be able to develop and present basic analysis of works of art from structural, historical, and cultural perspectives, auid from combinations of those perspectives. This includes the ability to understand and evaluate work in the various arts disciplines. * They should have an informed acc[uaintance with exemplary works of art from a variety of cultures and historical periods, and a basic understanding of historical development in the arts disciplines, across the arts as a whole, and within cultures. * They should be able to relate various types of arts knowledge and skills within and across the arts disciplines. This includes mixing and matching competencies and understandings in art-making, history and culture, and analysis in any arts-related project. (CNAEA, 1884, Summary) The introduction of the Standards focuses on the vision of arts education, its role as a basic core academic subject in discovering who we are, and importance to life and learning. It explains that the Standards make a difference because "they speak powerfully to two fundamental issues that pervade all of education— quality and accountability." (CNAEA, 1994, p. 9.) In addressing these issues, the standards insist on the following:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 180 * That an arts education is not a hit-or-miss effort but a sequenced and comprehensive enterprise of learning across four arts disciplines, thus ensuring that basic arts literacy is a consequence of education in the United States; * That instruction in the arts takes a hands-on orientation (that students be continually involved in the work, practice, and study required for effective and creative engagement in all four arts disciplines); * That students learn about the diverse cultural and historical heritages of the arts. The focus of these Standards is on the global and the universal, not the localized and the particular; * That arts education can lead to interdisciplinary study; achieving standards involves authentic connections among and across the arts and other disciplines; * That the transforming power of technology is a force not only in the economy but in the arts as well. The arts teach relationships between the use of essential technical means and the achievement of desired ends. The intellectual methods of the arts are precisely those used to transform scientific discovery into technology. * That across the board and as a pedagogical focus, the development of the problem-solving and higher-order thinking skills necessary for success in life and work is taken seriously; and * That taken together, these Standards offer, for the first time in American arts education, a foundation for educational assessment on a student-by-student basis. (CNAEA, 1994, p. 10) In the introduction, the Standards also are examined in view of "contexts and issues." The Standards are "at the core of educational reform" set by the Goals 2000. which includes the arts as academic disciplines in public schools, thereby acknowledging that they are a basic core academic subject. (CNAEA, 1994, p. 11.) Some states resisted national standards, asserting that individual states retain the right to control their own educational policies (Philip, 1994). The Standards are therefore "voluntary," framed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 181 within a top-down/bottom-up structure that offers wide latitude, providing guidance and support for the states to construct local curricula. "Almost alone in the industrial world, the United States has no national curriculum" (CNAEA, 1944, p. 11); "states' rights" is a basic tenet of our Constitution. At the same time, in spite of our disparateness, Americans understand that, at the core, we etre one country. . . . The need for standards arises, in part, from the recognition that we Americans can never know how well our schools are doing without some coherent sense of results. (CNAEA, 1944, p. 11.) The Standards set national goals that are statements of desired outcomes. As such, they do not set curriculum. They do not define how the results should be obtained nor prescribe a course of study. States retain complete
autonomy. The standards for arts education are important for two fundamental reasons. "First, they help define what a good education in the arts should provide. . . . Second,
when state and school districts adopt the standards, they are taking a stand for rigor, informed by clear intent" (CNAEA, 1994, p. 12). In addition, the Standards are key to the integrity of each of the arts disciplines; they open doors to the inter correlation and integration of these and other disciplines. The arts encourage cultural diversity. They also incorporate technology "as a means to accomplish artistic, scholarly, production, and performance goals, an important
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182 factor because of technology's power to expand today's students' access to information, opportunities and choices'* (CNAEA, 1944, p. 12). The Standards will require involvement in the arts beyond mere exposure. "They need focused time for sequential study, practice, and reflection" (CNAEA, 1994, p. 15).
How the Standards Are Organized
The Standards are organized by the benchmark grade levels of four, eight, and twelve "because the largest groups using the Standards will be teachers and educational administrators" (CNAEA, 1994, p. 17). It is easiest for
elementary school teachers and administrators to review all four arts disciplines within one chapter, "Grades K-4"; likewise for the faculty and staff of "Grades 5-8" and "Grades 9-12." Within each grade-level cluster, the standards are categorized by the arts disciplines of dance, music, theater or visual arts. "Presented within each of the disciplines are the specific competencies that the arts education community, nationwide, believes are essential for every student." (CNAEA, 1994, p. 17.)
Although the statement of any specific competency in any of the arts disciplines necessarily focuses on one part of that discipline, the Standards stress that all the competencies are interdependent. (CNAEA, 1994, pp. 17-18)
The standards are divided into two parts that guide student assessment in each of the competencies: content
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183 standards, which specify "what students should know and be able to do"; and achievement standards, which specify the "understandings and levels of achievement that students are expected to attain" (CNAEA, 1994, p. 18). Growth in these competencies is expected at each benchmark grade level (four, eight, and twelve) in a graduated program. Two levels of achievement standards are delineated for grades nine through twelve: "proficient," and "advanced." While every child is expected to become "proficient" in each of the arts through the eighth grade, in high school students may choose one of the arts on which to focus. The "advanced" level describes the level of achievement for
those students who have elected to specialize in a particular eirts discipline. (CNAEA, 1994, p. 18.)
The National Standards for Dance Education
The dance standards originally published by CNAEA and MENC, as opposed to those currently published by NDA, are not contained in a single discipline-based section. They are organized by three developmental levels— Grades K through four. Grades five through eight, and Grades nine through twelve— each of which contain the standards for the four disciplines of dance, music, theatre and the visual arts. The introduction provides the vision statement for all the arts, so there is no separate introductory philosophical statement about dance education. Instead, a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 184 short introduction is provided for each level stating that the section "describes the cumulative skills and knowledge
expected of all students" of that grade level, and a reminder that "determining the curriculum and the specific instructional activities necessary to achieve the standards is the responsibility of states, local school districts, and individual teachers." (CNAEA, 1994, pp. 21, 37, 53.) The explanatory statement for Grades nine through twelve also defines the proficient and advanced achievement levels. The seven content standards devised for dance remain constant throughout the graduated progression of grades and levels and involve a range of skills as a performer, choreographer, audience participant, and as a member of society. They require:
1. Identifying and demonstrating movement elements and skills in performing dance; 2. Understanding choreographic principles, processes and structures; 3. Understanding dance as a way to create and communicate meaning; 4. Applying and demonstrating critical and creative thinking skills in dance; 5. Demonstrating and understanding dance in various cultures and historical periods; 6. Making connections between dance and healthful living; and 7. Making connections between dance and other disciplines. (CNAEA, 1994, pp. 23-25, 39-41, 55-58) Their major characteristics are that: (1) they involve a wide range of experience in dance; (2) they develop skills as a creator, performer, and critic; (3) they remain consistent throughout a child's progressive achievement
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185 levels. The achievement standard levels, however, become progressively more advanced as the children develop in age and ability. For example, while fourth graders are expected to perform (and use choreographically) basic locomotor or axial movements such as walk, run, hop, skip, gallop, slide, bend, twist, stretch, and swing, high school students should "create and perform combinations and variations in a broad dynamic range." (CNAEA, 1994, pp. 23, 55.) Fourth graders
are becoming aware of their bodies and their basic movement potential. High school students are developing their symbolic powers of communication through movement. "Education in dance, which has been an integral part of human history, is also important if students are to gain a broad cultural and historical perspective." (CNAEA, 1994, p. 55.) Students are expected to apply their knowledge in dance to gain insight into themselves in relation to society and the world.
Grades K Through Four
The standards in this section describe the cumulative skills and knowledge expected of all students upon entering grade 4. Students in the earliest grades should engage in developmentally appropriate learning experiences designed to prepare them to achieve these standards at grade 4. Determining the curriculum and the specific instructional activities necessary to achieve the standards is the responsibility of state, local school districts, and individual teachers. (CNAEA, 1994, p. 37)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 186 Aside from summarizing the content of the section, this introductory paragraph, which is printed on each level's title page, clearly disclaims any government curricula
control and is meant to defuse fears of federal control of
education. In addition, a few paragraphs at the beginning of the section for each individual discipline provides a brief philosophic orientation. For dance, it begins, "Children in grades K-4 love to move and learn through engagement of the whole self" (CNAEA, 1994, p. 23). It speaks of learning "to become literate in the language of dance in order to use this natural facility as a means of communication and self- expression and as a way of responding to the expression of others." The educational philosophy of John Dewey and cognitive theories of Piaget would certainly bear witness. "Since their (children 3-11 years) model of thinking is concrete and they don't have the mental equipment to grasp the cognitive abstractions, they translate the abstractions into concrete and highly specific terms" (Sprinthall and Sprinthall, 1990, p. Ill) . For children, actions still speak louder than words. Thus dance, as an action, has a loud voice and is an effective teaching tool. "Dancing and creating dances provide them with the skills and knowledge necessary for all
future learning in dance and give them a way to celebrate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187 their humanity" (CNAEA, 1944, p. 23). The standards for grade four are direct and are outlined in a brief two-and-a-half pages. They focus on the basic elements of movement, choreographic skills, musical/rhythmic contexts, and movement awareness. "Dance education begins with an awareness of the movements of the body and its creative potential" (CNAEA, 1944, p. 23). Children are expected to work independently and with partners in creating and performing dances, to perceive and respond to dance using a basic dance vocabulary, and to
begin thinking critically about dance. "They investigate questions such as. What is it? How does it work? Why is it important?'" (CNAEA, 1944, p. 23). Given this concrete expression with which to focus their perceptions, they can learn to analyze and compare dance works in terms of space, time, and force/energy, the three basic compositional elements. They are able to perceive dance with the eye and mind of a critic. The Standards also reflect the multicultural salad of American society. They expect children: to respect dance as a part of the heritage of many cultures. As they learn and share dances from around the globe, as well as from their own communities, children gain skills and knowledge that will help them participate in a diverse society. (CNAEA, 1944, p. 23) Students are taught both pride in their own heritage and a deep understanding and appreciation for the cultures of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188 o t h e r s . The next two pages are divided into seven content standards. The first, "identifying and demonstrating movement elements and skills in performing dance," focuses on the performance and awareness of movement. Its achievement standards are basic. Students are expected to: a. accurately demonstrate nonlocomotor/axial* movements (such as bend, twist, stretch, swing) b. accurately demonstrate eight basic locomotor* movements (such as walk, run, hop, jump, leap, gallop, slide, and skip), traveling forward, backwards, sideward, diagonally, and turning c. create shapes at low, middle, and high levels* d. demonstrate the ability to define and maintain personal space* e. demonstrate movements in straight and curved pathways f. demonstrate accuracy in moving to a musical beatand responding to changes in tempo g. demonstrate kinesthetic awareness,* concentration, and focus in performing movement skills h. attentively observe and accurately describe the action* (such as skip, gallop) and movement elements (such as levels,* directions) in a brief movement study. (CNAEA, 1994, p. 23)^ Children are expected to have mastered the performance
and identification of basic movements in a variety of spatial directions, pathways and rhythms. This level does not require technical dance training, but rather basic coordination and a kinesthetic awareness. These are the building blocks for performance. The second content standard involves "understanding choreographic principles, processes, and structures" (CNAEA,
^ In quoted achievement standards, an asterisk (*) denotes terminology defined in the glossary.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 189 1994, p. 24) . Students should be able to: a. create a sequence with a beginning, middle and end, both with and without a rhythmic accompaniment; identify each if these parts of the sequence b. improvise, create, and perform dances based on their own ideas and concepts from other sources c. use improvisation* to discover and invent movement and to solve movement problems d. create a dance phrase,* accurately repeat it, and then very it (making changes in the time, space, and/or force/energy) e. demonstrate the ability to work effectively alone and with a partner f. demonstrate the following partner skills: copying, leading and following, mirroring (CNAEA, 1994, p. 24) Although most children are closer than adults to the "language" of movement, they have not been asked to shape it into a compositional structure. Indeed, many dance students learning dance forms through correct imitation and technical exercises have never been asked to improvise or create movement that is reflective of their own ideas. The third content standard is "understanding dance as a way to create and communicate meaning" (CNAEA, 1994, p. 24). The achievement standards expect students to: a. observe and discuss* how dance is different from other forms of human movement (such as sports, everyday g estures) b. take an active role in a class discussion about interpretations of and reactions to a dance c. present their own dances to peers and discuss their meanings with competence and confidence (CNAEA, 1994, p. 24) To a child accustomed to discussing movement, these achievement standards come as second nature (or, as Piaget
would claim, first nature). The concrete, physical
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190 characteristic of movement makes meaning apparent to children, but to learn to verbalize kinesthetic observations usually requires experience. The fourth content standard, "applying and demonstrating critical and creative thinking skills in dance," requires that students: a. explore, discover and realize multiple solutions to a given movement problem; choose their favorite solution and discuss the reasons for that choice b. observe two dances and discuss how they are similar and different in terms of one of the elements* of dance (such as space) by observing body shapes, levels, pathways (CNAEA, 1994, p. 24) Again, this content standard becomes basic to children once they are provided the opportunity and experience. Movement solutions to problems are constantly made by
children, but not necessarily with conscious awareness of meaning or motive. Critical analysis develops the higher- level thinking skills necessary in a good education. To verbalize and explain the reasons for movement choices takes it out of the realm of sensori-motor activity into that of criticism. Kinesthetic reasoning and logic must be verbally translated; this is not a process demanded often of children. The fifth content standard, "demonstrating and understanding dance in various cultures and historical periods," emphasizes the opportunity for multicultural education. Its achievement standards are:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 191 a. perform folk* dances from various cultures with competence and confidence b. learn and effectively share a dance from a resource in their own community; describe the cultural and/or historical content c. accurately answer questions about dance in a particular culture and time period (for example. In colonial America, why and in what settings did people dance? What did the dances look like?) (CNAEA, 1994, pp. 24-25) In an era that celebrates multicultural diversity, these standcurds "provide a variety of lenses for examining
the cultures and artistic contributions of our nation and others around the world" (CNAEA, 1994, p. 13). The language of movement is understood universally. The sixth content standard focuses on an issue that has become recognized much more widely during the past decade,
"making connections between dance and healthful living" (CNAEA, 1994, p. 25) . The achievement standards require students to: a. identify at least three personal goals to improve themselves as dancers b. explain how healthy practices (such as nutrition, safety) enhances their ability to dance, citing multiple examples. (CNAEA, 1994, p. 25) While the purpose of dance education is not physical
exercise and health, those are certainly among its byproducts. Students are expected to recognize and understand how dancing creates health, and how better health enhances dancing. The seventh content standard involves "making connections between dance and other disciplines" (CNAEA,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 192 1994, p. 25). The arts are not taught in isolation, nor are they unrelated to the other academic disciplines. In this regard, students are expected to be able to: a. create a dance project that reveals understanding of a concept or idea from another discipline (such as pattern in dance and science) b. respond to a dance using another art form; explain the connections between the dance and their response to it (such as stating how their paintings reflect the dance they saw) (CNAEA, 1994, p. 25) These standard integrate the art of dance into all learning and life. "The arts are everywhere in our lives, adding depth and dimension to the environment we live in, shaping our experience daily." (CNAEA, 1994, p. 5.)
Grades Five Through Eight In the original publication of the Standards by MENC,
achievement standards are grouped by level rather than discipline. When the National Standards for Dance Education was published by NDA in 1996, the dance achievement standards were, of course, printed consecutively. This
facilitated comparisons of expectations at each of the benchmark grade levels for analysis of their progression. Included is a preface by Mary Maitland Kimball, who was President of the NDA at the time the Standards were formulated and chair of the Dance Task Force. She advised: "It is important to remember that the standards provide education goals and not a national curriculum; however, if used properly, the standards can be effective in improving
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 193 multiple types of dance instruction" (NDA, 1996, p. 5) . She concluded, "it is our shared vision that dance and the other arts will be an essential component in the education of all American students from kindergarten through high school"
(NDA, 1996, p. 6). The achievement standards for grades five through eight "assume that the students will demonstrate higher levels of the expected skills and knowledge, will deal with increasingly complex art works and will provide more sophisticated responses to the works of art" (NDA, 1996, p.
23). Under the first content standard, "identifying and demonstrating movement elements and skills in performing dance" (NDA, 1996, p. 24), the achievement standards expect
students to: a. demonstrate the following movement skills and explain the underlying principles : alignment, balance, initiation of movement, articulation of isolated body parts, weight shift, elevation and landing, fall and recovery b. accurately identify and demonstrate basic dance steps, positions, and patterns for dance from two different styles or traditions c. accurately transfer a spatial pattern from the visual to the kinesthetic d. accurately transfer a rhythmic pattern from the aural to the kinesthetic e. identify and clearly demonstrate a range of dynamics/movement qualities f. demonstrate increasing kinesthetic awareness, concentration, and focus in performing movement skills g. demonstrate accurate memorization and reproduction of movement sequences h. describe the action and movement elements observed in a dance, using appropriate movement/dance vocabulary. (NDA, 1996, p. 24)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 194 These are huge conceptual leaps from the achievement standards of fourth grade. While the execution of a hop, leap or skip is a physical feat, understanding the principles of alignment, balance, and the initiation of movement requires a conceptual base of movement as well as coordination. The terminology used is common to dance but is not part of everyday vocabulary: "articulation of isolated body parts," "weight shift," "elevation and landing," "fall and recovery." To identify dance steps and patterns will require specific dance knowledge, and to transfer a spatial or aural pattern into a kinesthetic form requires skill. The memorization and reproduction of dance movements is a necessary skill in order to learn a dance. These are the basic elements of learning and performing a d a n c e . The growth expected of students in understanding choreographic principles, processes, and structures is equally ambitious : a. clearly demonstrate the principles of contrast and transition b. effectively demonstrate the processes of reordering and chance c. successfully demonstrate the structures or forms of A6, ABA, canon, call and response, and narrative d. demonstrate the ability to work cooperatively in a small group during the choreographic process e. demonstrate the following partner skills in a visually interesting way: creating contrasting and complementary shapes, taücing and supporting weight. (NDA, 1996, pp. 24-25) While fourth-grade students are required to understand only
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195 the bare rudiments of compositional structure, eighth graders play with form in relation to content and work cooperatively in choreographic relationships. They must be aware of both the dynamic and shape of movement and understand compositional design and manipulation. There is a significant progression also in the level at which eighth-grade students must understand dance "as a way to create and communicate meaning" (NDA, 1996, p. 25). They are expected to: a. effectively demonstrate the difference between pantomiming and abstracting a gesture b. observe and explain how different accompaniment (such as sound, music, spoken text) can affect the meaning of a dance c. demonstrate and/or explain how lighting and costuming can contribute to the meaning of a dance d. create a dance that successfully communicates a topic of personal significance. (NDA, 1996, p. 25) To understand and communicate meaning through movement, students must relate to the symbolic content in dance. While the literal and concrete thought processes of children make pantomime prevalent as a movement expression, adolescents are entering the realm of abstract thought processes. Movements no longer need a literal connection in order to contain meaning. Forms such as modern and
postmodern dance and the movements of rituals can be readily appreciated. Although all of the content standards increasingly
involve the application and demonstration of "critical and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196 creative thinking skills in dance" (NDA, 1996, p. 25), they are also listed in a separate category. Students in eighth
grade are expected to be able to: a. create a movement problem and demonstrate multiple solutions; choose the most interesting solutions and discuss the reasons for their choice b. demonstrate appropriate audience behavior in watching dance performances; discuss their opinions about the dances with their peers in a supportive and constructive way c. compare and contrast two dance compositions in terms of space (such as shape and pathways) , time (such as rhythm and tempo) , and force/energy (movement qualities) d. identify possible aesthetic criteria for evaluating dance (such as skill of performers, originality, visual and/or emotional impact, variety and contrast). (NDA, 1996, p. 25) Students are expected not only to use movement as a creative element but to understand their motivations and
creative processes. They are expected to understand the effect of their choices on others, have a perspective of their work in relation to the work of their peers, and have an understanding of its aesthetic value. The thinking
skills to accomplish this are both age-appropriate and demanding. The fifth content standard, "demonstrating and understanding dance in various cultures and historical periods" (NDA, 1996, p. 25), helps dismantle cultural fences for eighth graders as well as for younger children. Puberty is an age of conformity, when differences are not easily accepted, and learning about another culture through dance
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 197 is a window for understanding. At this level, students are
expected to: a. competently perform folk and/or classical dances from various cultures; describe similarities and differences in steps and movement styles b. competently perform folk, social, and/or theatrical dances from a broad spectrum of twentieth-century America c. learn from resources in their own community (such as people, books, and video) a folk dance of a different culture or a social dance of a different time period and the cultural/historical context of that dance, effectively sharing the dance and its context with their peers d. accurately describe the role of dance in at least two different cultures or time periods. (NDA, 1996, pp. 25—26) Inherent in dance is the expression of values and beliefs of any society or period of history from which the dance arises. A study of a culture's dance opens a doorway to this knowledge. Older students make greater "connections between dance and healthful living" (NDA, 1996, p. 26). While fourth graders were expected to simply identify goals and practices, eighth graders are expected to embody their fulfillment. They should be able to: a. identify at least three personal goals to improve themselves as dancers and steps they are taking to reach those goals b. explain strategies to prevent dance injuries c. create their own warm-up and discuss how that warm up prepares the body and mind for expressive purposes. (NDA, 1996, p. 26) Students at this level are expected to madce connections between physical actions and results and understand
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 198 techniques for desired outcomes. Through dance, they are taught to find constructive, healthful practices. They are also expected to make "connections between
dance and other disciplines." Students: a. create a project that reveals similarities and differences between the arts b. cite examples of concepts used in dance and another discipline outside the arts (such as balance, shape, pattern) c. observe the same dance both live and recorded on video; compare and contrast the aesthetic impact of the two observations (NDA, 1996, p. 26) It is interesting to note that while the fourth grade achievement standards refer to academic disciplines outside the arts, the eighth grade standards do not. The older group, however, is expected to conceptualize observations in much greater abstraction and on a much higher intellectual
l e v e l .
Grades Nine Through Twelve The progression extends further at the twelfth grade level. "The standards in this section describe the cumulative skills and knowledge expected of students upon graduation from high school" (NDA, 1996, p. 27) . For grades nine through twelve, standards are set for "proficient" and "advanced" levels. The proficient level is intended for students who have completed courses of study involving relevant skills and knowledge in dance for one to two years beyond grade 8. The advanced level is intended for students who have completed courses of study involving relevant skills and knowledge for three to four years beyond grade 8. (NDA, 1996, p. 27)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199
Students on the advanced level are expected to achieve levels set for "proficient" dancers plus the more advanced
st andard s. Both the Standards printed by MENC and the set reprinted by NDA provide "Outlines of Sequential Learning" in appendix two (CNAEA, 1994, pp. 85-96; NDA, 1996, pp. 37- 47) . These outlines allow for the cpiick comparison of standards for each content standard and individual achievement standards. They parallel related achievement standards with symbols that indicate when (1) the achievement standard at one level is related to more than one achievement standard at another level; (2) the standards appearing at a lower grade level are not repeated, but students at higher grade levels are expected to achieve those standards with higher levels of skill and sophistication; and (3) a standard appearing at a higher level may not be development ally appropriate at lower levels, although learning experiences leading toward the skills associated with the standard are assumed to be taking place. This creates a comprehensive chart from which progress is easily discerned. For the first content standard, "identifying and demonstrating movement elements and skills in performing dance" (NDA, 1996, p. 28), proficient students are expected to:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 200 a. demonstrate appropriate skeletal alignment, body- part articulation, strength, flexibility, agility, and coordination in locomotor and nonloco-motor/axial movements b. identify and demonstrate longer and more complex steps and patterns from two different dance styles/traditions c. demonstrate rh ythmic acuity d. create and perform combinations and variations in a broad dynamic range e. demonstrate projection while performing dance skills f. demonstrate the ability to remember extended movement sequences. (NDA, 1996, p. 28) Advanced students, in addition, should: g. demonstrate a high level of consistency and reliability in performing technical skills h. perform technical skills with artistic expression, demonstrating clarity, musicality, and stylistic nuance i. refine technique through self-evaluation and correction. (NDA, 1996, p. 28) This delineates a progression toward full maturity in dance performance. In the fourth grade standards, the dancer begins with basic movements and kinesthetic, spatial, and rhythmic awareness. In eighth grade, students must exhibit more complex abilities and greater conceptual awareness of dance skills. By twelfth grade, students have gained acuity and proficiency. At the advanced level they are expected to demonstrate a high level of technical ability.
A similar progression in achievement standards is true for the second content standard, "understanding choreographic principles, processes, and structures" (NDA, 1996, p. 29). Proficient students must be able to:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 201 a. use improvisation to generate movement for choreography b. demonstrate understanding of structures or forms (such as palindrome, theme and variation, rondo, round, contemporary forms selected by the student) through brief dance studies c. choreograph a duet demonstrating an understanding of choreographic principles, processes, and structures. (NDA, 1996, p. 29) Advanced students should: d. demonstrate further development and refinement of the proficient skills to create a small group dance with coherence and aesthetic unity e. accurately describe how a choreographer manipulated and developed the basic movement content in a dance. (NDA, 1996, p. 29) It is expected that the high school senior will use increasingly sophisticated and complex choreographic forms
and techniques. The fourth grader is expected to work effectively alone or with a partner; the eighth grader in cooperation with a group ; the proficient twelfth grader is expected to embark on choreography for a duet; and the advanced student is expected to choreograph for a small group, with the ability to explain the choreographic process. The progression is smooth and gradual. The third content standard, "understanding dance as a way to create and communicate meaning," involves a similar gradual growth. Proficient students: a. formulate and answer (questions about how movement choices communicate abstract ideas in dance b. demonstrate understanding of how personal experience influences the interpretation of a dance c. create a dance that effectively communicates a contemporary social theme. (NDA, 1996, p. 29)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 202 Advanced students: d. examine ways that a dance creates and conveys meaning by considering the dance from a variety of perspectives (NDA, 1996, p. 29) e. compare and contrast how meaning is communicated in two of their own choreographic works. (NDA, 1996, p. 29) The progression starts with empirical observation and immediate reactions to dance experiences for the fourth grader, developing towaurd a multifaceted perspective in which the senior analyzes and contrasts a variety of choreographic approaches. With maturity, observations become more conceptual, complex and inclusive of aesthetic
understanding. This leads to the next content standard, "applying and demonstrating critical and creative thinking skills in dance." Proficient students should be able to: a. create a dance and revise it over time, articulating the reasons for their artistic decisions and what was lost and gained by those decisions b. establish a set of aesthetic criteria and apply it in evaluating their own work and that of others c. formulate and answer their own aesthetic questions (such as: What is it that makes a particular dance that dance? How much can one change that dance before it becomes a different dance?). (NDA, 1994, p. 30) And advanced students: d. discuss how skills developed in dance are applicable to a variety of careers e. analyze the style of a choreographer or cultural form; then create a dance in that style f. analyze issues of ethnicity, gender, social/economic class, age and/or physical condition in relation to dance. (NDA, 1996, p. 30) The progression grows from the exploration of given
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203 movement problems in search of multiple solutions, through the ability to define one's own movement problems to create a dance with skills in reworking and revising choreography. Attention is also given, to skills in critical observation, skills in developing aesthetic criteria, and critical a n a l y s i s . By their senior year, students are expected to have a global perspective of dance inclusive of a variety of historical and cultural perspectives. They should easily demonstrate and understand "dance in various cultures and historical periods" (NDA, 1996, p. 30). Proficient students should: a. perform and describe similaritiesand differences between two contemporary theatrical forms of dance b. perform or discuss the traditions and technique of a classical dance form c. create and answer twenty-five questions about dance and dancers prior to the twentieth century d. analyze how dance and dancers are portrayed in contemporary media (NDA, 1996, p. 30) Advanced students: e. create a time line illustrating important dance events in the twentieth century, placing them in their social/historical/cultural/political contexts f. compare and contrast the role and significance of dance in two different social/historical/ cultural/political contexts (NDA, 1996, p. 30) This cultural and historical perspective is necessary if students are to understand the context of their culture and themselves within it. In fourth grade, students are expected to have only a narrow knowledge of cultural and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 204 historical dance forms. The perspective is expected to
broaden with maturity. This is also true of the content standard, "making connections between dance and healthful living." A broader understanding relates the personal perspective to the cultural and historic. Proficient students are expected to: a. reflect upon their own progress and personal growth during their study of dance b. effectively communicate how lifestyle choices affect the dancer c. analyze historical and cultural images of the body in dance and compare these to images of the body in contemporary media. (NDA, 1996, p. 31) Advanced students: d. discuss challenges facing professional performers in maintaining healthy lifestyles. (NDA, 1996, p. 31) One's own improvement is given a sense of development, while knowledge of the healthy practices inherent in dance are expanded to an understanding of the community, the society, and dance as a profession within it. In the final content standards in dance, "making connections between dance and other disciplines" (NDA, 1996, p. 31), it is expected that student achievement will increase quantitatively as well as qualitatively. While fourth graders are required to have an understanding of one other art form or discipline, seniors are expected to work in an interdisciplinary context. Proficient students: a. create an interdisciplinary project based on a theme identified by the student, including dance and two other disciplines b. clearly identify commonalities and differences
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205 between dance and other disciplines with regard to fundamental concepts such as materials, elements, and ways of communicating meaning c. demonstrate/discuss how technology can be used to reinforce, enhance, or alter the dance idea in an interdisciplinary project. (NDA, 1996, p. 31) Advanced students: d. compare one choreographic work to one other artwork from the same culture and time period in terms of how those works reflect the artistic/cultural/historical context e. create an interdisciplinary project using media technologies (such as video, computer) that presents dance in a new or enhanced form (such as video dance, video/computer-aided live performance, or animation) . (NDA, 1996, p. 31) The inclusion of knowledge in technology looks toward the future of dance, in which technology will play an integral and important role. Technical knowledge is already essential for choreographers and dancers in the use of audiotapes and video cassette recorders. A growing knowledge of video techniques, computerized manipulation and multimedia presentation will become a significant component of dance. Presently, most American schools do not include dance in their programming. Compared to the level of expectations that currently exists in most American schools that teach dance, the standards are rigorous and demand significant change. The National Committee for Standards in the Arts wrestled with the philosophical issue whether to provide standards that meet the present availability and accessibility in schools, or to set standards that reflect
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206 the artistic expectations of education professionals in each discipline. A policy decision was made for higher standards, believing they would help generate programs to
fulfill them adequately.^
The Arts Education Assessment Framework and Exercise Specifications
Development of a design for a national assessment was formulated congruently with development of the Standards. in
order to produce a mechanism that could measure progress
toward the standards. This confluence of a standards-setting process and its immediate application in creating a national assessment provides an unprecedented opportunity to align standards and assessment in a model for arts education. (NAEP, 1994, p. 5) Created as part of the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Project and in response to the Goals 2000 bill, the Framework and Specifications were approved by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), which sets policy for NAEP, on March 5, 1994. "The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in
Dr. Frank Philip, Coordinator for the National Assessment of Educational Progress and Co-chair of the National Council of States Arts Education Consultants Task Force, Interview at the press conference held March 11, 1994 by Rima Faber; also mentioned by Dr. John J. Mahlmann, Project Director for the National Committee for Standards in the Arts, in his speech in the press conference held March 11, 1994.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 207 various subject areas" (NAEP, 1994, p. 4). "Music was previously assessed in 1972 and 1978, and the visual arts in 1975 and 1978" (NAEP, p. 1), but this Framework and its accompanying Specifications mark the first time assessments have ever included dance or theater. The development of assessments for the arts was a project of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), which sub-contracted the College Board and the Council for Basic Education. In an eighteen-month period, from September 1992 until March 1994, a thirty-two-member planning committee, chaired by Dr. Frank Philip (CCSSO) with guidance from a steering committee, "was responsible for reaching consensus on content and contributing to the assessment framework and the other design documents" (CNAEA, 1994, p. 2). The committee was composed of "K through twelve" teachers, arts educators from higher education, practicing artists, assessment specialists, and lay persons. The twenty-nine-person Steering Committee (co-chaired by Ramsay Selden, Project Director and Director of the State Education Assessment Center at CCSSO, and A. Graham Down, President of the Council on Basic Education) included representatives from professional education organizations, parent groups, artist organizations, representatives from business, policymadcers, and the public at large. "The Steering Committee provided policy and procedural guidance during the process" (NAEP, 1994, p. 2) .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208 The Framework and Specifications were designed, not as a mechanism to rate individual children, but "as a large- scale national assessment" (NAEP, 1994, p. 17) to establish what all American students know and can do in the arts, as a basis for policy decisions. They are consequently termed "The Nation's Report Card." Given the statistically significant matrix sampling of students, the assessment allows the NAEP to draw inferences about "What Every Young American Should Know and Be Able to Do in the Arts" without testing every child and without asking every question in every arts area. As such, the construction of the Framework and Specifications was both simple and complex— simple because there is substantial agreement about the ends of an arts education, but complex because of the difficulty in constructing an assessment which accurately appraises students' achievement on a national level with all the variables of experience and environment, and delivers it in a cost and time efficient manner. (NAEP, 1994, p. 17)
It was a process built "from a broad base of national input," and meant to "define and refine an essence of knowledge and experience in the arts from the rich and diverse array of possibility." (NAEP, 1994, p. 17.) The Framework suggests and recommends specific assessment formats to be used. They serve as models upon which to construct assessment systems, address the problems that might be faced, and suggest their possible solutions.
They outline an evaluation process rather than dictate a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209 particular system. For dance, music, theatre, and the visual arts, the framework describes the learning expected of of students in (1) knowledge and understanding about the arts, and (2) perceptual, technical, expressive, and intellectual/reflective skills. The assessment framework is formed of a matrix in which the knowledge and skills for each discipline form one axis and the application of this knowledge and skill forms the other. Application in the arts is defined as students creating, performing, or responding to the arts. (Kendall and Marzano, 1995, Section 2) The Assessment Framework for Dance "depicts the expectations of dance education" and delineates the skills and concepts that "students should know and be able to do" that are inherent in the artistic processes in dance. (NAEP, 1994, pp. 22-23.) It describes the achievement levels expected and provides content outlines for grades four, eight and twelve, dividing the necessary knowledge into three categories: creating, performing and responding. When actively involved in these processes, students not only learn about dance, but they also learn through and within dance. Dance skills and technique weave throughout the process of creating, performing and responding. Similarly, students use and apply knowledge of different dance forms and styles (esthetics) , and personal, social, cultural, and historical contexts whether they are creating, performing or responding. (NAEP, 1994, p. 22) It was recognized that the importance of each of these three artistic processes varies at different points of development. The recommended percentages of the time allotted to each varies accordingly (Table 1): When computing the total scores for the dance assessment, the relative weights for creating, performing, and responding should reflect the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 210 proportion of time spent at each grade level on each process. (CNAEA, 1994, p. 50)
TABLE 1 RECOMMENDED TIME PERCENTAGES FOR DANCE Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12 Creating . . . 40% 20% 30% Performing . . 30% 40% 30% Responding . . 30% 40% 40%
Source: CNAEA, 1994, p. 50.
Designed in coordination with the new National Standards for Arts Education, the Assessment Framework also sets high expectations for both the content and achievement of student learning. It describes three levels of
achievement: basic, proficient and advanced. According to NAEP, Basic denotes partial mastery of the content but performance that is only fundamental for adequate work at the three grade levels. Proficient represents solid academic achievement and competency over challenging subject matter. Advanced performance on this assessment represents achievement that is equal to that expected of top students. (NAEP, 1994, p. 53) This structure provides an assessment process that adapts the goals, objectives and content of the Standards into a system that can effectively evaluate "what every American student knows and is able to do" in order to inform educational policy makers. While the Framework outlines a structure for assessment to guide the creation of specific assessment exercises, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 211 Specifications offer specific definitions of assessment processes, provide assessment exercises that involve the artistic processes of creating, performing and responding in each of the artistic disciplines, and suggest formats for their functional implementation. They were prepared by The Council of Chief State School Offices with The College Board
and The Council for Basic Education. A thirty-two-member planning committee, chaired by Dr. Frank Philip and composed of "K through twelve" teachers, arts educators from higher education, practicing artists, assessment specialists, and lay persons worked over eighteen months to develop the design. The specification document is concerned with issues
of administration and facilitation in the arts assessment and serves as a blueprint or working drawing for the contractor who is developing the assessment test. It provides a higher level of specificity and clarity needed to construct the assessment exercises. Standardizing an assessment of learning in dance confronts unique challenges due to the fact that dance is a physical art form that involves the human body both as an instrument and as a thinking medium. First, the art form itself is temporal; it leaves few lasting traces and no permanent objects to assess. Second, evidence of learning in dance can be particularly difficult to separate from innate ability because all children are constantly developing and practicing their instrument— their body. Because the child's body is both an instrument of art making in dance and an everyday functional body, a dance assessment must be careful to distinguish between
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 212 growth and learning that is the result of dance training and that which comes from another source. . . . In addition, dance has no universally accepted pedagogy or method for instruction. Because so little dance instruction exists in schools, the assessment must be extremely careful to avoid biasing the exercises by embracing only a narrow range of styles. . . . The newly introduced National Standards encourage the teaching of dance in its broadest context. The assessment must address both the goals of the National Standards and what currently exists in schools. (NAEP, 1994, p. 26)
B o t h the F r a m e w o r k and Specifications recommend the videotaping of dance exercises in order to record the movement skills of the students and their creative solutions to the problems posed. Although the widespread use of videotape is a viable solution to the difficulties of assessment recordation in dance, this presents problems or
limitations in that: - Some students may be more affected than others by the presence of a camera. Consequently, certain students may respond differently to an exercise if a camera is present than they would if no camera were present. - Subtlety and nuance of behavior is often lost in the translation from three to two dimensions. - It is difficult to position video camera so that every student's performance is accurately recorded throughout an entire exercise. (NAEP, 1994, p. 178) It also presents technical requirements that may be difficult for some schools to accommodate, although technological advances in electronics are occurring so rapidly and have become so widespread that most schools now regularly employ audio and video equipment. These concerns must be taken into consideration, but they certainly are not stumbling blocks to fair and accurate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 213 assessment. The greatest problem was standardizing the delivery of the examination during the performance portion, because dancers are not "standardized" individuals. To make the assessment valid, the facilitator, in essence, must become the "booklet." The experience, knowledge, unbiased perceptions and clarity of the assessment facilitator and the appropriateness of the assessment exercises will have the greatest bearing on the effectiveness and accuracy of the appraisal. Goals 2000 has established a system for the implementation of educational standards in the arts, a mechanism for their periodic review, and a means for change if and when necessary. The Standards are a milestone for the initiation of dance in schools on a national scale, and the NAEP assessment Framework and Specif ications provide the data to be evaluated for a periodic review. Change is the basis for growth. If arts education is to develop and keep pace with cultural and societal changes, the system must allow for evolution. With the formation of an assessment process, this has begun.
Opportunitv-to-Learn Standards for Dance
After the Standards and Assessments were accepted by the Department of Education, the National Dance Association created Opportunitv-to-Learn Standards to ensure that all
American children will be provided an environment conducive
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 214 to learning dance. These standards address issues such as curriculum and scheduling, staffing, materials and equipment, and facilities for the preschool ages as well as each of the grade levels represented in the achievement standards. They were developed by of the Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, the four major arts agencies that served as the Coordinating Council in creating the Standards. and first published in 1995 as a separate booklet inclusive of all the arts, but copyrights were held by the individual associations that created them. NDA later included the opportunity-to-learn standards for dance in their association publication of The National Standards for Dance Education (1996). The introduction explains that "standards for schools
are just as important as standards for students" (NDA, 1996). In 1992, the National Council on Education Standards and Testing specified that "School Delivery Standards" are an essential component of national standards. It is obviously unfair to expect students to meet achievement standards in any discipline, including the arts, unless they are given reasonable opportunities to learn the skills and knowledge specified. They must be provided with the necessary support by the school, including sufficient courses, staffing, materials and equipment, and facilities. Similarly, it is unfair to hold teachers accountable for the students meeting the standards unless they too are ensured adequate time, materials, and other necessary conditions for teaching. And it is misleading for a school to claim a commitment to teaching the arts unless it offers learning opportunities consistent with that claim. (NDA, 1996, introduction)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215 The opportunity-to-learn standards for dance were developed by a team of experts from the ranks of NDA. "These opportunity-to-learn standards represent the best collective thinking of experienced arts educators who are qualified by their background and training to offer recommendations concerning the conditions necessary for effective learning." (NDA, 1996, introduction.) The author was included in this group, which did not meet together but submitted versions and revisions to Jane Bonbright, President of NDA. The group was instructed to create standards that should ideally exist, not to reduce standards to meet what is present reality for most schools. The standards therefore "are indeed high, but they are achievable." (NDA, 1996, introduction.) It is understood that "not all schools will be able to meet every one of the standards immediately, but every school should implement a plan to phase in the standards over a specified period."
(NDA, 1996, introduction.) The purpose of creating opportunity-to-learn standards is to help the schools understand what is necessary to attain the achievement standards in the arts and support
their endeavors. When students meet achievement standards specified, it makes no difference that the school may fall short in certain opportunity-to-learn standards. It has obviously found a way to compensate for those shortcomings. But when students fail to meet the achievement standards, the opportunity-to-learn standards can help to identify possible reasons for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 216 their failure so that the situation can be remedied. (NDA, 1996, introduction)
Curriculum and Scheduling
The curriculum and scheduling must provide sufficient learning experiences in dance for students to meet the content and achievement standards appropriate for each grade level, and offer opportunities to create, perform and respond to dance as specified in the Assessment Frameworks. For preschoolers, movement in the form of creative dance should be integrated into the curriculum throughout the day,
but for the older students it builds sequentially with specific studio space and courses. The dance curriculum must be "designed to meet a set of
standards specific to dance education" (NDA, 1996, p. 9) , whether national, state, or local school district guidelines. Courses must provide opportunities for creating, performing, viewing, analyzing, and responding to dance to develop skills in physical movement, aesthetic appreciation, the choreographic process, and critical thinking. Community involvement is encouraged, and great attention is given to the needs of students with special challenges.
Staffing
Too often, dance classes in schools are taught by artists who have little understanding of children, or by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217 teachers who have had little education in dance. The dance teacher of preschoolers must have formal training in early childhood development but need not possess technical proficiency in dance, but the teacher for the older grades must be a professional dance educator. Awareness of the educational process and the needs of the students, including the needs of special students, is a priority. The teacher must be able to integrate dance with other disciplines and school activities, as well as create partnerships with the greater community. For the teacher to maintain current professional knowledge and teaching practices, the school must provide ample professional development opportunities. "In order that the instructional program of every student is adequately coordinated at each level from school to school" it is recommended that "one dance educator in every district or school is designated as coordinator, or administrator to provide leadership for the dance program." (NDA, 1966, p. 8.)
Materials and Equipment
There are certain requisites necessary for a dance program, whether preschool age or high school: adequate audio equipment for the reproduction of sound in a large space, music that represents a wide variety of styles and cultures, props that can serve as improvisational and compositional stimulus, and access to books and research
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 218 about dance and dance history- Video cameras and video cassette recorders are also standard equipment for dance education, with a wide variety of videotapes and films of dances from a variety of cultures, time periods, dance forms, and dance styles. All equipment must be maintained in good repair and a budget provided that includes both the
purchase of supplies and maintenance.
Facilities
Every school with a dance program provides a dance classroom appropriate for the size of the classes being offered. Dance classes require a clear, clean space with good ventilation, convenient electrical outlets, and an even, smooth resilient floor with the dimensions of at least 30'X40'. . . . The room provides good lighting and supports comfortable temperatures throughout the academic year. (NDA, 1996, p. 11) These requirements are basic. In addition, the dance space must be free from distractions and other classes or people passing through. A bulletin board and chalk board should be available, as well as storage space. While the preschool class needs to be cautioned about the space being "clear of all furniture and protruding objects" (NDA, 1996, p. 3), the older classes require
barres, mirrors, and the acoutrements of the professional dance studio. The high school students should also have access to a secured performance space, and both dance classrooms and stage should be available after school and in evening hours for rehearsal and performance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 219 A National Vision
The National Standards for Arts Education address a national vision for the arts. The Qpportunitv—to—Learn Standards delineates the environment necessary to achieve the standards. The NAEP Assessment Framework provides a general description of current arts education programming provided in American public schools. (NAEP, 1994, p. 110). Concerning dance, it acknowledges that: Most American public school students have little access to organized K-12 dance education. They instead gain their knowledge of dance through the media and in social settings rather than as part of their regular public school experience. . . . But few students outside of specialized schools for the arts experience dance as a form of artistic expression, complete with its vocabulary and rich cultural, historical and aesthetic integrity. (NAEP, 1994, p. 110) The Framework points out that, although many states have created and distributed thoughtfully-developed guidelines for dance, "dance education across the country exists more on paper than in practice." (NAEP, 1994, p.
1 1 0 . ) Critics of the new arts Standards complain that this
will be another paper castle, but combined with the newly legislated Goals 2000: The Educate America Act, a system for implementation has been set into motion. The accompanying Standards and Assessments documents are convincing arguments for the crucial role of the arts in American future. If our civilization is to continue to be both dynamic and nurturing, its success will ultimately depend on how well we develop the capacities of our culture, not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 220 only to earn a living in a vastly complex world, but to live a life rich in meaning. The vision this document holds out affirms that a future worth having depends on being able to construct a vital relationship with the arts, and that doing so, as with any other subject, is a matter of discipline and study. (CNAEA, 1994, p. 5) The acceptance of dance as an important element in
education lags far behind music and the visual arts, but a change in the awareness on the part of educators is in
process. A promising note for dance is the recent surge of recognition nationally of the importance of kinesthetic learning. Interest in multiple intelligences and learning styles has led teachers and principals to search for effective, non-competitive approaches to movement education. In addition, the inclusion of dance in state and national efforts such as National Arts Standards Project and this NAEP assessment framework promise to impact the field of dance education as well. (NAEP, 1994, p. 110) A new era is dawning for all of the arts in American schools. If arts education has suffered from lingering inadequate perceptions on the part of educators, teachers,
and the public, the events of March, 1994, offered an antidote. Dance, along with music, theater, and the visual arts, gained well-deserved recognition equal to other academic disciplines. USA can finally stand for the United State of the Arts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER V THE FUTURE: DISSEMINATION, IMPLEMENTATION,
ADVOCACY, AND A VISION
In the euphoria of March, 1994, artists were dreaming of an arts education program in every school, arts specialists in every district, children who learn to appreciate the arts as an aspect of their lives to be valued, respected, and understood, and a future population
of knowledgeable and appreciative audiences and connoisseurs. Hope was high for the opening of job opportunities and a world in which artists of all disciplines could earn a comfortable income. But: On November 8, 1994, shortly after the last piece of legislation was signed into law, the nation took a turn to the right, and the Republican party took control of the 104th Congress. Among the items on the agenda of some Republican leaders is the elimination or redesign of the Department of Education and much of the education legislation overwhelmingly passed by the previous Congress. (Smith, 1995, p. 9) Plans concerning dissemination, implementation, and advocacy to fulfill a national vision for arts education became very much more difficult to achieve, but imperative. Dissemination and implementation of the Standards were
221
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 222
major concerns discussed even before the work of the National Committee for Standards in the Arts drew to a close. Once The National Standards for Arts Education were accepted and the Oversight Committee dissolved, the focus became the philosophical and practical issues involved in executing broad dissemination and implementation and meiking them effective through advocacy and teacher training. The Consortium of Arts Education Associations, the U.S. Department of Education, and the Council of Chief State School Officers were the major advocacy engines for the dissemination and implementation of the Standards and Assessments. The Consortium of Arts Education Associations (which had been the Coordinating Council for the duration of the Standards project; hereafter referred to as the
Consortium) received a grant from the MacArthur and Dodge foundations to disseminate the Standards. publish information, and produce conferences, particularly in the areas of advocacy and teacher training. The U.S. Department of Education's efforts were committed to the mechanisms inherent in Goals 2000 to encourage and simplify measures by which the states could receive funding for the implementation of standards. The Council of Chief State School Officers focused attention on the implementation of assessments and the creation of partnerships with school districts and communities. This chapter exeunines the Oversight Committee's
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 223 suggestions for implementation of the standards for dance education, the activities of the Consortium, the strategies of the Clinton administration for the enactment of Goals 2000, and explores their impact. It relates the problems faced by Goals 2000 and the implementation of the Standards in view of current negative attitudes prevailing in certain constituencies amd in Congress concerning the role of federal involvement in both the arts and education, and the consequent impact on funding. It analyzes the misconceptions about the Standards held by a segment of the public. In these respects, it examines the chasm between desired outcomes and reality. It then discusses the need for arts and dance advocacy and investigates the role of each of the stake holders— who they are and what problems they encounter in relation to the Standards. It finishes with suggestions for possible courses of action and provides a vision for future dance education in the schools.
Dissemination and Implementation
When Graham Down opened the final meeting of the
Oversight Committee on March 11, 1994, he announced that "we must mount an effective national strategy for implementation of the standards. He noted that this phase would be more
difficult than the work completed to date" (Minutes, March 11, 1994, p. 1) . The absence of a united arts advocacy mechanism was well understood, as well as the lack of an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 224
advocacy infrastructure throughout much of the United S t a t e s . These issues were formally discussed during proceedings as early as July 1, 1993, possibly in reference to the grass-roots effort to disseminate the draft Standards. At that time, Grcdieun Down "asked for suggested additions to the list of organizations compiled for dissemination of the standards." This implied that a list had already been initiated. (Minutes, July 1, 1993, p. 10.) As previously mentioned (page 163), Joseph Polisi warned that the implementation of the Standards would be complicated by the fact that "arts instruction has no supporting infrastructure in many areas of the country." He said, however, discussions with colleagues around the country show wide agreement that these standards could be a "glue" binding together a movement toward a renaissance of the arts in America. He identified a need to create an advocacy structure that ensures that the standards get into the right hands. (Minutes, July 1, 1993, p. 10) His suggestion was to "create a campaign for artistic capital, structured the same way a fund raising campaign might be run" (Minutes, July 1, 1993, p. 10). Its objectives would be to carry out artseducation advocacy based on the standards. It would work through local representatives— artists, teachers in the field, and community members— who would go out and meüce sure that the standards process is being supported. . . . He suggested that the effort would be inclusive, apolitical, and would offer no threat to existing organizations. (Minutes, July 1, 1993, p. 10) Gregory Anrig countered with a suggestion recommending
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 225 that "efforts build on existing efforts" and cited as models the work of the Music Educators National Conference (MENC) and its partners in the National Coalition for Music Education: the National Association of Music Merchants and National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences. Gordon Ambach, from the Council of Chief State School Officers,
concurred and "suggested it would be important to
investigate the possibilities of embedding the standards advocacy efforts in existing efforts." (Minutes, July 1, 1993, p. 10-11. ) He linked the issue of advocacy with the necessity of providing clear opportunity-to-learn standards. "Before people will buy content standards, therefore, they must have a sense of what is needed for realization of those content standards." (Minutes, July 1, 1993, p. 11.) Ann Lynch opposed this as a separate concern but, from a perspective as former President of the National Parent Teacher Association, she pointed out the importance of broadening "the coalition beyond arts professionals to
parents, school board members, and other people who have no real handle on the issues facing arts education." It was decided that Down, Polisi, and Lynch would meet to discuss possible advocacy efforts.
Implementation was not formally focused on again until the meeting on January 31, 1994, at which the final draft of The National Standards for Arts Education was approved by
the committee. By then, efforts for disbursement were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226 supported by grants from the MacArthur and Dodge foundations. It was structurally similar to the grant to create the Standards. given on behalf of the Consortium of Arts Education Agencies to be administered by MENC. John Mahlmann summarized plans, noting that Down and Gordon Cawelti were co-chairing the project. "The project will result in a publication covering five issues and strategies for seven constituencies. . . . In addition, he said, there will be a series of brochures." (Minutes, January 31, 1994.) These would be publications by MENC in cooperation with the Consortium (Senko, 1997c). Mahlmann said the papers will describe the barriers involved and how agencies can get involved. It will include "advocacy pieces." "The target audience, he said, is any of the people who can have a role in the implementation of the standards." (Minutes, January 31, 1994.) At the same meeting, Joseph Polisi raised his earlier suggestion of a capital culture campaign. The infrastructure for teaching the arts, both in the public and private sectors, is deteriorating. In order to implement the standards, we must be aggressive in an ongoing way. There needs, he said, to be an effort to get people involved in teaching, committing resources, and embracing the concept. We have already lost a percentage of the teacher corps and of resources." (Minutes, January 31, 1994) He recommended a five-year project that "would produce publication, organize volunteers in all fifty states, and take on activities to make the standards stick. . . . A task
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 227 force is needed to start at square one and move up" (Minutes, January 31, 1994, p. 13-14). Mahlmann offered to house such an organization at MENC. A series of practical suggestions were offered.
Leilani Lattin Duke, of the Getty Center for Education in the Arts, referred to the role technology should play. "She
suggested that video be considered because most people get information through television or at least through videotape. She also suggested the use of teleconferencing
and related media." (Minutes, January 31, 1994, p. 14.) Dave Master of California suggested the creation of "a videotape of the Secretary and members of the Committee." Samuel Hope, National Office for Arts Accreditation in Higher Education, recommended "the development of a set of talking points to send to members. This would be a page or two of things to say in conversations with colleagues and
with the public." (Minutes, January 31, 1994, p. 15.) Asked by Harriet Fulbright "whether the Department of Education will be behind these efforts in an ongoing fashion," Mahlmann replied "that he was not certain." Questioned further about obtaining a supportive statement from DOE, Mahlmann went on to say that "the Secretary will do so when he accepts the standards in early March. Also, in a sense, the department's continuing support of Goals
2000 is support for the standards." (Minutes, January 31, 1994, p. 14.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 228 Shirley Ririe pointed out the harsh reality of the situation for dance, "that there is no advocacy for theatre and dance at the state level; someone is needed to organize there" (Minutes, January 31, 1994, p. 15). The final meeting of the National Committee for Standards in the Arts was held on March 11, 1994, the day The National Standards for Arts Education were accepted by Secretary Riley at a press conference held at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Implementation was a major issue discussed. Mahlmann noted that: implementation strategies are going forward with funds from the MacArthur and Dodge foundations. A publication is being prepared that assessesissues related to the standards and lists strategies to accomplish implementation-related tasks with various groups. He noted the various associations are cooperating in the venture. (Minutes, March 11, 1994, p. 9) He announced an advocacy kit to promote the Standards would be created.
Mahlmann informed the Committee that the press conference had been covered by the McNeil Lehrer Report, NPR, ABC, NBC, Fox, and wire services. "He also informed the committee that the satellite feed from the press conference had been edited and transmitted over satellite at two o'clock." (Minutes, March 11, 1994, p. 9.) This, he said, represents a good start, but he advised committee members to keep the presence of bad press in mind: the Atlanta press had printed a story saying that achieving the standards is not possible (though MENC's state president in Georgia had listed 12 schools now achieving substantial portions of the standards). He said that some press will ask hardball questions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 229
(Minutes, March 11, 1994, p. 9) Glenn Connor stressed the necessity for unity among the arts. "If they can be brought to look at themselves as a part of the arts rather them a single art, he said, they would be more powerful." (Minutes, March 11, 1994, p. 10.) Master suggested that professional associations should "devote parts of conferences to politicization and grass roots organization" (Minutes, March 11, 1994, p. 10). Ann Lynch was realistic, once again raising the question of the
need to address those members of the community who are either unaware of or antagonistic to the arts: "The bottom line, she said, is the voters, and there is very little community support beyond the arts community itself. She asked for an infusion of enthusiasm." (Minutes, March 11, 1994, p. 10.) In the end, Mahlmann summarized the ultimate goal : "The real issue is kids . . . to put serious money behind their concern for the children of this country" (Minutes, March 11, 1994, p. 11).
Administration Strategies for Enactment
The administrative mechanisms inherent in Goals 2000 strive to facilitate and simplify the bureaucratic system. The aims of the Goals are to: (1) set high goals of
achievement for all students in America; (2) develop a means of measuring student levels of achievement towards the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 230 attainment of these goals; (3) facilitate the means by which these goals could be enacted by states and local school districts, and; (4) create a means by which the goals could be reviewed periodically and changed when necessary. The first two were achieved by the arts community in March, 1994. The National Standards for Arts Education were the first national standards to be completed and presented to Secretary of Education Richard Riley for acceptance. It was the first time national standards for education had been
instituted for any subject. The Department of Education enacted methods of implementation developed in Goals 2000 to cut through bureaucratic tape, simplifying the process by which states could apply for funds and implement the national standards. These methods are, indeed, encouraging states to apply for funding and implement the Goals. The fourth goal, unfortunately, has been defeated in
the political crossfire of Congress. Meant as a "check" in a check and balance system, the review mechanism became a political focus, if not scapegoat, for those opposed to Goals 2000 and was eliminated. Goals 2000 was enacted with bipartisan congressional support as well as backing of the major business, education, and labor groups in the nation. "Never before has the federal government enacted legislation designed to help the states and school districts to upgrade the quality of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 231 core academic program for all students." The legislation "pursues the legitimate national interest of helping to improve America's schools while simultaneously respecting traditions for control over education by state and local governments." (Smith, 1995, p. 17.) Title I of Goals 2000 delineates the eight national goals. Title 11 institutes mechanisms for continual review and change. It "establishes in law the National Education Goals Panel (NEGP) and the National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC)." (Smith, 1995, p. 17.) NEGP was originally initiated in 1990 by President Bush and the governors "as a unique bipartisan body of state and federal officials, to help build consensus of educational improvement and to monitor and report on progress toward achieving the national education goals" (Smith, 1995, p. 17). NESIC was intended to be more broadly based; a successor to the bipartisan National Council on Education Standards and Testing which, in 1992, had recommended the creation of voluntary standards. While NESIC was "seen by some to be integral to the reform effort," few believed that it would ever exist (Smith, 1995, pp. 18-19). The sword of criticism had a double edge. On the one side, because the legislation made clear that the voluntary standards were truly voluntary, it meant that: In effect, states could safely ignore NESIC and the voluntary national standards. . . . The ambiguity of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 232 NESIC's role in relationship to the refomns has contributed to the probable demise of the council. (Smith, 1995, p. 18) On the other side, the conservatives held a "more alarmist view" that:
NESIC could expand on the educational role and become, in effect, a politically appointed 'national school board' that could potentially exceed legislative intent in its influence over curricular and other educational decisions that are traditionally vested in state and local authorities. (Smith, 1995, p. 19) Congress delayed the nominations for appointment to the council, and plans for it were abolished in the budget bill signed into law on April 26, 1996.
The lack of clear strategy for the goals panel as well as NESIC's troubles suggest to some that the national movement toward standards-based reforms is endangered. The facts, however, seem to belie this concern. National support for the standards movement has been as much, if not more, a product of nonfederal national organizations than of the federal government. (Smith, 1995, p. 19.) Title III provides grants to states to plan and implement reforms that would serve all students. The grants are designed to serve broadly. States may use funds for statewide projects or funnel funds to local school districts. The initial application is easy, involving a simple four-page form in which to indicate how the state is planning for reform; after two years the state must obtain approval of a larger plan to continue funding.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 233 To take part in Goals 2000. states and school districts are asked by law to establish a broad participatory process that involves parents and other local community representatives in planning, developing, and implementing strategies for reform of the educational system. (Smith, 1995, p. 20.) The procedural emphasis in Goals 2000 is "on professional judgment, with a focus on substantive matters
and outcomes, instead of on compliance with procedures and rules." The new provisions are designed "to support local and state reform and flexibility. . . . [T]he department has provided general guidance, with an emphasis on examples and demonstrations of good practice." (Smith, 1995, p. 21.) Support is offered for technical assistance and applied research and development. "The hope is that the new law . . . will change the way federal programs operate at the state and local level, break down the existing categorical structure, and encourage state and local educators to take a broader, more integrated view of their efforts." (Smith, 1995, p. 25.)
Misconceptions of the Standards by the Public
In a country traditionally mistrustful of federal control of education, many public misconceptions have arisen concerning Goals 2000 that have fed negatively to its acceptance. Theodore Sizer, a prominent leader in education reform and chairman of the Coalition of Essential Schools, expressed a wide-spread suspicion at a symposium on May 18, 1994, at the Brookings Institute.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 234 The process of establishing the standards repeatedly raises the question of who sets them. When you or I or some commission demands that "we" must have standards, who is this "we" and what right do "we," as defined, have to do those things? We— whoever we are— are dealing with youngsters' minds and hearts, a matter of their fundamental intellectual freedom. No freedom is more precious in a democracy than intellectual freedom. The question of who the "we" is is not a trivial one. (Sizer, 1995, p. 34) There is a general distrust in the United States of anything that hints of federal control of education and an alarm that "an astonishingly quick shift has taken place over recent years in American political expectations toward a federal or national role for the substance of schooling" (Sizer, 1995, p. 35) . Sizer seems unaware of the sensitivity toward this issue inherent in the grassroots effort to create the national standards. Sizer's criticisms of Goals 2000 revolve around four major points (Sizer, 1995, p. 35-37): 1. standards and assessments designed by people remote from the immediacy of schools will likely not be rigorous. 2. There is log rolling. . . . The process is, essentially, political and much of it has nothing to do with children and teaching. 3. Most current recommendations reinforce the factory metaphor; they are lists. . . . Little incentive exists in the process to pay careful attention to the growing understandings from cognitive science, particularly in the rich differences among children in the ways of learning and thinking. 4. Little more than rhetorical concern is displayed for the "savage inequities" of America's "two nations" of schools.
Sizer seems to have been either ignorant of the policies and processes involved in the formation of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 235
Standards. or mistrustful of their integrity and value- Certainly, in view of the issues addressed in the development of standards for the arts, these concerns were both foreseen and resolved: 1. It was decided from the onset that the standards would be "forward looking" and not "dumbed-down" to be achieved
easily by the status quo. 2. Bureaucratic red tape has been reduced to a minimum so that states can create plans and attain funds as smoothly as possible. In addition, a system of checks and balances was created within the structure of the Goals so that standards would maintain a democratic bipartisan review process. 3. The Standards were created with great care to not
contain or dictate specific curriculum, leaving districts the freedom to decide how to achieve them according to local beliefs and values. 4. These "savage inequities" were the very impetus to create national standards for all students. It was these inconsistencies of expectations and outcomes that generated
national concern. Sizer voiced only a few of the many misconceptions held by the general public concerning the Standards. The U.S. Department of Education has addressed the problem of miscommunication by means of an information site on the internet:
As the federal government carries out this new role of the flexible support for states and local school
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236
improvement efforts, some misconceptions have arisen about GOALS 2000. The 1996 Appropriations Act amended Goals 2000 to clarify some of the misinformation about Goals 2000. (http://www.ed.gov/G2K/myths.html) The Department of Education internet entry focuses upon eight common concerns about Goals 2000. listed below with the DOE responses : 1. Goals 2000 will lead to a federal government takeover of local education. Reality: Section 318 of the GOALS 2000:Educate America Act makes it absolutely clear that there are no mandates, and there will be no federal takeover. "Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school's curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act." Section 319 of the Act again clarifies that Congress "reaffirms that the responsibility for control of education is reserved to the States and local school systems. The goal of Goals 2000: Educate America Act is to encourage local community-based actions that meet pressing educational needs, help more students achieve to higher standards, increase parental participation, and improve teaching. Goals 2000 provides federal support for local and state reforms. The Act provides great flexibility in how states and communities develop and implement their reform plans. There are specific statements throughout the GOALS 2000 Act that nothing in the Act will reduce, modify, or undercut state and local responsibility for control of education. In addition, participation in Goals 2000 is completely voluntary. 2. Our schools will henceforth be pushed toward a philosophy known as Outcome—Based Education (OBE). Reality: The legislation does not promote any particular education philosophy or approach; that is a local decision. Goals 2000 focuses on upgrading academic achievement and preparing students for the world of work. Each state, school district, and school determines what content it wants students to learn, and whether or not that content should focus strictly on core academic and basic skills. The federal government will not be involved in those kinds of local decisions. In addition, an amendment to Goals 2000 in the 1996 appropriations Act mandates that the federal government
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 237
cannot, as a condition of receiving Goals 2000 assistance, require a state, local education agency, or a school, to provide Outcome-Based education. 3. Goals 2000 creates the National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC), which will act as a "national school board" and control what is taught in the classroom. Realitv; NESIC was eliminated upon passage of the 1996 Appropriation Act. NESIC was initially recommended in 1992 by a bipartisan group, authorized by Congress and appointed by Secretary Lêunar Alexander, and co-chaired by Governor Carroll Campbell (R—SC) and Governor Roy Romer (D-CO). The council included, among others. Representative Goodling, Senator Hatch, Lynne Cheney, and Chester Finn. The purpose of the council was to provide an independent review of the quality of model national and state academic standards being developed by states and professional organizations in each discipline. These standards would have been submitted voluntarily. There was no requirement that a state receive certification as a condition of participating in any federal education program, such as Chapter 1, Drug-Free Schools, vocational education, or Goals 2000. 4. Goals 2000 requires the use of National Standards, such as the recently released national history standards. Reality: Under Goals 2000, states and school districts determine their own academic standards that outline what they want their children to learn. If they choose, states and communities can use voluntary national standards developed by professional organizations as models to design their own challenging standards. Several states are developing their own standards. The use of national standards is voluntary. No funds are tied to the use of these standards, or of any subset of these standards. No law or regulation requires their use in any way. Although the initial release of the history standards evoked a great deal of controversy, the standards have since been revised, and efforts to develop voluntary national standards in other content areas— coordinated by such groups as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the Center for Civic Education, and the National; Geographic Society— have been well received. Drafts of these standards have been reviewed by hundreds of teachers and other concerned citizens. The standards represent what teachers and scholars believe students should know in subject areas such as math, geography, civics, and the arts at certain points in their education.The much
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 238
acclaimed math standards, released in 1989, are being used in classrooms across the nation. 5. GOALS 2000 will encourage the proliferation of school-based health clinics, and move schools away from the fundamental duty of education and into the provision of reproductive services. Realitv: The focus of GOALS 2000 : Educate America Act is improving student achievement, and promoting greater participation in education. GOALS 2000 does not change the fact that decisions regarding school-based health clinics and the distribution of contraceptives remain a state and local responsibility. In addition, section 1018 of the Act requires that states and local communities who choose to use federal funds for health programs must develop procedures to encourage family participation in such programs. The 1996 Appropriations Act also included an amendment that expressly states that GOALS 2000 may not be construed to require a state, local education agency, or a school, as a condition of receiving GOALS 2000 assistance, to provide school based health clinics or social services. 6. GOALS 2000 is another burdensome federal program with a multitude of rules and regulations. Realitv: GOALS 2000 is a "responsible block grant." It sets broad objectives and goals, but allows the states to determine the means to reach them. The Department of Education has designed a streamlined application procedure for states that cuts paperwork considerably. The initial application for states to request GOALS 2000 money was only 4 pages long, asks only for information required by law to award funds, and eliminates numerous forms. 7. Goals 2000 promotes opportunity-to-learn standards that focus on inputs rather than standards for student achievement. Realitv: GOALS 2000 reflects an unwavering commitment to results. Developing and implementing challenging standards for what students should know and be able to do in key subject areas, and effectively measuring students performance against these standards, are cornerstones of the bill. States and school districts- -not the federal government— will define and monitor these standards. The federal government will not be involved in monitoring individual schools or teachers. In addition, the 1996 Appropriation Act eliminates the authority to establish voluntary model national opportunity-to-learn standards as well as the requirement that states describe their "standards or strategies" for providing all students an opportunity to learn. 8. The Goals 2000 Act is the result of the liberal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 239
education establishment's wish list. Realitv: GOALS 2000 passed the Congress with strong bipartisan support, and has been endorsed by national business organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Alliance of Business, the Business Roundtable, and the National Association of Manufacturers. The GOALS 2000 Act supports an education reform agenda that was spearheaded by governors of both parties. It is a balanced bill, one that provides national leadership and some federal funds to support grassroots, bottom-up reform. (http: //WWW. ed.gov/G2K/myths.html) The fourth issue raised expresses mistrust about the National Standards. The overall assurance of the responses is that these are "voluntary" standards. State and local districts maintain complete autonomy in both accepting the Standards and creating their own curriculum. The Standards remain a grassroots effort. They were created and are being implemented "from the bottom up."
Concerns about the Standards
Many dancers harbor concerns about national standards for dance education. These questions imply three perspectives: (1) concerns about national standards, (2) concerns about arts education, and (3) concerns about dance education. General concerns about the national standards and standards for arts education were addressed by Eliot Eisner in a presentation on the National Standards at an NAEA Conference in San Francisco, 1996. Aside from understanding the word "standard" as a "measure," a "banner," or a "an adjective used to imply mediocrity," Eisner focused on the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 240
meaning of standard as "a level of desirable performance." According to notes from the presentation, he stated that
standards can be interpreted as either high or low values are implicit in the setting of standards: what is important to whom? a threshold level which can be adjusted according to need. can either be a metric that requires some measurement (a test score) or a match to some prototype or benchmark if measurement is used, a match is still required if matching is used, judgment is required as to how closely the match is to the benchmark or prototype. (Eisner, "Notes," 1996)^ In his address, Eisner described some of the problems of standards such as the National Standards for Arts
Education: 1. Meeting high education standards depends on the application of resources. If available resources are not equal, the opportunities for learning are not equal. 2. Standards sometimes assume that all children will learn at the same rate in the same way. 3. Standards presuppose the desirability of the content proposed. 4. Standards need to be organic and flexible to accommodate the elements of surprise, novelty, and creativity. 5. Differences between standards and criteria need to be examined. For example, standards for making judgments about the paintings of Braque and Monet may be similar, but the criteria for judging impressionist and cubists paintings will be different. 6. Standards often change. The raising of standards un f or tuna te ly assures that some students will always be "sub-standard" and never reach the achievement levels expected. (Eisner, "Notes," 1996) He also voiced some of the benefits:
* Notes of presentation by Eliot Eisner on the National Standards at an NAEA Conference, San Francisco, 1996. Provided on disk by Dr. Frank Philip, July 11, 1997.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 241 1. The presence of standards assumes some need for improvement. 2. Standards stimulate a dialogue about what is desirable. 3. A Standards development process helps [participants] to identify differences in viewpoints and become sensitive to pluralistic issues. 4. Standards can give direction and provide goals. 5. Standards display the intentions of a program and can help communicate a rationale to a broader audience such as the public. 6. Standards, if built developmenta1ly, can illustrate how a child progresses in a field of learning. 7. Standards legitimize a field, producing perceptions of authority and responsibility. (Eisner, "Notes," 1996) In addition, Eisner stated that in order for goals, standards, or benchmarks to be effective, they must be clearly stated in language that is jargon-free and understood by all; consensus statements by a broad range of persons with a vested interest; connected conceptually to national (not federal) viewpoints; consistent for all students; sensitive to educational, community, and political intere sts; placed in a broad context with the expectations of other content areas; embraced and understood at all levels; shared with the students as objectives of their education; and assessable for instructional improvement and student/teacher/schoo1/district accountability. (Eisner, "Notes," 1996) Dancers, especially those involved in modern dance, are creative individuals, original in their thinking, and non conformist in spirit. Although training demands daily classes, a ritual of drill, repetition, and discipline to mold the body into the forms of dance technique, artistic standardization remains an abhorrent concept.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 242
In this regard, dancers and artists have several conc erns: 1. Will standards be a limiting factor to a creative approach to arts education? 2. Will standards inhibit original approaches toward arts
education? 3. Will standards stifle the creativity and originality of arts student expression? 4. Will arts educators begin teaching toward tests in the
same manner that has plagued other academic subjects? The Dance Task Force was careful to consider these issues. 1. It focused on general content areas and levels of achievement rather than dictating a curriculum, style of dance, or method of teaching that would infringe on the
creative styles of individual teachers. 2. The variety of content standard categories will serve to broaden many of the current teaching methods, rather than
inhibit or narrow curriculum development. 3. The assessments were designed to encourage originality and creative problem solving and to provide students with an enjoyable dance experience.
4. The standards do not dictate subject matter; rather, they offer areas for focus or attention that could provide a well rounded program.
Perhaps the use of the word "standard" suggests or has
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 243
been confused with "standardization." Although the two words employ the same root, their meaning in terms of the National Standards is quite different. Not only is uniformity of artistic expression not required by the National Standards ; creativity and originality are encouraged, desired, and valued highly. The benefits of national standards to the field of dance education far outweigh problematic concerns. Inclusion of the arts in Goals 2000 and the existence of national standards for dance education has put dance on the "map." Recognition is being given to dance as a basic aspect of the educational experience for the first time in the history of American education. Dance as an art form, rather than as a form of recreation or entertainment, is little understood by many Americans. The inclusion of dance
in educational programs would produce a generation of students both familiar with and interested in the art of dance. They would become dance "literate," able to understand and communicate in the language of movement. Dance audiences would blossom as well, as would performers seeking a career.
But this cannot happen without a great amount of effort on the part of a great many people. Individuals involved in promoting the Standards. as well as those promoting dance, must join forces in order to create an effective advocacy net w o r k .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 244
Advocacy: The Stake Holders
The role of advocacy is paramount for the ultimate acceptance of The National Standards for Arts Education by the American public. Every step on the ladder, from legislative politics to the student, must be supportive if implementation is to be effective. Given the suspicion of some segments of society, this will be a sensitive matter. Both insight into present values and beliefs, and in some cases a plan to change these perceptions, will be necessary. The stake holders are a diverse population, each presenting distinct perspectives and problems. There are many diverse components of advocacy, and it can be accomplished in many different arenas. There are many distinct groups that need to be addressed within an interlocking network. Some are political, some are professional, and some reside in the community, but all have an effect on the education of American children. This section will present the orientation of each of the stake holders toward Goals 2000 and the dance standards, examine their issues and concerns, and provide a possible avenue for a d v o c a c y .
Legislatures
While broad acceptance of arts education is gaining momentum due to the creation of national standards and assessments, dance education has an uphill road in respect
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 245
to political acceptance. At a symposium on National Standards for Education in the Arts held in Washington, D.C. on March 7-9, 1993, Shirley Ririe asserted that "there are only a couple of states, I think, that have an administrator— part-time or full-time— on the state level in dance. It's a gigantic problem, and there has to be a real
shakeup in order for that implementation to take place. It is imperative that we find a way to do it" (MENC, 1994, p. 74) . Louise Miller, the Republican floor leader of the Washington State legislature, informed attendees about effective tactics for lobbying legislatures. She said that the Seattle Times, in February, 1993, reported about a survey by the Corporate Council for the Arts that charted the economic impact of arts in Seattle. "They found out that in the 1991-92 fiscal year, $180 million came from the arts; 142 professional arts groups were involved, and this included 8,800 full-or part-time jobs, with another $96 million in labor. In 1992 professional baseball got $99 million and had 2.1 million attendees, while arts attendance was four million." She stated that "studies gathered indicate that when arts are an integral part of a student's education, the student's overall standardized test scores can go up by as much as thirty percent." As a legislator, she attested: "That's the kind of thing legislators really pay attention
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 246
to; how much is in the economy, and how much better can our students do if exposed to the arts." (Miller, 1994, p. 53-
54. ) If dance education is to gain a political toe-hold, it must develop statistical research about its educational benefits in a language that politicians can hear.
School Boards and School Administrators
The Standards are voluntary; local districts must
determine whether or not they will adopt the national standards for arts education. In order for school boards and school administrators to take a proactive role in the
implementation of arts standards, four things are necessary: 1. School boards and administrators must understand that the standards are not a federally dictated or specific curriculum, but that localities retain jurisdiction and control to develop whatever course of study is desired to achieve the standards. 2. The acceptance of arts standards by local school boards will be essential if implementation is to be effected. 3. Every one of the constituencies mentioned in this chapter must become an advocate of arts education if school boards are going to become proactive in their support for standards in the arts. 4. Once administrators and school boards are in full support of national standards for arts education, they must
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 247
act to implement them. Jeremiah Floyd, Associate Director of the National School Boards Association, sets four clear actions that the school boards must take to ensure implementation of the Standards (Floyd, 1993, P. 58): A. They must set a vision for the total school system that includes the arts as basic to education. B. They must establish by policy the structure whereby a comprehensive vision for the school system and the community's expectations for their schools can be a c hieved. C. They must receive "accountability" for their "investment." D. They must both resist pressures from the conservative public to "cut the so called fringes" and educate their constituents as to how the arts are basic to education. "These four elements form the cornerstones of our advice to
school board members." (Floyd, 1993, p. 58.)
Arts Agencies
Development of The Standards was initiated by the
National Consortium of Arts Agencies, consisting of the four major national agencies of the disciplines of dance, music, theater and the visual arts. The consortium represented a unified political force for the advocacy of the arts in the wake of the "Charlotte 51" and for the creation of the National Standards and Assessments.
Robert Lynch, then president and chief officer of the National Assembly of Local Arts Agencies (NALA) and currently Director of Americans for the Arts, reported that 3,800 local arts agencies, arts councils, city arts
commission, and mayor's offices of cultural affairs are
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 248
members of the agency. Eighty-one percent are involved in arts education in some way. (Lynch, 1994, p. 60.) "They know how to lobby, they know how to get a message across, [and] . . . one thing they all have in common is frustration." Lynch claims the "key is a unified national information plan about arts education and about the need for it in schools." (Lynch, 1994, pp. 60-61.) The National Standards for Arts Education provides this unified approach. The crucial issue is to create a network
so that each of the 3,800 agencies can be part of a larger
united movement to implement the Standards.
The Business Community
Richard S. Gurin, president and chief executive officer of Binney & Smith, Inc., and a member of the National Committee for Standards in the Arts, painted a dismal
picture of the state of American education based on a research report by the Hudson Institute titled Workforce 2000: "Based on our current educational system, the research project evaluated the functional skills of prospective individuals entering the work force between 1985 and 2000 and compared them to the skills that jobs in the
twenty-first century will require." Seventy-eight percent of the prospective employees will have functional skills tpialifying them only for the bottom 40 percent of the available jobs. Only 5 per cent of the prospective employees will have skills required for the top 40 percent of the jobs. (Gurin, 1994, p. 5)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 249
Gurin claims that these statistics are due to changes in the business place that have not been accommodated by changes in
education. "In business, for example, thanks in part to technology, 'fast and flexible' are the credos of successful
companies when it comes to responding to the needs of their customers." (Gurin, 1994, p. 6.) Significantly, he views arts education as the key to fostering appropriate workforce skills : I believe the best way for our children to learn how to see and think creatively is through arts education. It's not art for arts sake, or even cultural appreciation. The economic future of our country depends on our ability to develop innovative way of learning. (Gurin, 1994, p. 6) In late March, 1996, leading business executives joined governors, members of the educational community and President Clinton at a National Education Summit hosted by IBM in Palisades, New York.^ According to the conference press release, "the Summit was attended by 41 state
governors, 49 business leaders, and 34 resource participants, as well as President Bill Clinton." The last such conference was hosted in 1989 and resulted in the development of the national education goals outlined in America 2000.
The business community has consistently been supportive of the movement to create national educational standards.
^ The 1996 National Education Summit was held March 26-27 at the IBM Conference Center in Palisades, New York.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 250
The 1996 summit resulted in an unprecedented pledge of allegiance in which forty-nine business leaders demonstrated the concern of the business community about the state of American education. At the conclusion of the Summit, the governors and business leaders voted unanimously to adopt a policy statement calling for all states to establish internationally competitive academic standards, assessment tools, and accountability systems within two years. In addition, business leaders committed to change their hiring practices to consider a potential employee's high school academic transcript in making hiring decisions and to take into consideration the quality of state's standards when making business location or expansion decisions. (1996 National Education Summit. Press Release of October 30, 1996. http : / /WWW. summit96. ibm. com) Never before had the business community taken such
strong, unified action with regard to educational policy. With this commitment, states will have an economic incentive to implement the National Standards as world-class models for development of their local standards. The arts and dance are included part of the national standards, but their role as a focus of the business community remains to be seen.
Teachers
Janie Ruth Hattan, Principal of the Milwaukee Trade and Technical School, views the process of advocacy from the bottom up.
The reform cycle should, first of all, look at the players. The players are the teachers. The teachers can articulate the vision and share it with the board members. The board members . . . promote sustaining that very program that they put in place so it is seen
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 251
through to the end. (Hattan, 1993, p. 67) She states that "the standards that are being presented, being formatted, and that will eventually be implemented must change the thinking on the part of the people closest to the children— the teachers" (Hattan, 1993, p. 66). The need to educate teachers about The National
Standards for the Arts and train teachers to meet those standards will be paramount. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) is in full support of the standards movement;
indeed, Albert Shankar was a member of the National Committee for Standards in the Arts. In an article in the Los Angeles Times on May 22, 1997, Heather Knight reported that, according to a study by AFT, "seventy-five percent of the union's members supported Clinton's call for national standards" (Knight, 1997, p. A23). However, Eugenia Kemble, Director of Education Issues from 1986-1996 at AFT, in a personal interview uttered some
hard-nosed truths about the view of teachers toward standards in the arts. She reflected their attitude when she said, "I do not have experience with the arts standards." She then stated, "The focus for teachers is on the core subjects of math, science, English and social studies." (Indeed, in the publication by the American Federation of Teachers, Making Standards Matter. 1996: An Annual Fiftv-State Report on Efforts to Raise Academic
Standards. these four subjects are the only ones addressed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 252
and the arts are never mentioned.) When it was pointed out that Goals 2000 has made the arts a core subject, Kemble said, "'Art' and music, maybe," but she did not see dance
considered 'core' by teachers. She emphasized, "Teachers
need a sense of the placement of these things in their day. The emphasis to various subjects needs to feel manageable. Teachers have many biases as to how essential dance is and
many pressures from the school district." (Kemble, 1997.) She affirmed the view that assessment will push the
standards. "Because we don't have assessments in place, it
is not as driving an impetus for teachers to use them [the standards]." She felt the NAEP matrix assessments would not have the same impact as local testing. "Students need accountability." She said, "Shankar was ahead of his time. He knew, a long time ago, that students taüce note if it 'counts.' If it counts, they'll respond." (Kemble, 1997.)
Her fear was that arts interest groups would not compromise and would so "exaggerate" their demands that they would negate their efforts. She felt a viable political strategy would be to "figure out what is reasonable for a toe hold." She made it apparent that teachers will not be flocking to be trained in the dance standards. A massive grassroots education will be necessary for advocacy, and dance educators will have to tread sensitively to accommodate the pressures felt by teachers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 253
Parents
As the former president of the National PTA, Ann Lynch
addresses the fact that we are no longer a melting pot in this country. We are a mosaic, and it becomes more important to have a distinguished and very identifiable culture of America but yet to recognize all the cultural diversities the this nation embraces. (Lynch, 1994, p. 4) This cultural diversity has become the backbone of the United States, and Lynch sees cultural literacy as its uniting force. "We must recognize that before a civilization can be successful and before its students cab be successful, they have to have literacy in each of the
arts" (Lynch, 1994, p. 4) . In an article titled "The Art of Teaching" in Learning
Magazine (1996, pp. 50-54)), the editor reports a recent poll that found: 91 percent of Americans said that exposure to the arts is important for children. 90 percent of parents said that they wanted their kids to have more experience with the arts than they did as children. (Learning Magazine, ed., 1996, pp. 50-54) Yet in a 1995 press release Jane Alexander, executive director of NEA, is quoted as saying that only thirty-nine
percent of public schools require the arts for graduation (http : / /net. ed . gov/PressReleases/10-1995 /artpub. html) .
There is obviously a discrepancy between parents' desires
and school policy. Parents want the best for their children. On the one
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 254 hand, while parents say they they want their children knowledgeable about the arts, there is a climate of fear, promoted by the legion led by Senator Jesse Helms (North Carolina), that views the arts as a degenerate element of society not worthy of national support. There is also the misconception that the arts are a frill that will distract
children from the task of "the three Rs." On the other hand there is growing educational awareness of Howard Gardner's "theory of multiple intelligences," and new understandings about the importance of the arts to learning. Parents must be educated about the true nature of arts education as an expression of their culture and learn about its educational benefits to their children if they are to be expected to take action. As voters, they are a powerful source of a d vocacy.
Dance Professionals
Janie Ruth Hattan, Principal of the Milwaukee Trade and Technical School, related a sad truth when she stated: "There is a host of professionals available, and often as many as eighty-five percent are unemployed." Her
recommendation is to "employ the expert to couple with the classroom teacher— the student will benefit." (Hattan, 1993,
p . 66 . )
There is a common derogatory saying in the dance field:
"Those that can, do; those that can't, teach." The National
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 255 Dance Association is struggling to change that image, and the creation of high national standards for dance education in schools will serve as both employment and inspiration for dancers. Most dance teachers had intensive training in performance and choreography, but began teaching by default in the struggle to earn a livelihood. The majority had no formal training as teachers; they know their craft, but they have no understanding of child development, are inarticulate or disorganized in their communication of ideas, have no knowledge about the learning process and, in many cases, do not even know anatomy and physiology. Beginning teachers are usually assigned to teach young children rather than accomplished dancers. They learn "on the job" by trial and error, often at the expense of their students. Many faculty teaching dance in schools had their training through physical education departments and have little or no understanding of dance as an aesthetic art form. At the symposium on National Standards for Education in the Arts held in Washington, D.C., Shirley Ririe asserted, "we have to have specialists somehow in the schools. . . . [ T ] hey need people who know the arts and who can help them
deliver the kind of standards that we're writing here."
(Down and Mahlmann, ed, 1994, p. 74.) Opportunities are now opening. The proper training of professional dance teachers to fulfill the vision embodied in the Standards is essential.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 256
The Students
In the political perspective, too often the outlook of the student is forgotten. Although steeped in the arena of educational policy, Diane Ravitch joins John Mahlmann in keeping the child's vision in view: A reporter recently asked me to explain about what the standards are. . . . I told the reporter that standards are like embedded codes. They tell kids what the secret of success is, what it is that you have to do to be good at whatever it is you are studying, what it is that the kids in the very best schools are learning, and what their teachers are doing. (Ravitch, 1993, p. 49) David O'Fallon, then staff director of the Arts
Education Partnership Work Group at The Kennedy Center for
the Performing Arts, described the standards as "a means through which to make some extremely important changes for
our kids" (O'Fallon, 1993, p. 68).
Teacher Training
Good teaching is the core of good education, for
"teachers are the effective instruments in their students'
success" (CNAEA, 1996, p. 14). If the Standards are now to inform arts education policy and give shape to content in the classroom, they must inform teaching and the process by which teachers are prepared for their work. Students cannot be expected to learn what their teachers do not know. The substance and rigor expected of students of the arts must therefore be preceded and paralleled by a commensurate focus on substance and rigor in regard to the act of teaching. Academic training and professional development must enable teachers in the arts disciplines to demonstrate this competence. (CNAEA, 1996, p. 4)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 257
Given the the information that Eugenia Kemble imparted about teachers and their lack of awareness of the arts standards, and the sense of pressure created by the imposition of yet another requirement, quality teacher training is imperative if teachers are to accept the arts as integral to basic education rather than a distraction. If
the arts are to become essential in the educational experience of every student, intellectual and artistic processes must function symbiotically— a criterion of the arts standards. Teacher education is imperative for both the classroom teacher and the arts specialist. This has been a major focus of the National Consortium of Arts Education Agencies.
One of the documents promised by John Mahlmann at the Oversight Committee meeting of January 31, 1994, was a pamphlet entitled Teacher Education for the Arts Disciplines. to be developed by the Consortium of National
Arts Education Associations (CNAEA, 1996). In its discussion of the principles of teacher education, the pamphlet declares : Four core issues set the terms for the policy discussion about teacher preparation and how the National Standards for Arts Education will be implemented; (1) the content focus for teachers, (2) what happens to teacher education, (3) professional development for teachers, and (4) responsibility and accountabi1ity. A statement about each of these core issues is followed by a list of relevant "assertions." The content of this pamphlet
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 258
pertains to all the arts but can also be read as a discussion specifically of dance. The material can be
summarized as follows: 1. Focus on content. A significant achievement of the Standards is that they focus on the content (of dance) as an arts discipline, "with the scope and comprehensiveness of the Arts Standards." This will mean that "teachers will be teaching a larger body of content, and to a wider range of students, than they may have been accustomed to teaching." (CNAEA, 1996, pp. 6-8.) Assertion #1: [Dance] is a distinct body of knowledge and skills involving creation and performance, history, analysis, and the interaction among all of these in specific works of art or scholarship. Assertion #2: The art of teaching (dance] means far more than getting students to see [dance] as "nice" or "fun." It means providing them with in-depth access to the content of the arts as academic disciplines. Assertion #3 : Results in any classroom are generated in the interactions, around specific content, among students, the subject matter, and the teacher. 2. Teacher education. In dance, the reality is that "the educational priorities of most school districts preclude the availability of enough [dance] specialist teachers" (CNAEA, 1996, pp. 8-9).
Assertion #1: For teachers to help students meet the requirements of the Standards successfully, four things must happen in and for teachers : (1) They should themselves be competent exemplars of the content and skills they are teaching. At a minimum, teachers ought to be able to meet the K—12 National Standards. (2) They should be able to teach from the base of their own knowledge and skills, not merely model or present prefabricated lessons. (3) They should be able to lead, in the sense of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 259
being able to provide content-based guidance to the uninitiated, the beginner, and the advanced student. (4) They should be able to learn and develop on their own in the primary disciplinary fields associated with their work. Assertion #2 : Teacher preparation institutions cannot do the whole job alone. Their work influences and is influenced by the policies, priorities, practices, and traditions of school systems, education agencies, and teacher organizations. 3. Professional development for teachers. In Goals 2000. Goal #7 states: "The nation's teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their knowledge and skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skill needed to instruct and prepare all Americans for the next century." While this reflects a national consensus, the responsibility for its achievement lies within the hands of state and local education and arts
agencies, "with the understanding that primary responsibility for personal growth remains with individual teachers themselves." (CNAEA, 1996, pp. 9-10.) Assertion #1: The implementation and success of the National Standards for Arts Education will rest largely on the success of professional development for teachers seeking to implement them. Assertion #2: Professional development in arts education requires more and stronger advocacy at state and local levels to show it as the critical variable in successful implementation of the Standards. Teacher development programs that begin and end with sessions on "What the Standards Say," but do not address such crucial areas as skill development, critical aesthetic faculties, and deepened knowledge about the arts disciplines themselves, cannot make the Standards effective. 4. Responsibility and accountability for meeting the Standards. The question must be answered, "What do
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 260 institutions and individuals have to do to meet the Standards. and how will demonstrate convincingly that they have done so?" Structures for accountability for dance have been outlined by the National Association of Schools of Dance and by the National Dance Association, whose cooperation with the state education agencies and participation on a policy level are essential for successful
implementation of high quality standards. The level of individual responsibility and accountability for teachers is primarily a qualitative issue, dependent on competence in the art and practice of pedagogy combined with commitment to a high level of personal excellence, achievement, and initiative. This must been seen within the context of the larger whole. (CNAEA, 1996, pp. 10-11.) Assertion #1: The central issues of responsibility and accountability lie at a deeper level than answering the question of whether teachers are well prepared to do their jobs, or questions about how individual teachers are functioning, as broadened as those questions have been here. The driving question is; "How do we create approaches to accountability that help teachers accomplish what the Standards indicate they should accomplish?" Assertion #2: Accountability mechanisms must be conceived judiciously and used carefully, lest they become more important than the content they are intended to serve. Values and their impact on policy are crucial factors in maintaining approaches to accountability that mix the rigor and creativity central to work in the arts. Guiding (Questions for decision makers to reflect upon are listed after each assertion. The report recognizes that "there will be obstacles, but if children are to be provided
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 261
with the deepening dimensions that the arts can give to their education, those difficulties must be met and
overcome" (CNAEA, 1996, p. 14) .
Partnerships
When President Clinton signed Goals 2000: The Educate
America Act in 1994, he made a bipartisan commitment regarding education reform to educators, parents and parent organizations, the business community, political leaders, and local school boards. "With Goals 2000. the federal government pledged to form a new and supportive partnership with states and communities in an effort to improve student
academic achievement across the nation" (Goals 2000 Partnership, 1996, p. 1). The Goals 2000 Partnership, which is a department of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), was formed both to advocate for Goals 2000 initiatives and to
facilitate states' preparation and application for funding.^
Toward this end, it succinctly sets forth the state and federal roles in Goals 2000 reform: State Leadership 1. States set challenging academic standards in core subjects for all students. 2. States develop a comprehensive approach to improving education, including developing standards and assessments; providing professional development
^ The Goals 2000 Partnership has created a national network through the internet, disseminating information and support to every state; the partnership website address is http://artsedge.kennedy-center.org/aep/aep.html. A list of state contacts is available and easily accessible.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 262
opportunities for teachers, improving accountability for meeting the standards; and promoting parental and community involvement. 3. States accomplish these two reforms with broad- based, grassroots involvement.
Federal Support 1. The federal government provides seed money to help states launch and sustain their ongoing education reform efforts. 2. The federal government provides states with unprecedented flexibility for using Goals 2000 funding. States and local districts may use Goals 2000 funds for a wide range of activities that fit within their own approaches to helping students reach higher standards. (Goals 2000 Partnership, 1996, p. 1) In 1994 Jane Alexander of NEA and Education Secretary Richard Riley led an effort to establish a partnership arrangement to promote the incorporation and expansion of arts education. They helped advocate a new arts education Partnership to help weld the many excellent arts coalitions together toward a unified arts policy. The Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies now provide leadership and direction for the Partnership, which is headed by Dick Deasy.
Next Steps
As Executive Director of the Music Educators National Conference— the largest of the national arts organizations— Dr. John Mahlmann has played a major role in both development and implementation of arts education standards. He was project director for the grant to create the Standards and served as the representative from the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 263
Coordinating Council to the Oversight Committee; he was a member of the steering committee for development of the Arts Education Assessment Frameworks and Specifications and also served as director, on behalf of the consortium, for the grant from MacArthur and Dodge foundations for dissemination and implementation of the Standards » In an interview with Dr. Mahlmann in his office at the Music Educators National Conference in Reston, Virginia, on June 27, 1997, the question was posed, "What should happen next?" Mahlmann critiqued the current situation saying it was "all talk and no action." He reported that "the standards are affecting curriculum in forty-five states, but on paper— not in the delivery systems." He called them "paper exercises," and said that effective goals and objectives have been written but not implemented. (Mahlmann, 1997.) As an example, he cited the NAEP pilot program which accomplished only an eighth-grade assessment for all the arts. He stated that there were no further solid plans until the year 2007, ten years away and almost twenty years
since the inception of the standards vision! He repeated, "We must translate talk into action." In the course of the interview, Mahlmann reported on
the actions of MENC which, due to its large membership, administrative capabilities, large budget, and devoted
commitment relative to other national arts organizations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 264 has served throughout as leader in the standards movement for arts education. MENC has produced publications and resources for use by teachers, sponsored workshops and symposiums, and promoted the implementation of the Standards. For example, Carol Lynn A. Lindeman edited a
series of thirteen books for MENC called Strategies for Teaching illustrating how music standards can be put into action in the classroom— the practical implementation of the Standards. Similarly, in a document called Performance Standards for Music. MENC developed exeunples of activities designed as practical exercises with accompanying performance assessments.
"Teachers want to know, 'How good is good enough? What
is my kid supposed to look like when performing?'"
(Mahlmann, 1997). In the push for standards, principals and the public have to know what to expect from students. They can now look at examples in practice.
In answer to a rephrasing of the question, "What should we do next?" Mahlmann replied, "We have to demonstrate what the standards look like." He commented that a lot more could be done concerning dissemination. "For example, in music, there is a lot we don't do to exemplify the
standards." He said more should be taught about music theory, history, culture, and musicology. In terms of performance, he suggested there be more festivals and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 265 offered the idea of a music "Olympiad," music "bees" that would cover a broad range of knowledge in the discipline and would demonstrate more than just the value of performance, which is currently emphasized in recitals and competition. This, he felt, could be built upon the current infrastructure. (Mahlmann, 1997.) Mahlmann commented that music had a relatively long history in schools compared to the other arts. The first music program in an American school was instituted in 1838, although it was not until 1896 that the first school orchestra was formed. Even so, "the school day and programs are already too full," and when faced with the inclusion of music standards schools feel overburdened.
Mahlmann admitted that "there is a 'double whammy' for
dance." The general population does not understand dance as a creative and expressive medium. They conceive of it as square dancing, disco, or exercise. In addition, "dance and theatre are difficult to assess." Due to their temporal and physical natures, it is both expensive and technologically cumbersome to implement assessment. For this reason, he feared for their continued implementation. Asked whether he felt assessment will drive the
standards, he replied, "If we don't measure it, it's not
real or important. In schools, testing determines importance." If assessments in the arts are discontinued, the Standards will wither of neglect.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 266
Mahlmann recommended video as a means to promote mass implementation. Also (with a sigh) he noted the importance of arts education outside schools. His final statement was that the arts needed to "meüce more connections with the real world." (Mahlmann, 1997.)
Steps to the Future: Dance in Action
In April of 1997, Jane Bonbright, interim executive director of the National Dance Association, sent a memo to
its membership giving a statistical update* about the progress of implementation of The National Standards for Arts Education. The reports states that: 1. 49 states (98%) use the National Standards in Arts Education as a guide/resource/foundation, etc. for writing state standards, freuneworks, and assessments. (Alabama is undecided.) 2. 40 states (80%) have indicated that their standards will be voluntary (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Okledioma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, W y o m i n g ) . 3. 8 states (16%) have indicated that their standards will be mandatory (Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Texas, Washington). 4. 2 states (4%) are undecided as to whether their standards will be mandatory or voluntary (Florida, New York). (Appendix J) These statistics are very encouraging. However, the area of assessment is developing more slowly. In 1996, the
* Based on National Arts Education Association (NASA) , 1995 Survey Data.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 267
National Arts Education Association reported that: 1. 6 states (12%) currently assess in the fine arts (Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Texas, Utah) 2. 8 states (16%) plan to assess in the fine arts (Colorado, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania) 3. 18 states (36%) have no plans to assess in the fine arts. (Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin) 4. 18 states (36%) don't know or haven't determined if they will assess in the fine arts. (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming) (National Arts Education Association, 1996 Survey Data; see Appendix J) Unfortunately, in the list of "Disciplines to be Assessed," it reports only nine states planning or implementing assessment in dance, as follows (asterisk [*] indicates states that currently perform assessments) : 9 states (18%) indicated that dance is assessed or will be assessed. (Illinois,* Kentucky,* Maine, * Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas*) 4 states (8%) indicated dance is not or will not be assessed. (Colorado, Idaho,* Oklahoma, Utah*) 13 states (26%) indicated that music is assessed or will be assessed. (Colorado, Idedio,* Illinois,* Kentucky,* Maine,* Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas,* Utah*) 10 states (20%) indicated that theatre is assessed or will be assessed. (Idaho,* Illinois,* Kentucky,* Maine,* Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas,* Utah*) 13 states (26%) indicated that visual arts is assessed or will be assessed. (Colorado, Idaho,* Illinois,* Kentucky,* Maine,* Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas,* Utah*) 1 state (2%) indicated that Humanities in being assessed as a fine arts. (Kentucky) 1 state (2%) indicated that it has yet to be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 268 determined what fine arts disciplines will be assessed. (Ohio) (National Arts Education Association, 1996 Survey Data; see Appendix J) (In the listing of states in which dance "is not or will not be assessed," Idaho and Utah have an asterisk because they perform assesments in other fine arts.) There is, obviously, a great distance to progress for all the arts. Twenty-six percent for music and the visual arts leaves great room for growth. But dance, a notch below theatre, must make the greatest climb. For dance, in particular, there are very difficult issues to surmount. Dance has never been a major part of arts education. There is only a small, fragmented advocacy network, and a lack of financial support. There is much work to be done. The key lies in advocacy, both in the dance community and with the general public. The dance community must unify if it is to be effective. While the National Dance
Association is the organization representative of dance in schools, there are many other national organizations representing the varied styles, functions, and philosophies of dance. There is a movement led by Dr. Naima Prevots, of American University, to unite diverse organizations into a coalition for advocacy purposes, called the Dance Consortium. Eight organizations were represented at the founding meeting on July 27, 1996. Immediately afterwards
several other associations called wishing to join the group.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 269 With no solicitation by the organizers, nineteen organizations took part in the Dance Consortium's second meeting on July 19, 1997. Obviously, a strong need is felt in the dance community to coalesce and help one another. While many of these organizations are not involved in dance education in schools, dance education was one of the six major issues on which the group decided to focus. At the first meeting, Jane Bonbright (representing NDA) quoted statistics from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) stating that "fifty-two percent of children in schools have never danced, and of the forty- eight percent who have, only three percent have trained with
a professional." There is a need to make dance education and teacher training available. The National Standards will be an integral aspect of this training. Private dance studios need to learn about and teach to the Standards as well. A majority of dance studios provide physical training but do not educate their student about the art of dancing. Studios need to provide more classes that teach choreography, creative movement, and a critical analysis of dance. In addition, they should teach students about body mechanics and how "to apply dance to healthful living. Most dancers teaching in studios have studied dance intensively as a performer, but have never studied how to
teach. In 1996, Elsa Posey initiated a National Registry of Dance Educators as a national certification process for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 270
private dance studios. The criteria of certification meet the expectations of the Standards in an effort to develop knowledgeable and competent teachers who can develop curricula on a high artistic level. A focus for advocacy must also be placed upon universities and colleges, both in dance departments and schools of education. As in the private studios, most dancers in university programs focus on performance and choreography, and then earn their livelihood teaching. Greater emphasis must be placed on educating teachers who can teach on the level of the Standards— about the art of dance as well as technical exercises and dance "routines." Mary Maitland Kimball raised an issue concerning teacher certification for teaching in public schools. The placement of dance in higher education affects the teacher education programming. Teacher certification in a state is often determined by a legislature or state department of education. In many states, including Kimball's home state of Indiana, only physical education graduates are licensed to teach. Dancers from programs in arts departments cannot receive certification. "In a country where far less than fifty percent of the states have dance certification, credentialing is becoming an issue, and the local issue becomes a national one because requirements are so different from state to state." (Kimball, telephone interview, July 17, 1997.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 271 Teachers of academic subjects being trained in universities and colleges must be made more aware of the power of dance— its benefits in the cognitive learning processes, the development of higher level thinking, and as a means to communicate meaning. As the work of Howard Gardner becomes more widely understood, teachers are
becoming more open to alternative ways of learning. The Standards address the critical thinking processes of dance as well as the physical forms of learning. Teachers in
schools require teacher-training programs. As teachers are under pressures from many directions, in-service workshops and courses by dance professionals and educators trained in the application of the Standards are necessary. Many school districts have continuing education requirements for teachers, and courses about The National Standards in the Arts should be integrated into these progreuns. In reaction to exclusion of the arts in America 2000, the arts coalesced into a powerful community for the first time in American history. This union must not dissolve. The arts can achieve together what they cannot do
individually. The National Consortium of Arts Agencies has remained as an entity with the four original national arts associations as members. Perhaps the time is ripe for it to e x p a n d .
The internet is fast becoming the quickest, most efficient, and cheapest form of public communication. NDA
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 272
implemented an advocacy and information hot-line listserve, with Keitha Manning as chair of the Technology Committee. This facilitates an advocacy tree for both membership and others. On it's website, NDA focuses on "The NDA Triad": National Dance Standards, National Opportunity-to-Learn Standards, and Dance Assessment. It announced, "The National Dance Association has accepted the challenge," and offers explanations about and information from the three documents (available at http://www.aahperd.org/nda/ standard.html). NDA effectively uses the internet as a platform for dance education advocacy. In its website, in a section called "making it all happen," it states: The arts are a proven, but under-utilized, resource for educational reform. Specific actions must be tciken now to ensure inclusion of the arts. State and local level planning teams are still making decisions about how the education reform agenda is going to be carried out. (h t t p ://WWW. aapherd.org/nda/standard.html)
It continues to explain, teachers of dance must ensure that: • dance is included as a core content area in state and local curricula— fully remembering that the National Education Goals are not mandates and that states and communities still decide what subject areas are e s s e n t i a l ; • the voluntary National Dance Standards are used as a guide for setting instructional goals and for raising academic content levels and student achievement; • we strengthen the case that dance is integral to Goals 2000 planning and we include ourselves and other cultural organizations in every step of that process; • we form partnerships among schools, teachers, federal administrators, higher education, dance/arts educators, state and local arts agencies, parents, businesses, dance/art alliances, individual artists, organizations of performing and presenting artists, and arts institutions to improve education;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 273 • we include sufficient instructional resources and personnel to assure quality instruction in dance; • we include provisions for making full use of communities' dance/arts partners and resources during and after the typical school day and year; • we use dance/arts as a model for assessing student learning through the use of portfolios, videos, essays, exhibitions, and student performances; • we develop and understanding of dance and the arts as a medium for integrating learning across the curriculum; • we use dance to engage parents, decision makers, and the community in the effort to improve schools and their children's education; and • we build leadership teams to develop action plans that help people accomplish what needs to be done to promote dance in education. (h t t p ://WWW .aahperd.org/nda/standards.html) It is imperative that the dance community join with communities beyond the arts. At the 1996 Educational
Summit, the business community has pledged its support for education. While it did not focus on the arts, it is time for the arts to focus on the business community: teach them the educational benefits of the arts, involve them in cultural enterprises, let them know that training in the arts instills attributes that creates better workers, and
make dance become part of their obligation to education. Dance does not have the financial basis of MENC or NAEA, and so must either piggy-back on the advocacy efforts of larger organizations or find contributions within the greater community. In the New York Times, on July 15, 1997, there was a full-page advertisement picturing a young boy in a worker's jumpsuit holding a wrench in his hand and looking into the open cowling of a jet plane. The caption reads.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 274
"You'll be flying in a jet maintained by Tommy." The ad was
donated by the Ad Council, a private, non-profit organization of volunteers who conduct advertising campaigns for the public good. This ad, part of the Council's "Commitment 2000" Campaign, was promoted by the Business Roundtable, U.S. Department of Education, National Governors' Association, American Federation of Teachers, amd
the National Alliance of Business. The smaller print reads:
When Tommy grows up, he' 11 be an aircraft mechanic. Perhaps he' 11 work on a jet that you fly in someday. By then, the job will require an advanced knowledge of chemistry, physics, and trigonometry. Unfortunately, very few American children are being prepared to master such sophisticated subjects. If we want children who can handle tomorrow's good jobs, more kids need to taüce more challenging academic courses. To find out how you can help the effort to raise standards in America's schools, please call 1-800-96-PROMISE. If we all pitch in and help, America will get where it needs to go. (New York Times. 1997, p. B4) The next ad should be a child onstage with Baryshnikov.
A Vision
Mary Maitland Kimball's vision for dance education has
remained consistent: I envision a quality arts education, which includes dance, for children in public schools for grades K-12 using the Standards as a base and working together. This still has the opportunity to be achieved. It would involve the cooperation of schools, teachers, artists, dance researchers, studios, and academies, administrators, parents, school boards, legislatures, and the business community. (Kimball, telephone interview, July 17, 1997) Education programs, both pre-service and in-service.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 275
must be instituted. Dance education researchers must develop far more substantial documentation on the impact of dance education. Movement education workshops must be given to parents, administrators, legislative delegates and persons from the business community so they can experience
the dance education process in order to have a framework of
reference for validating it. People in power were not exposed to dance as part of their basic education, so they have no reason to value it; they need first-hand experience. "The arts are transformational, and in this highly technical age they keep us in touch with the human spirit" (Kimball, telephone interview, July 17, 1997).
Conclusion
We've traveled a long way since the governors first met to establish national education goals in 1989 and conspicuously left out the arts. The arts are now included, standards developed, and there is a growing critical mass of support. But we still have a long way to go before all children have access to balanced, sequential programs in the arts taught by qualified t e a c h e r s .^ The United States now has a President who is committed to educational reform. On February 5, 1997, the morning after Clinton's second inaugural address, the headline of an article by Alison Mitchell on the front page of the New York
Times read, "Clinton Makes Education His 'Number One
Priority. ' " Clinton's support of the arts as part of Goals
5 Dr. John Mahlmann, as quoted by Margaret Senko (telephone interview, July 18, 1997).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 276
2000 has been consistent. From the exclusion of the arts at the National Board of Governors' "Charlottesville 51" meeting in 1989, and America
2000. awareness and acceptance of the educational value of the arts by legislative bodies, political organizations, and educational institutions has come far. Through the unification of many outstanding arts and government organizations (Appendix F) and the concerted effort of the arts community, national standards for arts education are now a reality that is becoming increasingly accepted by legislatures, school boards and administrators, the business community, teachers, parents, and students.
The art of dance, as an integral part of this effort, is gaining new national recognition as an art beneficial to academic learning. Its inclusion in Goals 2000 marks a
turning point for its acceptance as part of educational curricula. Yet the statistics still show that the arts, and especially dance, have a steep hill to climb if the Standards are going to progress beyond a paper reality. It is evident that: The problem lies not in a lack of knowledge about what to do about the Arts Standards, or even how to do it. The problem lies in generating the energy and will to move from aspirations and a high degree of clarity about the desired results for students on the one hand, to a focused commitment to acquiring resources adequate to the task on the other. It means, too, redirecting attention. But more that that, it means a shift in values, in the climate of opinions, attitudes, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 277 indeed, the beliefs that support the American Educational system. If the Arts Standards can foster that kind of process, they will have accomplished much more than having provided benchmarks for student performance. They will have given young people a head start on a better future. And that can only be a good thing. (CNAEA, 1996, p. 14-15) As Graham Down and John Mahlmann expressed it, "We are at a crossroads, and the standards point the way to the future" (Down and Mahlmann, 1994, p. xiii). After years of preparation and work, the creation of the Standards and
Assessments had come to an end. What is now clear is that the real work is just beginning.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX A GOALS 2000: SECTION 102. NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS
278
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 279 SEC. 102. NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS.
SEC. 102. NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS. The Congress declares that the National Education Goals are the following: (1) SCHOOL READINESS.- (A) By the year 2000. all children in America will start school ready to learn. (B) The objectives for this goal are that— (i) all children will have access to high-quality and developmemally appropriate preschool programs that help prepare children for school; (ii) every parent m the United States wiH be a child's first teacher and devote tune each d ^ to helpi% sudi parent's preschool child team, and parents will have access to the training and support parents need; and (Hi) children win receive the nutrition, physical activity experiences, and health care needed to arrive at school with healthy minds and bodies, and to maintain the mental alertness necessary to be prepared to team, and the number of low-birthweight babies will be significantly reduced through enhanced prenatal health systems.
(2) SCHOOL COMPLETION - (A) By the year 2000, the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent. (B) The objectives fix this goal are that— (i) the Nation must dramatically reduce its school dropout rate, and 75 percent of the students who do drop out will successfiiUy complete a high school degree o r its equivalent; and (Ü) the gap in high school graduation rates between American students fiom minority backgrounds and their non-minority counterparts will be eliminated.
(3) STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND CTTIZENSHIP.- (A) By the year 2000, all students wiH leave grades 4. 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography, and every school in America will ensure that all students team to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our Nation's modem economy. (B) The objectives for this goal are that— (i) the academic performance of all students at the elementary and secondary level will increase significantly in every quartite, and the distribution o f minority students in each quartile will more c lo s^ reflect the student population as a whole; (ii) the percentage o f all students who demonstrate the ability to reason, solve problems, apply knowledge, and write and communicate effectively will increase substantially; (Hi) all students will be involved in activities that promote and demonstrate good citizenship, good health, community service, and personal responsibility; (iv) all students will have access to plÿsical education and health education to ensure they are healthy and fit; (v) the percentage of all students who are competent in more than one language will
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 280
SEC. 102. NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS,
substantially increase; and (vi) all students will be knowledgeable about the diverse cultural heritage of this Nation and about the world community
(4) TEACHER EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.- (A) By the year 2000, the Nation's teaching force wiD have access to programs for the continued improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all American studaits for the next century. (B) The objectives for this goal are that— (i) all teachers wiD have access to preservice teacher education and commuing profèssional development activities that will provide such teachers with the knowledge and skills needed to teach to an incrcastngiy diverse student population with a variety of educational, social, and health needs; (ii) aH teachers wiD have continuing opportunities to acquire additional knowledge and skills needed to teach challenging subject matter and to use emerging new methods, forms of assessment, and technologies; (Hi) States and school districts wiU create integrated strategies to attract, recruit, prepare, retrain, and support the continued proftsskmal development of teachers, administrators, and other educators, so that there is a Ughly talented work force of professional educators to teach challenging subject matter; and (iv) partnerships wiD be established, whenever possible, among local educational agencies, institutions of higher eihication, parents, and local labor, business, and professional associations to provide and support programs for the professional development of educators.
(5) MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE - (A) By the year 2000, United States students wiD be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement. (B) The objectives for this goal are that— (0 mathematics and science education, including the metric system of measurement, will be strengthened throughout the system, especially in the early grades; (H) the nunAer o f teachers with a substantive background in mathematics and science, including the metric system o f measurement, wiD increase by SO percent; and (Hi) the number o f United States undergraduate and graduate students, especially women and minorities, who complete degrees in mathematics, science, and engineering will increase significantly.
(6) ADULT LITERACY AND LIFELONG LEARNING - (A) By the year 2000, every adult American will be literate and wfll possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a ÿobal economy and exercise the ri^ ts and responsibilities of citizenship. (B) The objectives for this goal are that— (i) every major American business will be involved in strengthening the connection between
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 281 SEC. 102. NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS,
education and work; (ii) all workers wiH have the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills, from basic to highly technical, needed to adapt to emerging new technologies, work methods, and markets through public and private educational, vocational, technical, workplace, or other programs; (iii) the number o f quality programs, including those at libraries, that are designed to serve more e& ctive^ the needs of the growing number of part-time and midcareer students will increase substantially; (iv) the proportion of the qualified students, especially minorities, who enter c o llie , who complete at least two years, and who complete their degree programs will increase substantially; (v) the proportion o f college graduates who demonstrate an advanced ability to think critically, communicate effectively, and solve problems wiH increase substantially; and (vi) schools, in implementing comprehensive parent involvement programs, wiH offer more adult literacy, parent training and lifir-long learning oppommities to improve the ties between home and school, and enhance parents' work and hmne lives.
(7) SAFE, DISCIPLINED, AN D ALCOHOL- AN D DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS - ( A) By the year 2000, every school in the United States will be fiee o f drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence o f firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined envirotunent conducive to learning. (B) The objectives fix this goal are that— (i) every school wiH implement a firm and fitir policy on use, possession, and distribution of drugs and alcohol; (ii) parents, businesses, governmental and community organizations will work tc^ether to ensure the rights o f students to study ina safe and secure environment that is free of drugs and crime, and that schools provide ahmlthy environment and are a safe haven for all children; (iii) every local educational agency will develop and implement a policy to ensure that all schools are fiee o f violence and t k unauthorized presence of weapons; (iv) every local educatiooal agency wiD develop a serpiential, comprehensive kindergarten through tweDlh grarle drug and alcohol prevention eÂication program; (v) drug and alcohol curriculum should be taught as an integral part of sequential, comprehensive health education; (vi) community-based teams should be organized to provide students and teachers with needed support; and (vii) every school should work to eliminate sexual harassment.
(8) PARENTAL PARTICIPATION - (A) By the year 2000, every school wiD promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children. (B) The objectives for this Goal are that— (i) every State wiD develop policies to assist local schools and local educational agencies to establish programs for increasing partnerships that respond to the varying needs o f parents and the home, including parents of children who are disadvantaged or bilingual, or parents of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 282 SEC. 102. NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS,
children with disabilities; (ii) every school wiD actively engage parents and femOies in a partnership which supports the academic work of children at home and shared educational decisionmaking at school; and (iii) parents and femdies wiD hdp to ensure that schools are adequately supported and wiU hold schools and teachers to high standards o f accountability.
TITLE I-NATIONAL EDUCAT tnv n n at s PSTm P n-MATiON al EDUCATION REFORM LEADERSHIP. STANDARDS. AND ASSESSMENTS
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR DANCE EDUCATION
283
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 284
Thevoluntaiw N ational Standards For Arts Education STANDARDSUSIWBratADElEVELANDAm AREA
OEVBORDANDVKTTBiBr THECONSOKnUMOFNAnONALARIS EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONS
AMERICAN AUIANΠFOR THEATRE & E d u c a tio n MUSIC EDUCATORS NATIONAL CONFERENCE Natio n al a r t e d u c a t io n association Na tio n a l D ance association
M IC H 1994
THBCOrr«£?AI£DBir
T h e CouNCtt o f Ch ie f St a te Sc h o o l OFFICERS
«S or Ow lowei OwcMB
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 285
V o lu n ta r y N a t io n a l St a n d a r d s f o r A r ts E d u c a t io n
Content and achievement Standards in arts education fo r grades KA DANŒK-4
O Identifying and demonsmtmg movement elements and skills in perfonning dance StHdem a. accurately dmoQsctatenoQkxGinocoiy^Dûlinwements(such as bend, twist, sactch,s«mg) b. accuiateiydemoDstratee^tbasiclocomoiormovemaits (such as walk, tun, hop, jump leap, gaUop.sikieandskip),traveling forward, backward, sidewaid, diagonally,andtuming c createsbapes at low, middle, and high levds d. demoosirate theabilityto defile and maintain persooalspace e. demcasttatemovemenisms&aigbtand curved pathways f. demonstrate accutacyinmavjngtoamusicalbeat and respoodmg to changes in tempo g. demonstrate kinestfaeticawareness,concenttation,andfocus in petfocmingmovementskills h. attentivdy observe andaccutaielydescrfoe die action (such assl^,gallop)andmomnent elements (such as levels, ditection) m abcief movementstudy
Q Understanding choteographk:pnndples,iyDcesses, and structures Students a. createasequencewithabqommg, middle, and end, both with andwithoutarhythmic accompaniment; identify each of these parts of thesequence b. improvise, create,and perform dances based on iheirown ideas and concepts horn other sources c use improvisation to discover and mventmovcmentandtosolvemovcment problems d. create a dance phrase, accuratdyrepeat it, and then vary it (makir^ changes in the time, space, and/orforce/drergy) e. demonstrate the abihty to work efisciitfeiyaioneandwitfaaparmer f. demonstrate the foOowingpannerskilk: copying, leadh^andfollowing,miiTodng
O Understanding dance as a way to create and communicate meaning
a. observe and discuss how datxreisdifiaeotfiom other forms ofhumanmovement(such as sports, everyday gesmrcs) b. take an aciiveiotein adass discussion dxmtinteiptetations of and reactions to a dance c. present then own daiKcs to peers and discuss their meanings with competence and confidence
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 286 O Applying and demonsirating critical and creaiive thinking skills in dance ______Students 3. explore, discover, and ceaiizemultipiesoiudons to agiven movement problem; choose thek fiivotiiesdutioQ anddiscuss the reasons for that choke b. observe two dances and discuss how they are similar and diSerent in terms of one of the elements of dance (such as space) by observing body shapes, levels, pathways
Q Demonstrating and understanding dance in various culoires and historical periods Students a. perform folic dances horn various cultures with competenceand confidence b.IeamandeSëciive{yshaieadancefioinaiesourcem their owncQmmunity;de5cc3)e die cultural and/orhistoiicalcontea c accurarelyanswcr questions about dancemaparticularculturcandtimepetiod (for exunple: In colonial America, why and in whatsetiings did people dancd What did the dances look fike?)
O Making connetnions between dance and healthful living Students a. identify at least three personal goals toimptove themselves as dancers b. explainhowhealthypiactices (such as nutrition, safety)enhance their ability to dance, citing multiple examples
Q Making connetrtions between dance and Other disciplines Students a. ctcateadance protect tfiat reveals undetstandingofacoocept or ideafiom another discipline (such as pattern in danceandsdence) b. respond toadanceusii%anodier art form; ctplain the connections between the danceanddieir response to it (such as statii%bow their paintings refiectthedance they saw)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 287
CONTENT AND ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS IN ARTS EDUCATION FOR GRADES 5-8
D A N C E S ^
O Identifying and demonstrating movement dements and skills in perfonning dance Students a. dCTOiistmeihefoflowmgmcwementsici]IsandexpiaintheuiKlaiyingpdncip(es:aügament, balance, inmatkn of movement, arnculaaoo ofisotoedbody pans, weightshA, elevanon and bndtQg,Maodrecovety b. accurateiyidendfyanddemaasQatebasicdancesteps, posidoas, andpanems fordanceftam two diffeientstyies oroadidoos c accutateiyiiaDsferaspaDai pattern ftom the visual to the kmesthedc (LaccuiatebtiaQsferatliytfainicpattemftom tfaeaunito tfaekmesthedc e. idendfyanddeaiiydemcostrateaiange ofdynamics/inovement qualities f. demonstrate ncteasmgidaesthedc awareness, coacentiadoD, and focus in petfooning movementsldBs g. demonstrateaccuiatememocÊadonandtepcoducdaQofmovementsequences h. describe tfaeacdonandmovement elements observed inadance, using appropriate movement/datmevocabulary
O Understanding dioret^raphic principles, processes, and structures Students a. deadydemoostiate the prmdpksofcoonast and transition b.effecdveiy demonstrate tfaeprocesses of teordetii^ and chance c. successfully demonstrate thesiructuicsorfbtms ofAB, ABA, canon, call andtesponse, and nanadve d. demonstrate theafailitytowodccoopetanvelyinasmallgtnupdurii^thechoreogtaphic process e.demoastratethefoHowii%pannersldllsinavisually interesting way: creadngcontrasdng and compiementatyshapes,tal^andsupponmg weight
O Understanding dance as a way to create and communicaie meaning Students a. efibcdveiy demonstrate the différence between pantomiming and abstiacdi^ a gesture b. observe and explain howdËerentaccompanânent (such as sound, musk, spoken tem)can afifea the meanit^ of a dance cdemonstiateand/'or ctplain howl^dngandcostuming can conttiixitetotfaemeaningofadance d. createadancethat successfully communkatesatopic of personal significance
!««««
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 288
O Applying and demonstrating critical and Creative thinking skills in dance Students a. create a movement problem and demoostrare muldplesolutions; choose the most mterestmg solutions anddscusstheieasons for their choice b. demonstrateappropiiateaudiencebefaaviorin watching dance peifotmances; discuss their opinions aboutthedanceswiththeicpeeis in asuppoctiveandconstructive way c compare and contrast two dance compositkms in terms of space (such as shape and pathways), time (such as ihythm and tempo), and forcc/cnetgy (movement qualities) (Lidentifypossibleaestbeticctitcrâfor evaluating dance(such as skiH ofpeifbrmeis, originality, visuaiand/'oremoQoaalimpact.vaiietyandconttast)
Q Demonstmong and understanding dance in various cultures and historical periods Students a. competently perform folkand/'or classical dances from various cultures; desciibesmularmcs and differences in steps and movementstyles b. competentlypexform foOc,sodal,and/brtheatncal dances from abroadspeoium of twentieth- ccntutyAmetica c learn from resources in their own community (such as people, books, and video) afoik dance of a différent culture orasocmldanceofadifiisenttimepeciod and thecuhutal/histoiical context of that dance, effectiveiyshaiing the dance and its contcct with them peers d. accurately describe thetde ofdancein at least two different cuinires or time periods
O Making connections between dance and healthful living Students a. identify at least three personalgoals to improve themselves as dancers and steps they are taking to reach thosegoals b. explain strategies to prevent dance mjuiies c. create their own warm-up and discuss how that warm-up prepares the body and mind for expressive putposes
@ Making conneciions between dance and Other disciplines Students a. create a ptofea that reveals similatiiies and differences between the arts b. dte examples ofconcepts used in dance and anotherdisdpline outside thearts (such as balance, shape, pattern) c observe thesamedance both live andrecorded on video; compare and contrast theaesthetic impact of the two observations
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 289 CONTENT AND ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS IN ARTS EDUCATION FOR GRADES 9 -1 2 DANCE. 9-12 O Identifying and demonstrating movement elements and skills in perfonning dance Prqfident Students a. demoDsoateappiopnateskdetai al^nment, body-pananicuiatioD,strength, flodbility, %ility, and coordinationinlocomotorandnanlocomatoi/sâaiinovenients b. identify and demonstrate longer and mote complexsteps and patterns from two different dance styles/traditions c demonstrate thythmicacuity dcieateandperfbim combinations andvanationsinabtaaddynamicnu^e e.demoasratepro|ectionwfaileperfofnungdancesidl]s f. demonsttate the ability to rememtier attended movement sequences Advanced Students g. demonsttateah%b level ofconsistencyandreliabiliiym perfonning technical skills h. perform tedmicalskillswithartisiicetpression, demonstratmgdaiity, musicality,andstyiistic nuance Ltefine technique tfaroi^seffevaluation and correction O Understanding choreographic principles, processes, and structures PrqfldentStudmlB a. use improvisation to generatemovement for dtoreogmpby b.demonstrareundeisiandii%ofstiucmrcsocfônns (such as palindrome, themeandvatiaiioa, tondo, round, contemporary frxmssekcted byûe student) throi%h bdeftbncestudies c choreograph aduetdemonsnaiingan undeistandit%of choreographic principles, processes, and structures AdoancedStudents d. demonstrate fiirtlierdevelopmentand refinement of the ptoficientskills to createasmall group dancewithcaherenceand aesthetic unity e.accuratdydescribehowachoreographermanipulatedanddevelopedthebasicmovement contentinadance
O Understanding danœ as a way IQ geate and ccanmunicate meaning Prcfident Students a. fotmulateandanswer questions abouthowmovementchoicescommunicateabstxaa ideas in dance b. demonsttate understanding ofhow personalexperieoce mfiuences the interpretation of a dance c. cteateadatKC that effectfvefycommunicatesacanKmpocaiysodal theme Adv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 290 O Applying and demonstrating criiical and creaiive thinking skills in dance Proficient Students a. createadance and revise it over tiine,aniculadngtfaeieasons for tfadranisdcdedsiansandwfaat was lost and gained by those decisions b. establish aset of aesthetic criteria and apply it in evaluating their own work and that ofothers c. fbtmulateand answer their own aesthetic questions (such as: What is it that makes apatticuiar dance that danc^ Howmuch can one change that dance before it becomes a different dance?) Adtxmred Students d. discuss howskillsdeveiopedmdanceareapplicabietoavatiety of cateets e. analyze thestyleofachoteogtapherorcultuial form; then create a dance in thatstyie f. aiiaiyzeis5uesofethiucny,geiider,social/'econoinic dass,%eand/brphysicalcondiiioamfelation to dance Q Demonsirating and undersianding dance in various cultures and historical periods PrpfidaUStitdeids a. perform and desctiiesimilaiiiies and difietences between twx) contemporary theatrical forms of dance b. peifocm or discuss the traditions and technique of a classical dance form ccreateandanswer twenty-five questions about dance and dancers prior to thetwentieth century d.anatyzehowdanceandd^cetsaieportnyedincontemporaiymediaAdvanced e. create a time line iilusitatii^ important dmce events in die twentieth century, placing them in theirsocial/bisioricai/tultutah^iolibcalcontexis f-compareand contrast therdeandsignificance ofdancein two diffetentsodal/historicai/ cukural/pobicalcoateDts O Making connections between dance and healthful living Prcfident Siudemts a. refiectupon their own progress and petsonalgtowthdurmg their study of dance c analyze historical and cultural images ofthe body in dance and compare these to images of the bodymcontemporarymedüa Advanced Students d. discuss chaOo^es fociig professiaaai petfixmeis in m aintaining healthy lifestyles @ Making connections between danœ and Other disciplines r ra ficie ntStudtm ts a. create an interdisciplinary project basedonathemeideniificdbytbestudent, including dance and twootherdiscgilioes b.deaiiyidentify commonalties and differences between dance andother disciplines with regard to fondamental conceptssuchas materials,elements,and ways ofcommunicatingmeaning Catfie«crCl«id So*» ScnoosOMoam Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 291 cdemoostcate/discuss howtechnologycnn be used to-rdnfotce, enhance, oralter the dance idea in anintertfisdpiinaiyprolea AdvancedStudents d. compateonecboieagiaphicwQcfctooaeatheranwcxkfrom thesaniecultuieandtimepenodm tennsofhowdiase works lefleadieaitisDc/cuInind/lustadcal context e. create an inteitiisdpimaiy project using media techncdogies (such as video, computer) that presents dance m anewor enhanced form (such as video dance, video/computer-aided live performance, oranimation) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 292 I I ÎN S , . t « . s s ills z i i : l a il I! % fi i âtxi I I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 293 i I 1m «> > s i il!! I! m m II s g * •- S§ 0 0 « ë s ® w« fl O O o» c II» 1o wu g s. 0 i I Ai2 II 1 = I i 9iI ffôîfltllffirlilî. I !i II iillllIliilillIUIO ^ î ! : Ë !O» e 1 in 5 ; w« I p € i! liH i 1 y 2 « o IIw i u 0* e» c 1 s ï c rf : I « 0 1 « 0 o V M m lii! iiiS il *» *»0 I li !l Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 294 731 . m III lii II “ a II iiim• u • o il ill II# I lii II IJ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 295 1 1 I y.fni > 9iI « I W CU Iil C 1* g o 3 : 5 g" 1 1 O «4 fi 0 « S a lllhilî ,i!| en 1 Ifi ! !o 10 1 1 2 h a Î I O II 11 I I»* : 11! i I ii s I V0 0» C lljliilIlliffliUlH II•  ô •i I W « s s | | » î1 I ^ -s 1 I s « 0 09*» I s iiiii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 296 1ô . - S f i l ij ;I 1 . Il i l II iII i j i H i i (Q II l l i d ! *« o • 5 2 « Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 297 i l ! I g-5 % 1 § o > m 0kt m g i iiiiii %î ! Il iiiüiiüii•a C • ^ ' I II B Iu 1m m 2 » Ai u *>9 0^ "#4e I jll iïii II > O u S il I 5 a II S S 0 -5 ^8 « * 1 * ^ «* 8 ? I t m m litHI m m u ë % 0 iii P.Î # hi 1 O 0 [ f e ? O a HiH i o» I e • *) e « jl o 4Ju •I I 2 w « « : lîilîîi I 0 «2 (0 m s i i I! ililll ii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 298 î-l :! ■5 S£l' •&| II 111 Il ill II • MJI h I n i l : ml l-S SÎI53. liit i  U ill! 1 m 1 s l î ! S t 1,s ss il0 ù Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 299 ' | | s . 2 9kI I Ig | iiiiil • n! i " il l o ? 1 I i I I I I e9* I IICO I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX C THE NAEP ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORKS FOR DANCE 300 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 301 D a n c e a s s e s s m e n t f r a m e w o r k ARTS PROCESSES m DANCE Creating-IV&eii creating in dance, scudena: invent solutions to movement problems, generating and selecting from alternatives; follow improvisaüooal and compositional structures: and collaborate to achieve solutions. Performing-(V&en performing in dance, students: • accurately recall and reproduce movemenc • demonstrate physical technique: and • communicate through movement (expression). Responding-(vaen perceiving, analyzing, interpreting, critiquing, and judging dance, students: identify compositional elements and notice details: idendfy contexts (stylistic, cultural, social, historical) of the dance: and make Informed critical observadons about the dance's and the dancer's technical and artistic components. B A S E D O N SPECmC CONTENT F R O M D A N C E KNOWLEDGE SKILLS APPLYING KNOWLEDGE OF: APPLYING COGNITIVE AFFECTIVE AND MOTOR SKILLS INCLUDING: CONTBCT: • PERSONAL • SOCIAL PERCEPTUAL • CULTURAL INTELlECrUAL/REFLECnVE • nm O R IC A L EXPRESSIVE AESTHEnCS TECHNICAL FORM AND STRUCTURE PROCESSES Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 302 TOc-PUBUCATION DRAFT- 1996 NAB> ARTS EDUCATION ASScSSMSiT AND EXBJCScSPEOFCAIKDNS DANCE CONTENT OUTLINE Dance, Grade 4______ I. Creating A. Invent aolations to movement problems, generating and selecting from alternatives (A movement problem is a task that recpiiies effort Aouÿtt and practice to solve.). 1. given, a. movement problem that requir es an original response, deoise and test out two to three movement solutions, choose their favorite solution and discuss the reasons for that choice (4a) B. Follow impiovisational and compositional structures 1. oeate an original dance o f at least 3 0 seconds with a beginning, middle and end expressing their own idea (2a, 2b)) 2. create an original dance phrase tjfZO seconds, repeat the phrase accurately. and vary it (making changes in the time, space and/or force/energy) (2d) C. Collaborate to achieve solutions 1. create and perform an original dance with a partner of at least 30 seconds, expressing an idea agreed upon with (hot partner (2e) n. Performing A. Accurately recall and reproduce movement 1. gioen oerbal direction, demonstrate die non-locomotor movements of bend, stretch, twist and swing (Nofb-kxomotor movements are done while staying in place) (la) Gfom a Ifoe demonstration, perform a combination o f these movements. 2. gioen verbal direction, demonstrate eight basic locomotor movements (walk, rurt hop, jurry. leap, gallop, slide, skip) traveling forward, backward, sideward, diagonally and turning (locomotor movements travel from one place to another) (lb) Gfom s/for demonstration, perform a combination o f these movements. 3. given verbal directian. dem onstrate movements in strai^t and curved pathways (le) 4. given verbal direction and changes in rhythmic accompaniment (e.g. drum beat tempo dianges) demonstrate changes in movement that respond tochanges in tempo (If) B. Demonstrate physical technique (Physical technique is defined as skills that allow the dancer to move with appropriate skeletal alignment body part articulation, strength, flexibility, balance, and coordination in locomotor and non-looaiiutM movement) 1. given verbal directions to mote through space as part of a large group, demonstrate the ability to define and maintain personal space, distance from others, and spatial arrangement (form) (Id) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 303 PRE-P U B U C A TO N DRAFT- 1990 NAEP ARTS EDUCATK3N ASSESSMENT AND EXBÎOSE S > E a nC A R O N S 2. while fbüawing the movements o f a facilitator, demonstrate physical technique, concentration and focus while performing movement skills in a group (Ig) 3. given verbal direction, demonstrate the following partner skills; copying, leading and fbllontfing mirroring (2f) C Communicate through movement (expression) 1. %vith com p etence and confidence, po^brm their own dances)hr peers and discuss their meanings (3c) 2. with competence and confidence, perf orm fa r peers folk dances from various cultures, learned previously through demonstrations by a facilitator (5a) in. Responding A. Identify compoaitional elements and notice details 1. oietoing a brief movement study, describe the movements (e.g„ skip, gallop) and foe movement elements (such as levels, directions) and suggest ideas being communicated in the study (Ih) B. Identify contexts (stylistic, cultural, social, historical) of dance after vietthHg three dances from particular specific cultures and/or time periods (such as colonial America) describe the cultural and/or historical contexts o f each dance (5c) C. Make informed critical observations about the dance's and dancer's technical and artistic . components 1. observe and discuss how dancers from others who move (such as athletes, pedestrians) (3a) 2. take an active role in a discussion c fa dance, offering their personal reactions and interpretations (3b) 3. observe two dances and discuss how they are similar and diffierent in terms of one of the elements of dance (such as space, shapes, levels, pathwaysK4b) Dance, Grade 8 L Creating A. Invent solutions to movement challenges, generating and selecting from alternatives 1. create their o%vn%varm-up and explain how that warm-up prepares the body and mind for expressive purposes (6c) B. Follow improvisational and compositional structures Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 304 PRE - PUBUCAIION DRAFT - I W ô NAEP ARTS EDUCATION a s s e s s m e nt AND EXB3CSE SPEOHCAIKDNS 1. givat verbal direction, demonstrate in movement die pnndpies of contrast and transition (2a) 2. given oerbal direction, demonstrate movements that exempl^ diortographic processes suck as reordering (2b) 3. given oerbal direction, demonstrate maoements in the faUataing fdrms of AB, ABA. canon, call and response, and narrative (2c) C Collaborate to achieve solutions X. demonstrate the following partner skills in a visually interesting way; creating and complementary shapes, taking, and supporting weight (2e) 2. dem onstrate the ability to work cooperatively in a group o f three to finer during the chut cographic process (2d) n. Performing A. Accurately recall and reproduce movement 1. memorize and reproduce dance sequcnoes t/iot are at least 32 counts in length (Ig) 2-gioen the prompt c f a rhythmic pattern beaten on a drum, reproduce th a t rhyH anic pattern in movement (Id) 3. given the prompt of a spatial pattern draam on paper, reproduce that pattern by traveling through space (Ic) 4. given oerbal prompts, demonstrate two previously learned dances, each at least 32 counts in length, representing two different styles, including basic dance steps, body positions and spatial patterns in their demonstration (lb)(5b)(5a) B. Demonstrate physical technique 1. given verbal prompts, demonstrate through movement the JoDowing qualities of sustained, percussive, and vibratory (le) 2. while following the demonstrated movements o f a facilitator, demonstrate the skills of alignment; balance, articulation of isolated body park, weight shift, elevation and landing fall and recovery (la) C. Communicate duough movement (expreaaion) 1. Create a dance cfat least 32 counts that successfully communicates a topic of personal significance (3d) n L Responding A Identify compositional elements and notice details 1-^hroictpfitg a dance, describe (he iHooeiwents and movement elements using appropriate dance vocabulary (Le. level, direction) (Ih) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 305 P BS -P U B U C A TO N DRAFT - 1996 NAS> ARTS B3UCATX3N ASSESSMENT AND E X B X D S SPSORCATKDNS B. Identify contexts (stylistic; cultural, social, historical) of dance 1. describe the role of dance in two different cultures and/or time periods (Sd) C Make informed critical observations about the dance’s and dancer's technical and artistic components 1. d te r observing a dance, discuss their personal opinions about both the choreography and the performers (4b) 2. identify' and use critena for evaluating dance (such as skill of performers, originality, visual and/or enx>banal impact variety, and contrast (4d) 3. compare and oxitrast two dance compositions in terms of space (such as shape and pathways), time (such as rhythm and tempo), and force/energy (such as movement qualities) (4c) I Dance, Grade 12 Proficient and Advanced The Standards Dance Task Force has identified both 'proficient' and 'advanced' levels of achievement for grades 9-12 to address the level of attairunent for a student who has received instruction in the skills and/or knowledge of dance for one to two years beyond grade 8, and the level of attainment for tfie student who has received instruction for three to four years beyond grade 8. L Creating A Invent solutiens to movement challenges, generating and selecting from alternatives. 1. create and perform a dance that includes two or more dynamic qualities (sudi as percussive) and express personal meaning (Pro-ld) 2. use ünprovisation to genente movement for choreography (Pro-2a) 3. create a dance, then manipulate it by applying a diff&ent farm , describing how the meaning o f the dance was changed (Adv-2e) B. Follow improvisational and compositional structures 1. create a movement sequence that Ulustraies one o f the following structures or forms: theme and variation, rondo, round (Pro-2b) 2. create a dance cfat least one minute, deserving the reasons for the choreographic decisions (Pro-4a) 3. observe a dance an video, describe the dwreographic style, then create a dance o f at least one minute in the style cf the d wreography observed Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 306 PRE - PU3UCATKDN DRAFT - 1996 NAEP ARTS EDUCATK3N ASSESSMENT AND EXEROSS SPECTCAIKDNS C. Collaborate to achieve solutions 1. working in group o f three or four, choreograph a dance of at least 32 counts, then describe the choreographic principles, process, and the structures used (Pio-2c) 2. uwrkzng with a partner, choreograph and perform a duet o f at least 64 counts discussing the use choreographic principles, processes, and structures (Pro-2c n. Performing A. Accurately recall and reproduce movement 1. ^ ler learning 32 counts of a dance taught by a facilitator, accurately recall, and reproduce the movements and rhythmic patterns (Pro-lf) 2. idler learning two dances o f different styles, accurately recall, and reproduce each dance B. Demonstrate physical technique 1. qjter learning 32 counts o f a dance demonstrated by a facilitator, demonstrate appropriate skeletal alignment, body part articulation, strength, flexibility, agility, and coordination in locomotor and norv4ocomotor movement (Pro-la) 2. ^ le r learning a 64 count dance, perform the dance with artistic expression, demonstrating clarity, musicality, and stylistic nuance (Adv-lh) C. Communicate through movement (expression) 1. create a dance iff at least 32 counts that communicates a contemporary social theme (such as isolation, poverty, relationships, the environment, etc.) (Pro-3c) 2. create a dance o f at least 32 counts that conveys a contemporary social theme, vary the choreography so that it expresses a dffferent theme, and discuss eadi o f the ideas end the ways they were expressed in. Responding A. Identify compositional elements and notice details 1. qfter observing a dance, anssver questions about how the dwreographer's choices communicate ideas (Pro-3a) 2. after observing dance on video, identify the choreographer's use of structure or form (Le. theme and variation, rondo, round, cannon call and response, narrative) (Pro-2b) 3. ^ te r observing two différera dances, compare how the choreographers manipulates movement and movement elemoits to express idess (Adv-2e) B. Identify contexts (stylistic, cultural, social, historical) of the dance 1. after observing a classical dance form (such as ballet) discuss the traditiorts and technique (Pro-5b) 2. analyze how dance and dancers are portrayed in ccnten^orary American media (Pro-5d) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 307 PRE-O U aUC A IlO N D R A FT- 1996 MAE» ARTS EDUCATK3N ASSESSMENT A N D EXERCISE SPEOFICATKDNS 3. compare and contrast the role and significance of dance in two different sodal/historical/cultural/political contexts (suck as dance used for political devices in Om munist China compared with dance used in Native American ceremonies) (Adv-5f) C. Make informed critical obaervatiorw about the dance's and dancer's technical and artistic components 1. establish a set of aesthetic criteria and apply it in evaluating their own work and that of others (Pro-4b) 2. describe similarities and difierences betw een two contemporary theatrical dances (Pro- 5a) 3. analyze issues of ethnicity, gender, social/economic class, age and/or physical condition in relation to dance (what are the stereotypes in dance in reference to these issues? How does dance rffleet such contemporary issues? etc.) (Adv-4f) 4. examine ways that dance oeatcs and conveys meaning by considering the dance from a variety of perspectives (such as the dance critic, the audience, the choreographer, the performer) (Adv-3d) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 308 f il m Ki i \ IIf il I i n f ] N Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 309 n m I H II Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 310 fil iïlî ÎÎ1 II fil lit * î i l II î f i t l 1 1 1 II III il f I» ff f Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX D LISTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 311 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 312 THE WRITING TASK FORCES DANCE TASK FORCE: NATIONAL DANCE ASSOCIATION Rayma Beal Mary Alice Brennan Sarah Hilsendager Dianne S. Howe Rebecca Hutton Luke Kahlich Mary Maitland Kimball. Chair Sue Stinson MUSIC TASK FORCE: MUSIC EDUCATORS NATIONAL CONFERNCE June Hinckley Charles Hotter Paul Lehman, Chair Carolynn Lindeman Bennett Reimer Scott Shuler Dorothy Straub THEATRE TASK FORCE: AMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR THEATRE AND EDUCATION, in cooperation with the EDUCATIONAL THEATRE ASSOCIATION E. Frank Bluestein Nancy Perzan Laura Gardner Salazar Kent Seidel Kim Wheetley Lin Wright, Chair VISUAL ARTS TASK FORCE: NATIONAL ART EDUCATION ASSOCIATION Carmen Armstrong Jeunes M. Clarke Mac Arthur Goodwon Thomas A. Hattield Larry Peeno Jeanne Rollins, Chair STATE ARTS CONSULTANTS TASK FORCE Jeanne Belchett Joe Giles Krin Perry Joan Peterson, Co-Chair Frank Philip, Co-Chair James Tucker Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 313 NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDS IN THE ARTS: "THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE" A. Graham Down, Council for Basic Education, Chair Gordon M. Ambach, Council of Chief State School Officers Libby Chiu, Boston Conservatory Bruce Christensen, Brigham Young University Thad Cochran, U.S. Senator (R - Mississippi) Glenn Connor, Principal, Meeker Elementary School, A m e s , lA James F. Cooper, Newington-Cropsey Foundation James Czarnecki, University of Nebraska Denis Doyle, Hudson Institute Leilani Lattin Duke, The Getty Center for Education in the Arts Harriet Fulbright, Center for Arts in the Basic Curriculum Keith Geiger, National Education Association Edward Gero, Actor, Shsücespeare Theatre; Director of the Ensemble, George Mason University Michael Greene, National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, Inc. Richard S. Gurin, Binney & Smith, Inc. Samuel Hope, National Office for Arts Accreditation in Higher Education C. James Lawler, C. James Lawler Associates Barbara Laws, Teacher, Norfolk (Virginia) Public Schools Ann Lynch, Human Hospital Sunrise Arturo Madrid, Trinity University Roger Mandl, Rhode Island School of Design Ellis Marsalis, University of New Orleans Dave Master, Teacher, La Puente Valley Regional Occupation Program; Rowlaind High School, Rowland Heights, CA Konrad Matthaei, United Negro College Fund Major Owens, U.S. House of Representatives (D - NY) Joseph Polisi, The Julliard School Milton Rhodes, Spoleto Festival Malcolm L. Richardson, President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities Shirlie Ririe, Ririe-Woodbury Dance Company Albert Shankar, American Federation of Teachers Richard Wendorf, Houghton Library, Harvard University James D. Wolfensohn, The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Special recognition for the contributions of: Gregory R. Anrig (1931-1993) Terry Taylor (1946-1994) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 314 COORDINATING COUNCIL AMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR THEATRE AND EDUCATION Barbara Salisbuty Wills, Executive Secretary Kim Wheetley, Immediate Past President NATIONAL ART EDUCATION ASSOCIATION Thomas Hatfield, Executive Director James Clarke, Immediate Past President MUSIC EDUCATORS NATIONAL CONFERENCE John A. Mahlmann, Executive Director Dorothy Straud, President NATIONAL DANCE ASSOCIATION Rebecca Hutton, Executive Director Kathryn Ellis, President Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 315 1996 NAEP ARTS EDUCATION STEERING COMMITTEE Aditenne Bailey TomHaiflcid John Tenell Scott Ediicadooal Coasalant Bmcuihm Director Profaaaorof Art/Artlst Chicago. Illinois National Art Education Association Xavier University Restott. Vbglnla New Oileans; Louisiana John Booaluto Secreaiyof Edacatioa Kent Seidel South Dakota Department of Educatlaa Director. Center for Arts Curriculum Director. Teacher Sendees and Plena. South Oafcaa PliflDlosiBd Bvsluatioo Adwcacy Urtaa Gateways Educational Theatre Association Harry Oaht Oliflcli rmrlnnati, Ohio President Interna tlrmai NETWORK of tefonninc Samuel Hope Albert Shan her and Visual Arts Schools Bmcuitw Dbectnr ftesldeat Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania Natloaal omce Bar Arts Acoedimtkm. American Eadetation of Teachers In Higher Education Washington. DC Nicoletie Clarfce Reston. virghtia Btecudve Director Carol Sterling Vermont Council on the Arts Rebecca Hutton Director. Arts Education Montpelier, Vermont Execuihn Director American Council far the Arts National Dance Asaodatkm New York. New York Elliott Bauer Reston. Virginia Professor of Education and Art Kathryn Whltcm Stanford UtiivertiQr Joan Katz Stanford. California Director. Bemenaary/ National PTA Secondary Sendee .Tee Harriett Pulbtlght Public Broadcasting Service President Alexandria. Virginia iwms Center for Arts In the Basic Executive Director Curriculum Robert Uoyd American AUnace far Theatre Washington. DC Dean and Education visual Studies Institute far Teachers Tacoma, Washington Eduardo Garda Arts Education Consultant KcMnYaarie Plainsboro. New Jersey John Mahlamnn Artist Raggstiir. Arttona Keith Geiger Music Educators National Confierence President Reston. Virginia National Education Association ADvsoRS TOP l a n n in g Washington. DC GregMcCasUn AND STEERING COMMHTEES Director. Education and Kay Goodwin Paul ***»■«»" Arts Advocate New Yofk Eonndatfan far the Arts Senior Associate Dean Ripley. West Virginia New York. )kw York Ualversny of Mirhlgtn Ana Arbor. Michipn Michael Green Michael Moore President Ptestdent Brent Wilson National Academy of Recmding Attotlaaon of Instltmes far Professor Arts and Sciences Aesthetfc Education Penn State University Burbank. California RmdlngGieen.Ohlo Unlurrslly Part Ptnnsylvaaia Richard Gurin DevkKTEaOon President and CEO SafT Director. Arts Education Binney & Smith. Inc. Permrrshlp Working Group Easton. Pennsylvania The Kennedy Center Washington. DC Rotme Hartfleid Executive Director of Bethany Rogers Museum Education Coalition of EmeaHal Schools Art Institute of Chicago Brown Unlvetsliy Chicago, nnnfii« Providence. Rhotle bland 1996 NAEP SftiCdacananFfamwmk* PRfrffUWCATION BDmON « faotocapytae Pn^ttsd Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 316 1 9 9 6 NAEP ARTS EDUCATION MANAGEMENT t e a m PROJECT STAFF SUBCONTRACTORS LIAISONS FOR FUNDING ORGANIZATIONS Ramsay Selden Graham Down Profect Director President Doug Herbert Council of Chief Sate School OfBcen Council for Basic Education Director. Arts In Education Program Washington. DC Washington. DC National Eadowmcnt far the Arts Waxhingtim. DC Frank Philip StepbanaSoper Consensus Coordinator Mary Ann ScutUmdcz Council of Chief Sate School CfBcers Council ftar Basic Education Coosuhant/The Getty Center for Washington. DC Washington. DC Education m the Arts Asaissaot Vice president fbr JonQpam Ruth Mitchell Academic Affairs Prolect Advisor Assessment Consultant RlngUng School of Art and Dedffi Council of Chief Saa School oncers Washington. DC Sarasota. Florida Washington, DC Robert Om O Ed Roeber Executive Director. Academic Affairs Proiect Advisor The College Board Council of Chief Saa School oncers New York. New York Washington, DC Carol Myfbrd Bonnie Verrico Research Sdendst/ETS Administrative Assistant Contnlant/The College Board Council of Chief Saa School oncers Princeton. New Jersey Washington. DC Joan Pearson Callfarnla Department of Education PROJECT OFFICER Consultant/The College Board MaryCrovo Sacramento. California Assistant Director for Test Development Nattonal Assessment Governing Board Dennis Palmer Wolf Washington. DC Bmcutiwe Dbector/PACE Harvard Unlwrsity COosultant/The College Board Contulant/CouncU for Basic Education Cambridge. Massachusetts 1996 NAEP Arts HncaUou rumnmrt • PRE-ttlBUCAttON EDR10N • tbotocopyiaa Psnload Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 317 1996 NAEP ARTS EDUCATION PLANNING COMMITTEE Angélique Acevedo Mac Arthur Goodwin Laura Gatdnm Salazar. President Artlst/TeKhcr. Ara Cunlcuium Education Associate American Alliance ftar Theatre Education Integnooo Spcdeiist South Carolina Department of Profs saor of Theatre Bear Cicek High School Educatton Grand Valley State University Lakewood. Colorado CoiUTohia. South Carolina Allendale; Mchigan Carolyn Adams Robert w. Gross Win Schmid. President Dance Teacher. Harlem Dance Fmmdadon Muldmadta/Asaeaament Specialist Music Educators Natmnal Confierence Director. Dance Promam Rne Arts Department Chair Professor/University of Wisconsia- City College of New York Carl Sandburg High School MUwaukoe Chair. Oence/USA's Naifaoal Task Eotce Orlando Park. BOhmls FQIwaiikse. Wlacoosm on Dance Educatkm New York. New York Mark Hansen. President Laura! Serleth Nanooal Art Educatkm Arnodatmn •Marianna Adams ^«•«a.iniiw, r,— H t M w w Bvansmn Schools District 65 Curator of Education Forest take PubUc Schools Evanston, minms Museum of Art Forest Lake. Minnesota Port Lauderdale. Florida "Scott Shuler Jorge Huerm Arts Educatmn Consultant "Donna Kay Beattie Coaaacdcat Department of Educadoo Aisc. ftofesaor of Art Education Untversity of CalUbraia. San Diego Hartford. Connacdcut Brigham Young University la JoOa. CalUbrala Provo. Utah Suzanne Shun Sandra June McCoOlsisr Music Teacher EUynBerk Assistant PiUkssor. Art Education Rldgeview Middle School Arts Consultant SouthwastTsams University Atlanta. Georgia New York. New York San Marcos. Tens Ruth Ann Teague "Deborah Brsoska "Claudette Morton Music Teacher Pine Arts Coordinator Dbnetor Arthur P. Mdton Bemeuiary School Vancouver School District Rural Educatfan Center Gary. Indiana Vancouver, Washington Weamrn Montana college "Cheryl Tlbbnls Unda Ctegorlc c o o k rinnnrnf nittiimin* Registered Drama Therapist Nancy Norwood New Stnndartls Profect New Orleans Schools Madia Arts Instructor New Orleans. Louisiana Mtaacaota Center for Arts Educadott Golden Valley. Miaaeaoca JorjaTurolpmad "Jennifer Davldacm Professor of Music Education Arts Educatkm Consultant "Barry Crack Mississippi State University Oakland Schools Diraciaraf In-School Programs Waterford. Michigan ArtsConnecdott WlUle Anthony Waters New York. New York Conductor Meredith Davis MiamL Florida Professor/Head. Department of Nancy PIstooe ATK KttlMWthM r w — iM T Graphic Design A dvisors TO Pl a n ning North rxmiim# state Utdverslty fUtsburgh. Ptnnsylvaaia Raleigh. North Carolina AND STEERING COMMITTEES Theram Purccn. President Maxine DeBruyn Natkmal Dance Asaodadon Paul Imh— m Dance Chair Dnacc/Physlcal Education Specialist Senior Associate Dean HopeCoUege Brunmrtck Acres Elementary School University of Michipn Holland. Michigan Kendall Park. New Jersey Ana Arbor. Michigan Ed Gero Janice Ross Brent Wilson Actor Dance Lecturer Professor Shakespeare Theatre Stanford University Penn State Untversity Washington. DC Stanford. California University hrk. Peimsyivania Director of the Ensemble George Mason Utdversity Nancy Roucher CO-Dlractor Florida Insdtute for Art Educadoo ' Arts Sub-group leaders Sarasota. Florida 1996 NAEP ARsHaadaaFnmnatk* PRE^USUCATION EDtnON • fhemcapytag Poalcud Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX E CHART OF COMMITTEE STRUCTURE 318 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 319 C u r r ic u l u m S t a n d a r d s fo r A rts in Sc h o o l s O rganizational C h a r t National Committee fbr Arts Standards Representatives foom education, business, government, and the arts Consortiiim of National Arts Education Xuk Forces for Task Force for State Aasodatiom (Caordûiating CoundO Art Arts Education Dance Consultants MENC (Administrator) Musk AAIE Theatre NAEA NDA Am and K-12 Teachers, Arts Artists Alls and Humanities Teacher Industnes, âomeach Education Coundls, Slate Educators, Recording disdpline Oiganizations and Local Aitsdc Agenda Scholars Sciences Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX F LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS 320 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 321 ORGANIZATIONS AND AGENCIES CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL ARTS EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONS (CNAEA; formerly DAMT): American Alliance for Theatre Education (AATE) Music Educators National Conference (MENC) National Arts Education Association (NAEA) National Dance Association (NDA) * * * American Council for the Arts (ACA) American Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (AAHPERD) American Federation of Teachers (AFT) The Arts Education Partnership Working Group The Brookings Institution Center for Arts in the Basic Curriculum The College Board Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Educational Testing Service (ETS) Getty Center for Education on the Arts (1989-1996) Getty Institute for Arts Education (1996-present) Goals 2000 Partnership The Hudson Institute National Assembly of Local Arts Agencies (NALA) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) National Commission on Excellence in Education National Council of State Arts Education Consultants (NCSAEC) National Education Association (NEA) National Education Goals Panel (NEGP) National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC) National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) National Parent Teacher Association National School Boards Association President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities Project Zero, Harvard University Graduate School of Education State Collaborative on Assessments and Student Standards (SCASS) U.S. Department of Education (DOE) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX G TIME LINE 322 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 323 Recent work in Standards and Assessment History and Overview 1983 Nation at Risk 1988 Math Standards produced by NCTM March, 1989 Governors and President Bush frame the first set of National Goals for education. August 1991 National Assesanent Governing Board (NAGB) authorizes the arts as one of the NAEP subjects to be assessed in 1996. Movember, 1991 State Collaborative on Assessments and Student Standards (SCASS) Arts Education Project is begun. January, 1992 The Consortium of National Arts Education Associations begins work on the National Standards for Arts Education. June, 1992 USDOE funds the Arts Education standards project September, 1992 NAGB contract for the Consensus Project to develop an arts assessment foamework and specifications awarded to CCSSO. Marchs, 1994 Frametvork and Specifications accepted by NAGB. March 11,1994 National Standards for Arts Education presented to Secretary Riley. March, 1994 Congress pasiret and President Clinton signs into law the Goals 2000: Educate America Act which includes the arts as a curricular area under Goal #3. May, 1994 Educational Testing Service receives USED contract to develop the National Assessments in the Arts, Mathematics, and Science. Westat, CCSSO, and NCR named as subcontractors. April/May/June ETS and CCSSO begin parallel efforts to construct assessment 1994 exercises. CCSSO identifies and convenes teacher/SEA teams in 15 states. Workshops are held and 225 multi-foceted, integrated exercise sets are created. Forty- seven exercise sets arc sent to ETS. August, 1994 NAGB moves to reschedule the NAEP Arts Assessment for 1997 due to the rescheduling of Mathematics and Sdencc for 1996. The decision marks the first time NAEP will be conducted on an "odd" year. January, February, NAEP field test for fourth and eighth grade is conducted by Westat as sub 1995 -contractor to ETS. March - August, 1995 National Computer Systems scores the field test May, 1995 NAGB reaffirms the twelfth grade field test scheduled for January, 1997. Spring, 1997 NAEP Assessment for Arts Education to be conducted as a "probe" at the eighth grade in all arts areas (national sample for music and art, purposive sample for danse and theatre. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX H ISSUES FOR INTRODUCTION OF STANDARDS 324 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 325 ATPEMSZX XO Mixes #-* MSSZOXXX. COMIZSSEE MECZZXG MZXOXSS ISSUES FOR COMMENT Introdnctory Statenient oa Standards in the Arts So many issues have been raised over the course of the standards project thus for, it is clear that our standards texts need an effective set of introductory statements.. Some of the issues concern principles; odiers, poGcy clarifications; and others, the aspirations of professionals and lay persons. Still other issues involve orienting the user to the purposes, format, and concqit of the standards document. The project is now at the point where we need to ensure that we have a complete picture of these issues. The list below wiU be used to take comment firom the Steering Committee during our next meeting. Otixer issues may be added The conunent will be used to formulate the best possible consensus for the introductory statement. Our chaHenge is to ensure that introductory materials are thorough enough to answer questions that are sure to aiise without being oveily long or complex. Steering Committee members should also keq» in mind that there are plans to have an Executive Summary of the longer, more detailed introductory document intended for those who will work with the standards in depth in various teaching, curriculum development, and evaluation contexts. At present, our concern is the longer documenL In making comments, we must consider the scope and depth of statements being prqnred for disc^lines such as mathematics, history, and geography. We cannot afford an unfavorable comparison. We must also ensure that our tfatemgiit does not attempt to use buzz words as a substitute for reasoned argumeoL The eventual text should be usable for years to come without regard to trends in word use. And, as always, it is important to consider carefully how our message is likely to be received at least as mudi as what we want to say. PRIMARY ISSUES In the inavductory statement, to wAar eztenr should we: 1. Feature the arts as a mode of thought and action as well as a mode of experience? What is the proportion we need in a K-12 standards document? 2. Tie arts education to the development of civilization? 3. Feature the "passion plus intellect” concqxt that is central to muchserious art-making, past and present? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 326 Issues for Comment, page 2 4. Note that the aits are a mode of thought as rich and complex, but different than the modes o f thought represented by the sciences and the humanities? 5. Emphasize self-expression? For example, to what extent and in what ways is the term "self-expression” positive or negative? 6. Emphasize the acquisitioa of knowledge and sldUs? What priorities should the statement emphasize between knowledge and skills and (b) self-expression? 7. R ^ort that some aspects ofarts study can be tested as right or wrong, or as achieved or not achieved while other apects cannot be tested empirically, but rather must be judged against their own goals and objectives? 8. Explain the difference between work jg art and work about art, as well as the potential interrelationship between work jg and work absul in a basic arts education? 9. Explain the natures of competence development in the arts, including the nature of work on the same content at different levels? 10. Speak from the perspective of mass to individual or from individual to mass? In other words, what is our first concern: mass reqxmse or individual knowledge and skills? 11. Explore the issue of talent and its meaning for arts education policy for the general public? 12. Express a preference frxr connecting various studies (creation/performance, analysis, history, etc.) within an arts discipline? 13. Express a preference for connecting various studies across the arts disciplines? 14. Address relationships between creativity and acquisition of knowledge and skills? 15. Point to issues of scope, breadth, and d^th in curricular decision-making? 16. Address diversity from a sociological base, a political base, an aesthetic heritage base, a communications base, a materials for art-malting base, etc.? 17. Use the word "multicultural?" VLas this word become a cover for too many radically different meanings to communicate specifically and directly? 18. Feature technology in terms of new technological cpabilities, or in terms of the basic relationship of technical means to making and studying art? 19. Explain the philosophical principles underlying the standards? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 327 Issues for Comment, page 3 20. Explain the kind of standards presented and their relationship to various other instructiooal issues and choices? 21. Feature the relationships of specific standards and types of standards to a holistic concept of student competence? 22. Tnrfieate local lesponsibflityr for specific content and methodology decisions under the framework provided by the standards? 23. the lelationshÿ of the standards to teacher qualifications and associated issues of professional development and teacher prqiaration? 24. Explain the relationship between arts study and arts experiences? Mention resources — tangible and mtangible, induding time? 25. Emphasize systemic diange over student competencies? For example, to what extent can student competencies be improved widiout systemic change? Does systemic change include values change and resource change, or does it simply mean an overhaul of the system fbr delivering arts education? Is the term "systemic change" clear? B there one type of "system" that will cause the standards to be met? To what extent should we focus on getting the job done, however it can be done, wherever it can be done? 26. Suggest the private nature of individual values, in part to avoid the charge of indoctrination? 27. Provide some examples of the points we are making. 2/25/93 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX I STATE CONTACTS FOR GOALS 2000 328 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 329 GOALS 2000: A Progress Report - Fall 1996 State Contacts for GOALS 2000 ALASKA Helen Mehrkins Ph: 907^5S730 Fax: 907-^65-2713 ALASKA FEDERATION Dorothy M. Larson Ph: 907-274-3611 Fax:907-276-7989 AMERICAN SAMOA LuiTuitele Ph: 684-633-1246 Fax:684-633-5184 ARIZONA Mike Hughes Ph: 602-542-7461 Fax:602-542-3590 ARKANSAS Barbara Bankhead Ph:501-682-1189 Fax:501-682-5010 BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Sandra Fox Ph: 202-273-2339 Fax:202-208-3312 Gaye Leia King Ph: 202-219-3817 Far- 202-208-3312 CALIFORNIA Terry Emmett Ph: 916-657-5140 Fax: 916-657-5457 COLORADO Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 330 Jan Silverstein P h : 3 0 3 -866-6635 Fax:303-830-0793 CONNECTICUT Benjamin Dixon Ph: 860-566-4185 Fax:860-566-8964 DELAWARE Carol O'Neill Mayhew Ph:302-739-4647 Fax:302-739-^3 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Bettye Topps Ph: 202-724-4222 F ax: 20 2 -7 2 7 -1 5 J6 FLORIDA Wayne Largent Ph: 904-488-6547 Fax:904-921-9059 GEORGIA Holly Robinson Ph:404-656-2598 Fax:404-651-8737 GUAM Nerissa Bretania-Sbafer Ph: 671-472-2241 Fax:671-477-3407 HAWAH Margery Gaza Ph: 808-735-9023 Fax:808-737-2708 IDAHO Robert Watson Ph: 208-334-3300 Fax:208-334-2228 Internet: [email protected] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 331 ILLINOIS Thomas Kerins/Warren Linburger Ph: 217-782-6602 Fax:217-782-6097 INDIANA Linda Cornwell P h : 317-232-9177 Fax:317-232-9121 IOWA Marcus J. Haack Ph: 515-281-8141 Fax:515-242-6025 KANSAS Phyllis Kelly Ph: 913-296-3069 Fax:913-296-7933 KENTUCKY Rhonda Bailey P h : 502-564-3791 Fax:502-564-6721 Internet: [email protected] LOUISIANA William Miller Ph: 504-342-3603 Fax:504-342-7316 MAINE Heidi McGinley Ph: 207-287-5986 Fax:207-287-5927 MARSHALL ISLANDS Paulie Keliikoa P h : 692-625-7398 Fax:692-625-3861 MARYLAND Phyllis Bailey Ph: 410-767-0520 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 332 Fax:410-333-0714 MASSACHUSETTS David DriscoU Ph: 617-388-3300 ext. 323 Fax:617-388-3392 MICHIGAN Theresa Staten P h : 517-373-3354 F ax: 517-335-4565 MICRONESIA Cataiino I. Cantero Ph: 691-320-2609 Fax:691-320-5500 MINNESOTA Stephanie Parsons P h : 612-296-1429 Fax:612-297-2845 MISSISSIPPI Suzanne Ulmer Ph: 601-359-2561 Fax:601-359-2040 MISSOURI Craig Rector P h: 314-526-3232 Fax:314-751-9434 NEBRASKA Donlyn Rice P h: 402-471-5025 Fax: 402-471-4433 Internet: pollv [email protected] NEVADA Bill Arensdorf Ph: 702-687-3187 Fax: 702-687-4499 NEW JERSEY Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 333 Anne O'Dea Ph:609-984-7992 Fax:609-292-1645 NEW MEXICO Denise Johnston Ph: 505-827-1230 Fax:505-827-6696 NEW YORK Zelda Holcombe Ph: 518-474-2238!518473-7155 Fax:518-486-7336 NORTH CAROLINA Judy White Ph: 919-715-1309 Fax:919-715-5721 NORTH DAKOTA Ron Stastney Ph: 701-3282276 Fax: 701-328-4770 NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS (CNMI) William P. Matson Ph: 9-011-670-322-6405 Fax: 9-011-670-322-6402 OHIO Gene T. Harris Ph: 614-728-5865 Fax:614-644-5960 Internet: sdea [email protected] OREGON Joanne Flint Ph:503-378-8004 Fax:503-373-7968 PALAU Masa-Aki N. Emesiochl Ph: 9-011-680-4881003 Fax: 9-011-680-488-2830 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 334 PENNSYLVANIA Jane Carroll Ph: 717-783-1330 Fax: 717-783-6900 PUERTO RICO Janet T. Santana Ph: 809-281-6496 F ax: 809-751-6J92 RHODE ISLAND Loreto Gandara Ph: 401-277-3124x3 Fax:401-277-6178 SOUTH CAROLINA Pamela P. Pritchett Ph: 803-734-8277 Fax:803-734-6142 SOUTH DAKOTA Margo Heiceit Ph: 605-773-4699 Fax:605-773-6139 TENNESSEE Amy Beannan P h : 615-741-2731 Fax:615-741-6236 Internet- [email protected] TEXAS Criss Cloudt P h : 512-463-9701 Fax:512-475-3499 Internet: [email protected] UTAH Bruce Griffin/Larry Horyna Ph: 801-538-7762 Fax:801-538-7521 VERMONT Robert McNamara Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 335 P h : 802-828-2752 Fax:802-828-3140 Internet: [email protected] VIRGIN ISLANDS Mario Golden Ph: 809-773-6240 Fax:809-773-5466 WASHINGTON Hugh Walicup P h : 360-753-3223 Fax:360-664-3314 Internet [email protected] WEST VIRGINIA Teddi Cox P h : 304-558-2691 Fax:304-558-0048 WISCONSIN Pauline Nikolay Ph: 608-266-3361 Fax:608-267-1052 WYOMING Linda Carter P h : 307-777-6252 Fax:307-777-6234 -###- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX J STATUS OF ARTS ASSESSMENTS IN STATES 336 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 337 Status of Arts Assessment in the States 19% - 1997 Initiative generated by Lany N. Peeno, Director, and Vicki S. Bodenhamer, Director-Elect, NAEA Supervision and Administration Division Compiled by Larry N. Peeno National Art Education Association, 1916 Association Drive, Reston, VA 20191 NAEA REFORM fNTTIATIVES, 1996 - 1997 Supervision and Administration Division NAEA GOAL - Provide leadership in professionai development. INITIATIVE - Assist persons who are writing, researching, and collecting information about assessment. ALABAMA (Southeastern Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has yet to determine if they wüL Contact Person Bob Smith Arts in Education Specialist 3339 Gordon Persons Building 50 N. Ripley Street, Room 3304 Montgomery, AL 36130 (334) 242-8059 Fax (334) 242-0482 [email protected] ALASKA (Pacific Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has no plans to do so. They have standards that have been approved in the arts and their fiameworks are in draft form. Contact Person Dennis McCrea Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 3 8 recentpapers.html at www.naea-rcston.org Division of Teaching and Learning Support Alaska Department of Education 801 W. 10th Avenue Juneau, AK 99801 (907) 465-8691 FAX; (907) 463-5279 ARIZONA (Pacific Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has no plans to do so. Contact Person Brenda Henderson Director of Testing, Evaluation Arizona Department of Education Phoenix, AZ 85007 (602) 542-3824 FAX: (602) 542-5467 ARKANSAS (Western Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has no plans to do so. Contact Person Gail Potter Curriculum Arkansas Department of Education #4 Stale Capitol Mall Room 109B Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4558 FAX: (501) 682-4898 CALIFORNIA (Pacific Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has yet to determine if they wilL They are currently developing Golden State Exams for some di^plines but none for the arts. Contact Person Barbara Abbott California Departmem of Education P.O. Box 944272 721 Capitol Mall, 4th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 657-4298 FAX: (916) 657-4964 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 3 9 recentpapers-html at www.naea-reston.org COLORADO (Pacific Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the aits, but plans to do so, although a timeline has not been determined. Fine arts teachers wŒ not have input into the cnnaructoa of the assessment sstninisnt. The state plans to assess music and visual aits using a combination o f essay, fiU-in-the-blanlc/short answer, multiple choice and performance tasks. At this time the state would assess to improve student achievement levels and the results would also be used to provide information regarding the extent to which their state goals for fine arts education have been achieved. Assessment results would not be used to provide feedback concerning various aspects of the teaching process in fine arts. Contact Person W ^ e Martin, Assessment Dnector Colorado Department of Education 1580 Logan SL, Suite 740 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 894-2146 FAX. (303) 894-2141 CONNECTICUT (Eastern Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has no plans to do so. Contact Person Doug Rindone, Chief Bureau of Evaluation and Student Assessment Connecticut State Department of Education 165 Capitol Avenue, Box 2219 Hartford, CT 06106 (203) 566-1684 FAX; (203) 566-1625 DELAWARE (Eastern Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has yet to determine if they wOl. Contact Person Larry Gabbert, Education Associate Educational Assessment Delaware Department of Public Instruction P.O. Box 1402 Dover, DE 19903-1402 (302) 739^887 FAX (302) 739-4883 [email protected] FLORIDA (Southeastern Region) Assessment Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 4 0 recentpapers.html at www.naea-reston.org The state does not assess in the arts and has no plans to do so. Contact Person Thomas H. Fisher, Administrator Student Assesstssst Services 701 Horida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 (904) 488-8198 FAX (904) 487-1889 GEORGIA (Southeastern Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has no plans to do so. Contact Person Larry Parker, Director Division of Research and Evaluation Georgia Department of Education 1870 Twin Towers East Atlanta, GA 30334-5030 (404) 656-2668 FAX (404) 656-5976 HAWAII (Pacific Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the fine arts and has no plans to do so. There is however, assessment in their magnet schools and academies of performing arts and the state did participate in the NAEP assessment. Because o f downsizing it’s doubtful if the fine arts will be assessed statewide. Contact Person Selvin Chin-Chance, Administrator Testing Office Hawaii Department o f Education, Test Development Section 3430 Leahi Avenue, Building D , First Floor Honolulu, HI 96815 (808) 733-9003 FAX (808) 732-2708 [email protected] IDAHO* (Pacific Region) Assessment The state currently assesses in the arts in the areas of theatre, music, and visual arts and fine arts teachers had input into the development of the instrument. Assessment instruments being used are embedded(l), essay, fiU-in-the-blank/short answer, multiple choice, perfonnance(2), and portfolios. The assessments are being used to improve student achievement levels in the fine arts. TMs is evidenced by higher test scores on ACT and SAT and other academic areas. The assessments are not Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 341 recentpapers.html at www.naea-reston.org being used to provide information regarding the extent to which their state goals for arts education have been achieved and they are not being used to provide feedback concerning various aspects of the teaching process in fine arts. CwQtact Pcfsoii Gale Maxey Consultant for Fine Arts 650 W. State Street Len B. Jordan Building Boise, ID 83720 (208) 332-6941 FAX (208) 334-2228 [email protected] ILLINOIS* (Western Region) Assessment The state is assessing in the arts. The pilot and field testing has occurred. It is a locally developed assessment (multiple choice, maybe some video tape). Representative assessment was delayed until the spring of 1997. Fine arts teachers had input into the development o f the assessment instrument in the disciplines of dance, theatre, music, and visual arts. The assessment is being used to improve student achievement levels in the fine arts. There is evidence to determine this but the form of presentation has yet to be determined. The assessment is being used to provide information regarding the extent to which their state goals for arts education have been achieved. The state evidences this by charting progress over time. The assessment is not being used to provide feedback concerning various aspects of the teaching process in fine arts. Contact Person Mervin M. Brennan, Acting Division Administrator Illinois State Board o f Education 100 North First Street Springfield, IL 62777 (217) 782-4823 FAX (217) 782-6097 [email protected] INDIANA (Western Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has no plans to do so. Contact Person John Moreland, Consultant Research and Assessment State House Room 229 Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317)232-9098 FAX; (317)232-9121 [email protected]. us Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 342 recentpapers-html at www.naea-reston.org IOWA (Western Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has no plans to do so. Contact Person Leland Tack, Administrator Iowa Department of Education Grimes State Office Building Des Moines, lA 50319 (515) 281-4835 FAX (515) 242-5988 [email protected] KANSAS (Western Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the fine arts and has no plans to do so. Contact Person Arm Harrison, Director Planning, Research, Evaluation Kansas Department of Education 120 S. E. 10th Avenue Topeka, KS 66612 (913) 296-3605 FAX (913) 296-7933 [email protected] KENTUCKY* (Southeastern Region) Assessment The state currently assesses in the arts and fine arts teachers had input into the development of the instrument. The state assesses dance, theatre, music, visual arts, arxl humanities using embedded, essay, multiple choice and open response hems. The assessment is being used to improve student achievement levels in the fine arts. This is evidenced by state scores that have improved in the fine arts over the last three years. The assessment is being used to provide information regarding the extent to which their state goals for arts education have been achieved. Because of the 1990 reform act in Kentucky, the state had to develop academic goals, expectations, assessment questions. As a result, the data produced indicates state goals for arts education are being achieved. The assessment is not being used to provide feedback concerning various aspects of the teaching process in fine arts. Contact Person Artfnir Patterson, Assessmem Consultant Kentucky Department of Education 500 Metro Street Frankfort, KY 40601 (502) 564-2106 FAX; (502) 564-7749 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 343 recentpapers.html at www.naea-reston.org [email protected] LOUISIANA (Southeastern Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has yet to determine if they will. It is under discussion. Contact Person Rebecca Christian, Director Pupil Accountability Louisiana Department of Education P. O. Box 94064 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 (504) 342-3748 FAX (504) 342-3684 [email protected] MAINE* (Eastern Region) Assessment The state currently assesses in the arts and fine arts teachers had input imo the development of the instrument. The state uses open response items to assess in dance, theatre, music, visual arts, and language arts. The assessment is b ^ g used to improve student achievement levels in the fine arts. There is no evidence to confirm this as yet. The assessment is being used to provide information regarding the extent to which their state goals for arts education have been achieved, and there is evidence that goals are being met The assessment is being used to provide feedback concerning various aspects of the teaching process in fine arts. It's limited input, but they can evaluate the evidence. Contact Person Sandra Long, Arts Consultant Maine Department of Education State House Station #23 Augusta, ME 04333 (207) 287-5996 FAX (207) 287-5995 [email protected] MARYLAND (Eastern Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts but there is a task force in place to determine the possibilities. Contact Person Steve Ferrara, Director of Student Assessment Maryland State Department of Education 200 West Baltimore Street Baltimore, MD 21201 (410) 767-0081 FAX. (410) 333-2379 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 344 recentpapers.html at www.naea-reston.org [email protected] MASSACHUSETTS (Eastern Region) Assessment The state does not assess the arts but plans to do so and has established a timeline (1998). Dance, theatre, music, and visual arts will be assessed using performance tasks mainly, but others assessments will be considered also. This will not be an oordemand or a high steaks assessment. Performance exercises will be written by a state committee (of fine arts teachers) and distributed to local districts as a model. The state will provide resources and guidelines to local districts. The assessment will be used to improve student achievement levds in the fine arts and provide information regarding the extent to which their state goals for fine arts education have been achieved. The assessment will also be used to provide feedback concerning various aspects of the teaching process. Contact Person Jefifery Nellhaus, Administrator Accountability and Evaluation Services Massachusetts Department of Education 350 Main Street Malden, MA 02148 (617) 388-3300 FAX (617) 338-3300 MICHIGAN (Western Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has no plans to do so. Contact Person Diane Smolen, Supervisor Educational Assessment Program Michigan Department of Education P. O. Box 30008 Lansing, MI 48909 (517)373-8393 FAX (517)335-1186 MINNESOTA (Western Region) Assessment The state does not assess the arts and has no plans to do so. The state is changing away from assessment. They are introducing graduation measurements to be determined at the district level. How much local control has yet to be determined. Contact Person Bill McMillan Assessment and Evaluation Minnesota State Department of Education 550 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 345 recentpapers.html at www.naea-reston.org (612)296-6002 FAX; (612) 297-7895 MISSISSIPPI (Southeastern Region) Assessment The state does not assess the arts and has yet to determine if they will. Contact Person Cynthia Ward, Director Student Assessment Mississippi Department ofEducation P.O. Box 771 Jackson, MS 39205-0771 (601) 359-3052 FAX; (601) 359-2471 MISSOURI (Western Region) Assessment The state does not assess the arts but plans to do so and has established a timeline (1999). The arts will be phased into the state testing cycle and will not initial^ include a portfolio assessmenL Currently the Department is looking at assessment with both local and state control. Fine arts teachers will have input into the development of the instrument Dance, music, theatre, and visual arts wOl be assessed using fill-in-the-blank/short answer, multiple choice, and perfomumce/events items. The assessment will be used to improve student achievement levels in the fine arts and provide information regarding the extent to which the state goals for fine arts education have been achieved. How the assessment will be used to provide feedback concerning various aspects of the teaching process has yet to be determined. (It needs to be diagnostic to do this.) Contact Person James L. Friedebach, Director Assessment Section Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education P.O. Box 480 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480 (573) 751-3545 FAX; (573) 751-9434 [email protected] MONTANA (Pacific Region) Assessment The state does not assess the arts and has yet to determine if they will. Currently they have a strong requirement for local assessment that could be tapped and used as a statewide assessment. Contact Person Don Nielson, Senior Education Analyst State Capitol Box 202501 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 346 recentpapers.html at www.naea-reston.org visual arts will be assessed but the "how" is yet to be determined. It's not known at this time if the assessment will be used to improve student achievement levels in the fine arts, but it will be used to provide information regarding the extent to which the state goals fbr fine arts education have been achieved. Also, it's not known at this time if the assessment will be used to provide feedback concerning various aspects of the teaching process. Contact Person Gerald E. DeMauro, Director Bureau of Statewide Assessment New Jersey Department ofEducation CN500 Trenton, NJ 08625-0500 (609)292-5180 FAX (609) 984-6032 NEW MEXICO (Western Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts but plans to do so. The State Board ofEducation has approved governance that requires districts to develop, carry out, and monitor assessment at grades 4,6, and 8 although no timeline has been firmed. Arts teachen will have input into the development of the assessment instrument. The state plans to assess dance, theatre, music, and visual arts, and each district will be responsible fbrdetereming the nature of the assessment. The assessment will be used to improve student achievement levels in the fine arts and provide information regarding the extent to which their state goals for fine arts education have been achieved. The assessment wOl also be used to provide feedback concerning various aspects of the teaching process. Contact Person Carroll L. Hall, State Director New Mexico Department ofEducation Education Buildfog Santa Fe, NM 87501 (505) 827-6524 FAX (505) 827-6696 NEW YORK (Eastern Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has yet to determine if th ^ will although the Board of Regency has made a determination to do so. Contact Person David Bower, Director Division ofEducation Testing New York State Education Department Washington Avenue, Room 770 EBA Albany, NY 12234 (518) 474-5902 FAX (518) 474-1989 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 4 7 recentpapers-html at www.naea-reston.org NORTH CAROLINA (Southeastern Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has no plans to do so. Contact Person Lou Fabeizio, Director of Testing North Carolina Department of Public Instruction 301 N. WUxnington Street Raleigh, NC 27603 (919) 715-1207 FAX. (919) 715-1203 NORTH DAKOTA (Western Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has yet to determine if they will. Contact Person David L. Lee, Director Counseling, Testing, DFS North Dakota Department of Public Instruction 600 E. Boulevard Avenue Bismarck, ND 58505 (701)328-2269 FAX: (701) 328-4770 OHIO (Western Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts, but plans to do so. The state purposed standards include demonstration of competency in the arts fbr high school graduation. As the standards are still in draft form the state does not have a timeBne for beginning the assessment. Fine arts teachers wiH have input into the development of the assessment instrument, but at this time the assessment committee has yet to be determined. Dance, theatre music and visual arts will all be considered but final consideration has yet to be determined. At this time the state doesn't know if the assessment results will be used to improve student achievement levds and/or to provide information regarding the extern to which their state goals for fine arts education have been achieved. It's yet to be determined if their assessment results will be used to provide feedback concerning various aspects of the teaching process in the fine arts. Contact Person Lynn Corbin Ohio Division o f Educational Services 65 S. Front Street, Room 210 Columbus, OH 43266-0308 (614)466-2718 FAX: (614) 752-3956 OKLAHOMA (Western Region) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 4 8 recentpapers.html at www.naea-restoruorg Assessment The state does not assess in the arts but plans to do so and has established a timeline. They will field test in 1997-98 with implementation in 1998-99. Fine arts teachers wOl have input into the development of the assessment instrument which includes music and visual arts. They plan to use a multiple choice (criterion reference) test at grades S, 8, and 11. The assessment will be used to improve student achievement levels in the fine arts and provide information regarding the extent to which their state goals for fine arts education have been achieved. The assessment will also be used to provide feedback concerning various aspects of the teaching process. Contact Person Frank Rala, Team Leader Office of S tudent Assessment Oklahoma State Department ofEducation 2500 N. Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 551-3341 FAX (405) 521-6205 OREGON (Pacific R%ion) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has no plans to do so. Assessment is a local responsibility. However the state is constructing standards to assist local districts. Contact Person Michael Dalton, Coordinator Assessment and Evaluation Oregon Department ofEducation 255 Capitol Street, NE Salem,. OR 97310 (503) 378-8004 FAX (503) 378-7968 PENNSYLVANIA (Eastern Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts but plans to do so. Their timeline to begin is the Fall of 1998. Fine arts teachers will have input into the development of the assessment instrument. An Advisory Committee was appointed in late 1995 and teachers are currently writing performance task/activities. They plan to assess in dance, theatre, music, and the visual arts. E m bedd^ essay, fill-in-the-blank/short answer, multiple choice, performance and portfolio assessments are being considered along with working on items that are suitable for special needs students. The assessment will be used to improve student achievement levels in the fine arts and provide information regarding the extent to which their state goals for fine arts education have been thieved. The assessment will also be used to provide feedback concerning various aspects of the teaching process. Contact Person Mary Keeper Education Assessment Specialist 333 Market Street Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 4 9 recentpapers.html at www.naea-reston.org Pennsylvania Department ofEducation Harrisburg, PA 17126 (717) 783-6640 FAX; (717) 783-6642 RHODE ISLAND (Eastern Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has no plans to do so. Contact Person Pat DeVito, Director Outcomes and Assessment Rhode Island Department ofEducation 22 Hayes Street Providence, R I02908 (401)277-3126 FAX; (401) 277-4979 SOUTH CAROLINA (Southeastern Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts but plans to do so. They have developed a Visual and Performing Arts Framework that has been approved by the State Board ofEducation. The State plans to develop and carry out assessment in all tte areas in which fiameworks have been developed, but a timeline for the arts has not been determined. Fine arts teachers will have input into the development of the assessment instrument which will include dance, theatre, music, and visual arts. The assessment will incorporate a mixture of assessment methodologies. The assessment will be used to improve student achievement levels in the fine arts and provide information regarding the extent to which their state goals for fine arts education have been achieved. The assessment will also be used to provide feedback concerning various aspects of the teaching process. Contact Person Susan Agruso, Director Office of Assessment South Carolina Department of Education/Policy 606 Rutledge Building Columbia, SC 29201 (803) 734-8258 FAX; (803) 734-5953 SOUTH DAKOTA (Western Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and doesn't know at this time if they will. Contact Person Gary Skoglund, Director Testing and Guidance Programs South Dakota Department ofEducation Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 350 recentpapers.html at www.naea-reston.org 700 Governors Drive Pierre, SD 57501 (605) 773-5229 FAX (605) 773-6139 [email protected] TENNESSEE (Southeastern Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has yet to determine if they will. Contact Person Bruce Opie, Director Curriculum and Instruction Teimessee Department ofEducation 1150 Menzler Road Nashville, TN 37210 (615) 532-6288 FAX (615) 741-6547 [email protected]. us TEXAS* (Western R%ion) Assessment The state currently assess in the fine arts disciplines (dance, theatre, music, and visual arts) using embedded, multiple choice, and portfolio types of instruments. Fine arts teachers had input into the development of the assessment instrument The assessment is not being used to improve student achievement levels in the fine arts. The assessment is, however, being used to provide information regarding the extent to which their state goals for arts education have been achieved, and to provide feedback concerning various aspects of the teaching process in fine arts. This is evidenced through scores on teacher ExCET examinations. Through teacher preparation programs pedagogy and subject area content are included in the ExCET examinations. Contact Person Nolan Wood, Senior Director Education Appraisal Texas Education Agency 1701 N. Congress Austin, TX 78758 (512) 475-1233 FAX (512) 463-9376 [email protected] UTAH* (Pacific Region) Assessment The state currently assess in the arts (music and visual arts only) using embedded, essay, fill-in-the-bland/short answer, multiple choice, performance, and portfolio types of instruments. Their assessment is not mandated but the state maintains an item bank and performance assessments that local districts may draw upon. Fine arts teachers had input into the development of these hems and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 351 recentpapers.html at www.naea-reston.org performance assessments. The assessment is not being used to improve student achievement levels in the fine arts. Nor is the assessment being used to provide information regarding the extent to which their state goals for arts education have been achieved, and it's not being used to provide feedback concerning various aspects of the teaching process in fine arts. These issues are determined at the local district level. Contact Person David E. Nelson, Director of Evaluation and Assessment Utah State Office ofEducation 250 Fifth Street South Salt Lake City, UT 84111 (801)538-7810 FAX; (801) 538-7521 [email protected]. us VERMONT (Eastern Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has no plans to do so. Contact Person Mary Arm Manardno, Director of Educational Policy and Planning Vermont Department ofEducation 120 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620 (802) 828-5410 FAX. (802) 828-3146 VIRGINIA (Southeastern Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has no plans to do so. Contact Person Doris L. Redfieid Assessment and Testing Virginia Department ofEducation P.O. Box2120 Richmond, VA 23216-2060 (804) 225-2102 FAX; (804) 786-5389 WASHINGTON (Pacific Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts. State content standards have been developed in the arts but it's yet to be determined when they will be assessed. Contact Person Bob Silverman, Program Supervisor Assessment and Evaluation Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 352 recentpapers.html at www.naea-reston.org P. O. Box 47200 Old Capitol Building Olympia, WA 98504 (306) 753-3449 FAX (306) 586-2728 [email protected] WEST VIRGINIA (Eastern Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts. They don't know at this time if the fine arts will be assessed. More information is being sought. Contact Person Karen Nicholson, Assistant Director Building 6, Room B-057 1900 Kanawha Boulevard Charleston, WV 25305 (304) 558-2651 FAX; (304) 558-1613 WISCONSIN (Western Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and has no plans to do so. Contact Person B. Darwin Kaufinan, Director Bureau of Student Assessment Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction P. O. Box 7841, DPI Madison, WI 53707 (608) 267-9111 FAX (608) 267-8770 WYOMING (Pacific Region) Assessment The state does not assess in the arts and doesn’t know if they will. Contact Person Jim Lendino, Consultant Wyoming Department ofEducation Hathaway Building Cheyenne, WY 82002 (307) 777-6268 FAX (307) 777-6234 [email protected] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY ACA. See American Council for the Arts. Aaronson, Assistant Principal, Laguardia High School of Performing Arts. (1994). Telephone interview by author, January 3. Alaska Arts in Education, Inc. (1992). Arts in Alaska schools, a status report. Alaska: Alaska Arts in Education. Alaska State Department of Education. (1982). Alaska elementary physical education model curriculum guide, second edition. Juneau: Alaska State Department of Ed ucatio n. (1986). Secondary fine arts. Alaska curriculum cruide. Juneau: Alaska State Department of Education. Ambach, Gordon and Down, Graham. (1993). Memorandum. Unpublished notes of the Symposium on National Standards in the Arts, an international perspective (December 6). America 2000. See United States Department of Education (1991). American Council for the Arts. (1988). Why we need the arts. New York: American Council for the Arts. The American Federation of Teachers. (1996). Making standards matter. 1996: An annual fifty-state report on efforts to raise academic standards. Washington, DC: The American Federation of Teachers. The American University, Music Educators National Conference, Pennsylvania State University Research Consortium. (1990). State arts education profiles: A proposal presented to the National Endowment for the Arts. Washington, DC: The American University. Andrews Fleming, Gladys. (1954). Creative rhythmic movement for children. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall. 353 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 354 ______. (1971). Guidelines for children's dance. Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education Recreation amd Dance. (1973). Children's dance. Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD). Armstrong, Thomas. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. The Arts Education Partnership Working Group. (1993). Summary: The power of the arts to transform education, an agenda for action. Washington, DC. Balfe, Judith and Joni Cherbo Heine. (1988) . Arts education beyond the classroom. New York: ACA (American Council for the Arts) Books. Beegle, Mary Porter and Jack Randall Crawford. (1916). Community drama and pageantry. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press. Benzwie, Theresa. (1987). A moving experience. Tuscon, AZ: Zephyr Press. Biddix, Lois, Cheryl Carter, Ronald Daniel, Patricia Mitchell, and Catherine Thompson. (1993) . 112 educational models for arts education: A monograph of the international network of performing and visual arts schools. Washington, DC: Network. Blom, Lynne Anne and Chapin L. Tarin. (1988) . The moment of movement, dance improvisation. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Bloom, Benjamin S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. Boorman, Joyce. (1969). Creative dance in the first three grades. New York: David McKay. ______. (1969). Creative dance in grades four to six. New York: David McKay. Boston, Bruce, O., Ed. (1994). Perspectives on implementation: arts education standards for America's students. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Bruner, Jerome. (1962). On knowing, essays for the left hand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 355 . (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (1990) . Acts of meaning. Ccunbridge, MA: Harvard University Press. CEMREL. See Central Midwest Regional Educational Laboratory. CNAEA. See Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. California State Department of Education. (1982) . Visual and performing cirts framework for California pubi i c schools. K-12. California: California State Department of Education. Cassirer, Ernst. (1946) . Language and mvth. Translated by Suzanne Langer. New York: Harper. Cecil, Nancy Lee and Phylis Lauritzen. (1994). Literacy and the arts for the integrated classroom: Alternative wavs of knowing. New York: Longman. Center for Educational Change. (1992) . Restructuring to educate the urban learner - a decision-making framework. District of Columbia: District of Columbia Public Schools. Central Midwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (1977). Arts and aesthetics : An agenda for the future. St. Louis, MO: CEMREL (Central Midwest Regional Educational Laboratory). . (1978). The arts, cognition, and basic skills. St. Louis, MO: CEMREL. Chomsky, Noam. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Random House. (1986). Knowledge of language: its nature. origin and use. New York: Praeger. Colby, Gertrude. (1922) . Natural rhvthms and dances. New York: A.S. Barnes. The College Board. (1983). Academic preparation for college, what students need to know and be able to do. New York: The College Board. . (1985). Academic preparation in the arts. teaching for transition from high school to college. New York: The College Board. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 356 Colwell, Richard. (1996). Will volunteury national standards fix the potholes of arts education? Arts Education Policy Review (May) 97:2-11. Connecticut State Department of Education. (1981). A cruide to curriculum development in the arts. Hartford, CN: Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education. Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (1992). The national arts education accord. Reston, Virginia: DAMT. (1993) . The vision for arts education in the 21st century: The ideas and ideals behind the development of the National Standards for Education in the Arts. Washington, D.C.: Symposium of National Standards for Education in the Arts. ______. (1994). National standards for arts education: What every student should know and be able to do. Reston, VA: Music Education National Conference. ______. (1994). Setting the record straight: Give and take on the National Standards for Arts Education. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. ______. (1995). Opportunitv-to-1earn standards for arts education: Dance, music, theatre, visual arts. Reston, VA: National Dance Association. ______. (1996). Teacher education for the arts disciplines: Issues raised bv the National Standards for Arts Education. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. DAMT ("Dance, Art, Music, Theatre": American Alliance for Theatre and Education, Music Educators National Conference, National Art Education Association, and National Dance Association). See Consortium of National Arts Education Agencies. Dalcroze, Emile Jaques. (1917). The eurhythmies of Jagues- Dalcroze. London: Constable. (1939). Eurhythmies: art and education. London: Constable. Dekle, Nicole. (1993). Educators to develop arts curricula. Dance Magazine (April) 67:10-11. Department of Education. (1984). The nation responds. Washington, DC: Department of Education. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 357 Dewey, John. (1900). School and society. Chicago: University of Chicago. . (1901) . The child and curriculum. Chicago : University of Chicago. ______. (1915) . Schools of tomorrow. New York: E.P. D u t t o n . . (1938) . Experience and education. New York: Macmillan. . (1989) . Freedom and culture. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. Diegmueller, Karen. (1994). Riley hails arts standards as key ingredient in reform. Education Week (March 23) 13:7. District of Columbia Public Schools. (1991). Elementary objectives. 1990-1991. Washington, DC: District of Columbia Public Schools. (1992). Junior high course objectives. Washington, DC: District of Columbia Public Schools. (1992). Washington. DC 2000. building learning communities, a framework for preparing students in the 21st century. Washington, DC: District of Columbia Public Schools. Dobbs, Stephen, ed. (1979) . Arts education and back to basics. Reston, VA: National Arts Education Association. Down, Graham A. and John Mahlmann, (1994) . Introduction. The vision for arts education in the 21st centurv. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Downey, Peggy and Jennifer Wall. (1996) . Putting National Standards into practice - evaluating creative dance. Dance education: A lifetime of experiences. Reston, VA: National Dance Association. Eisner, Elliot. (1974). The arts, human development and education. Berkeley, CA: McCutchen Publishing. . (1985) . The educational imagination. New York: Macmillan. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 358 Ellis, Katherine, President of National Dance Association. (1994) . Personal interview by author, March 11, Washington, DC. Faber, Rima. (1994). The Primary Movers: kinesthetic learning for primary school children. MA. thesis. The American University. (1994). The Primary Movers: Teaching academics through movement to elementary school children. Dance education, a lifetime of experiences. Reston, VA: National Dance Association. ______. (1995). The Getty Model: Discipline based arts education for dance. Unpublished paper. Fiske, Edward. (1991). Smart schools, smart kids. New York: Simon and Schuster. Florida Department of Education. (1990). Curricu1um frameworks. Florida: Florida Department of Education. Floyd, Jeremiah. (1994). Structures for implementing the Standards. The Vision for Arts Education in the 21st Centurv. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Foster, Carol, Arts Coordinator at Duke Ellington High School of Performing Arts. (1994). Telephone interview by author, January 2. Fowler, Charles. (1973). The arts process in basic education. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Education. (1977). Dance as education. Washington, DC: National Dance Association; American Alliance for Health, Physical Education Recreation and Dance. (1988). Can we rescue the arts for America's children? Coming to our senses - 10 vears later. New York: ACA Books. Fowler, Charles and Bernard McMullan. (1991). Understanding how the arts contribute to excellent education. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts. Frohnmayer, John. (1993). Leaving town alive: Confessions of an arts warrior. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 359 Furth., Hans G. and H a r r y W a c h s . (1969) . Piaget and knowledge: theoretical foundations. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. (1975). Thinking goes to school: Piaget's theory in practice. New York: Oxford University Press. ______. (1986). Piaget for teachers. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: C.A.E. Inc. Gardner, Howard. (1972) . The quest for mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (1973) . The arts and human development. New York: John Wiley; reprinted 1995, New York: Basic Books (page references are to reprint edition). ______. (1974) . The shattered mind. New York: Random House. (1980). Artful scribbles. New York: Harper Collins. (1981). SeIf-renewal. New York: Harper C o l l i n s . ______. (1982) . Art. mind and brain: A cognitive approach to creativity. New York: Harper Collins. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Harper Collins. (1987). The mind's new science. New York: Harper Collins. (1989) . To open minds. New York: Harper C o l l i n s . (1991). The unschooled mind. New York: Harper Collins. (1993) . Multiple intelligences. New York: Harper Collins. Gary, Charles L. (1997) . Transforming ideas for teaching and learning the arts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Gelb, Michael. (1981). Body learning. New York: Henry Holt. Gesell, Arnold and Frances Ilg. (1943). Infant and child in the culture of today: the guidance of development. New York: Harper and Rowe. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 360 (1946). The child from five to ten. New York: Harper and Rowe. Glidden, Robert. (1994). The politics of implementing the Standards. The vision for arts education in the 21st century. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Goals 2000. See U.S. Congress, 1994. Goals 2000: The Educate America Act. See U.S. Congress, 1994. Goodlad, John. (1983). What some schools and classrooms teach. Educational Leadership 40:8-19. ______. (1984). A Place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw Hill. Gould, Stephen Jay. (1981) . The mismeasure of man. New York; W.W. Norton. Gross, Beatrice and Ronald. (1985). The great school debate: Which wav for American education. New York: Simon and Schuster. Gurin, Richard S. (1994). Arts literacy for business. The vision for arts education in the 21st centurv. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Hall, Edward. (1959). The silent language. New York: Doubleday Dell. Hall, Stanley G. (1982). Moral education and will training. The Pedagogical Seminary 2: 75. Hanks, Cheryl and Thomas Quinn, ed. (1974). Coming to our senses: The significance of the arts to American education. New York: American Council for the Arts in Education, Special Projects Panel. Hanna, Judith Lynne. (1979). To dance is human: a theory of nonverbal communication. Chicago: University of Chicago P r e s s . Hannaford, Carla. (1995). Smart moves: Whv learning is not all in vour head. Arlington, VA: Great Ocean Publishers. Harman, Susan. (1991). National tests, national standards, national curricula. Language Arts (January) 68:49-50. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 6 1 Hatfield, Thomas. (1996). National Arts Education Associaton. Arts Education Policy Review (May) 97:12- 14. Hattan, Janie Ruth. (1994). The Standards and the arts in the school. The vision for arts education in the 21st century. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. H'Doubler, Margaret. (1925). The dance and its Place in education. New York: Harcourt and Brace. (1925). The dance. London: Johnathan Cape, Ltd. ______. (1940). Dance: A creative art experience. New York: F.s. Crofts and Company. Hoffa, Harlan. (1994) National Standards: The whys and what fors. Arts Education Policy Review. 96:16-25. (1996). The one and the many in art education. Arts Education Policy Review (September) 98: 2-10. Humphrey, Doris. (1959). The art of making dances. New York: Reinhart. Indiana State Department of Education. (1987). Fine arts poficiencv guide. Indianapolis: Indiana State Department of Education. Iowa State Department of Public Instruction. (1986). Dance: A guide to curriculum development in the arts. Des Moines: Iowa State Department of Public Instruction. Jaffe, Phyllis. (1994). Program 1418 (presented by National Standards for Arts Education). All Things Considered. National Public Radio, radio program, March 11. Jagielski, Donna. (1994). Dance and the elementary school curriculum: A model program. Dance education: A lifetime of experiences. Reston, VA: National Dance Association. Katz, Jonathan, ed. (1988). Arts education handbook: a guide to productive collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Assembly for State Arts Agencies. Kemble, Eugenia, American Federation of Teachers Director of Education Issues. (1997). Interview by author, July 7, Washington, DC. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 362 Kendall, John S. and Robert J. Marzano. (1995). The systematic identification and articulation of content standards and benchmarks. Washington, DC: Department of Education. Kentucky Department of Education. (1985). Arts education. essential skills. Kentucky: Kentucky Department of Education. (1985) . The Kentucky Plan for Comprehensive Arts in Education. Kentucky: Kentucky Department of Education. Kimball, Mary Maitland. (1994). The National Standards - A historical perspective. Dance education: A lifetime of experiences. Reston, VA: National Dance Association. ______. (1994). Writing standards for dance. The vision for arts education in the 21st century. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. , President of National Dance Association and Chair of the Dance Task Force for writing National Standards for Dance Education. (1997). Telephone interview by author. May 22 and July 7. Knowles, Patricia and Rona Sande. (1991). Dance education in American public schools (case studies). Urbana, IL: The National Arts Education Research Center at the University of Illinois. Laban, Rudolf. (1948). Modern educational dance. London: Macdonald and Evans. Leonhard, Charles. (1991). Status of arts education in American public schools. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. Lewis, Anne C. (1994). National goals for arts. Education Digest (May) 59:54. Livonia Public Schools. (1988). Preparing students for the future: Arts curriculum. Livonia, MI: Livonia Public Schools. Lousiana State Department of Education. (1981). Physical education and recreation curriculum guide fK-10). Bulletin 1597. Baton Rouge, LA: Division of Academic Progr ess. Lunt, Joanne M. and Brenda Pugh McCutchen. (1995) . The South Carolina framework for dance education. Colombia, SC: South Carolina Department of Education. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 363 Lynch, Ann. (1994). Cultural literacy. The vision for arts education in the 21st centurv. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Lynch, Robert. (1994). The Standards and the arts at the local level. The vision for arts education in the 21st centurv. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. MENC. See Music Educators National Conference. Mahlmann, John. (1994). Press conference, March 11. National Press Club, Washington, DC. (1996). Music Educators National Conference. Arts Education Policv Review (May) 97:10-11. , Executive Director of Music Educators National Conference. (1997). Interview by author, June 27, Music Educators National Conference headquarters, Reston, VA. Mahlmann, John and Graham A. Down. (1994). Introduction. The vision for arts education in the 21st centurv. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference- Maryland Alliance for Arts Education. (1986). Maryland comprehensive state plan for arts in education. Baltimore, MD: Maryland Alliance for Arts Education. Maryland State Department of Education. (1989) . A Maryland curricular framework. Annapolis, MD: Maryland Department of Education. McGreevy Nichols, Susan. (1994). Assessment in dance education. Dance education; A lifetime of experiences. Reston, VA: National Dance Association. McLaughlin, John T, ed. (1988). Toward a new era in arts education. New York: The American Council for the Arts. Miller, Louise. (1994). The history and future of the Standards. The vision for arts education in the 21st centurv. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Minnesota Department of Education. (1989). Model learners outcomes for physical education, rhvthm and dance, teaching learners to think on their feet. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota State Department of Education. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 364 Minutes, 1992-1994. See National Committee for Standards in the Arts. Montgomery County Public Schools. (1979). Have you roared today. Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools. Moses, Irene Phillips. (1915) . Rhvthmic action plavs and dances. Springfield, MA: Milton Bradley Company. Music Educators National Conference Committee on Performance Standards. (1996) . Performance standards for music. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. NAEP. See National Assessment for Education Progress. NCSAEC. See National Council of State Arts Education Consultants. National Arts Convention. (1988). Why we need the arts? New York: ACA Books. National Assessment for Education Progress. (1994). 1996 NAEP arts education assessment framework. Washington, DC: NAEP Arts Education Consensus Project. (1994). 1996 NAEP arts education assessment and exercise specifications. Washington. DC: NAEP Arts Education Consensus Project. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). (1994). What: What teachers should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: NBPTS. ______. (1994). Whv: Whv America needs the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Washington, DC: NBPTS. . (1994c). How: How we plan to achieve our vision. Washington, DC: NBPTS. National Center for Educational Statistics. (1994). NAEP 1994 geography: A first look. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. ______. (1994) NAEP 1994 reading report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (1995). Arts education in public elementary and secondary schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 365 National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Committee for Standards in the Arts. (1994). The vision for arts education in the 21st centurv: The ideas and ideals behind the development of the National Standards for Education in the Arts. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. (1992-1994). Minutes of meetings. Unpublished manuscript. Music Educators National Conference Library, Reston, VA. National Council of State Arts Education Consultants. (1992). A summary of state arts education frameworks. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers National Dance Association. (1990) . Dance resource guide. Reston, VA: National Dance Association. (1991). Dance curricula guidelines. K-12. Reston, VA: National Dance Association. _ . (1991). Dance education: What is it? Whv is it important? Reston, VA: National Dance Association. _ . (1994). National standards for dance education: What everv voung American should know and be able to do. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. National Endowment for the Arts. (1988). Toward civilization: A report on arts education. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts. (1989). Special projects handbook. 1984-1987. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts ______. (1991). Arts in education, special projects handbook update '91. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts. (1991). Dance scholarship guide. Reston, VA: National Dance Association. ______. (1991). Report on arts in education outcome goals project. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts. New Mexico State Department of Education. (1985). New Mexico dance education competencies for grades 3. 5. 8. and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 366 school exit level. Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico State Department of Education. New York City Board of Education. (1984). Arts partners programs, final evaluation. New York: New York City Board of Education. North, Marion. (1971). Body movement for children. London: Macdonald and Evans. . (1972). Personality assessment through movement. Boston: Macdonald and Evans. ______. (1973). Movement education: Child development through bodv motion. New York: E.P. Dutton. (1991). Movement and dance education: A guide for the primary and middle school teacher. Pennington, NJ: Princeton Book Company. North Carolina State Department of Education. (1985). Arts education K-12: Teacher handbook. North Carolina competencv-based curriculum subiect-bv-subiect. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Public Education. North Carolina Board of Education. (1985). Standard course study■ Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. O ’Fallon, David. (1994). The Standards and arts partnerships. The vision for arts education in the 21st centurv. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Ohio State Department of Education. (1983). Fine arts and physical education. K-12. Columbus, OH: Ohio State Department of Education. Oklahoma State Department of Education. (1980). Connections: Linking the arts and basic curriculum. Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma State Department of Education. ______. (1981). Arts-R-Us. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma State Department of Education. Orlofsky, Diane DeNicola. (1994). Cultural literacy, arts education, and our children. Phi Kappa Phi Journal (Summer) 74:7. Overby, Lynette Young. (1996). Bringing the National Standards to life. Journal of Physical Education. Recreation and Dance (October) 67:11. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 367 Pankrantz, David and Kevin Mulcahy. eds. (1989) . The challenge to reform arts education; what role can research plav? New York: ACA Books. Peno, Larry. (1996) . Status of the arts in the United States. Arts Education Policv Review (May) 97:13-14. Philip, Frank, Consensus Coordinator for the NAEP Arts Education Consensus Project and Co-chair for the National Council of States ArtsEducation Consultants task force. (1994) . Interview by author, March 11 and May 19, Washington, D.C. Piaget, Jean. (1952) . The child's conception of number. New York: W.W. Norton. ______. (1952) . The origins of intelligence in children. New York: W.W. Norton. . (1955) . The language and thought of the child. New York: New World Publishing. (1963) . A child's conception of the world. NJ : Littlefield. (1969). The child's conception of time. New York: Ballantine Books. (1969) . The mechanisms of perception. New York: Basic Books. (1969c). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: The Viking Press. Piaget, Jean and Barbel Inhelder. (1956). The child's conception of space. New York: W.W. Norton. Piaget, Jean, Barbel Inhelder and Alina Szeminska. (1960). The child's conception of geometry. New York: W.W. N o r t o n . Prevots, Naima. (1993). Graduate seminar in dance, packet 72, Performing Arts 67.596.01. Washington, DC: The American University. Prevots, Naima and Geraldine Dimondstein. (1969). Development of a dance curriculum for voung children. Washington, DC: Central Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory. (1970). Children dance. Berkley, CA: University of California. Film. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 368 Project Zero. (1992). Project Zero, an interdisciplinary research group. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. (1994). Project Co-Arts assessment handbook 1993. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. (1994). Safe havens. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Purcell, Theresa. (1996). National Dance Association. Arts Education Policv Review (May) 97:8-9. Ravitch, Diane. (1985) . The schools we deserve. New York: Basic Books, Harper Collins Publishers. ______. (1994). Views from the field: Education, business, and the arts. The vision for arts education in the 21st centurv. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. (1995). National standards in American education. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. (ed.). (1995). Debating the future of American Education: Do we need national standards and assessments? Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Remer, Jane. (1990). Changing schools through the arts. New York: ACA Books. Rhode Island Board of Regents, (n.d. ) . Executive summary of coordinated curriculum, self-studies by Rhode Island school districts in the arts. Providence, Rl: Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Riley, Richard. (1993) . World-class standards: The key to education reform. Teaching Pre-K (October 8) 24:6. Rogers, Frederick Rand. (1941) . Dance: A basic educational technique. New York: Macmillan. Ross, Jerold. (1994). National Standards for Arts Education: The emperor's new clothes. Arts Education Policy Review (November) 96:26-30. Russell, Joan. (1965). Creative dance in the primary school. London: Macdonald and Evans. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 369 . (1968). Modern dance in education. New York: P r a e g e r . . (1969). Creative dance in secondary school. London: Macdonald and Evans. Salzer, Dick. (1994). Can standards come from teaching? Education Week (May 25) 13:35. Senko, Margaret, Project Administrator for the Development of National Standards in Arts Education and Director of Publications at MENC. (1997) . Interview by author, July 1, 2, and 10, Music Educators National Conference headquarters, Reston, VA. Shawn, Ted. (1937). Fundamentals of dance education. Girard, KA: Haldeman-Julius Publications. ______. (1946). Dance we must. London: Dennis Dobson. Shuler, Scott C. (1995). The impact of national standards on the preparation, in-service professional development, and assessment of music teachers. Arts Education Policv Review (January) 96:2-14. Sizer, Theodore. (1992). Horace's school. New York: Hough1in Mifflin. (1995). Will national standards and assessments make a difference? Debating the future of American education: Do we need national standards and assessments? Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Smith, Ralph. (1994) . Passing fashions and National Standards for the Arts. Journal of Education 176:39-49. Smith, Marshall, S. (1995). Education reform in America's public schools: The Clinton agenda. Debating the future of American education: Do we need national standards and assessments? Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Solomon, Ruth. (1978). New faces of dance scholarship. National Dance Association Scholarship Lecture. Reston, VA: National Dance Association, American Alliance for Health, Physical Education Recreation and Dance. South Carolina State Department of Education. (1989). ITV resources in the defined minimum program. 1989-1990 curriculum guide. Columbia, SC: South Carolina State Department of Education. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 370 ______. (1990). The South Carolina framework for dance education. Columbia, SC: South Carolina State Department of Education. South Carolina Visual and Performing Arts Writing Team. (1993). South Carolina visual and performing arts framework. Columbia, SC: South Carolina State Department of Education. Sprinthall, Norman A. and Richard C. Sprinthall. (1990). Educational psvchologv. a developmental approach. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. State Collaborative on Assessment in Student Standards. (1995). 1995/96 vear end report. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Stevens, Louise K. (1991). Planning to make the arts basic. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts. Stinson, Susan. (1984). Reflections and visions: A hermeneutic studv of dangers and possibilities in dance education. Greensboro, NC: University of North Carolina. ______. (1988). Dance education for voung children: Finding the magic in movement. Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education Recreation and Dance. ______. (1990). Moving and learning for the young child. Washington, DC: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education Recreation and Dance. (1990). Dance education for early childhood. Design for Arts in Education (July/August) 91. (1995). Body of knowledge. Educational Theory (Winter) 45:43-54. ______. (1996). The significance of sentience in dance education. Dance education: A lifetime of experiences. Reston, VA: National Dance Association. Stinson, Willieun. (1990). Moving and learning for the voung child. Washington, DC: AAPHERD. Texas Institute for Arts in Education. (1991). A guide to T.I.A.I.E. objectives and programs. Houston, TX: Texas Institute for Arts in Education. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 371 United States Congress. (1994). Goals 2000; The educate America act. 103rd Cong., 1st sess., H.R. 1804, S. 1150. United States Department of Education. (1991). America 2000: An education strategy. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. Utah State Office of Education and Utah Alliance for Arts Education. (1982). A comprehensive plan for arts education in Utah. Salt Leüce City: Utah State Office of Education. Viadero, Debra. (1992). National Standards Project designed to highlight arts role. Education Week (June 10) 11:19. (1993). Draft standards for arts education stress both knowledge, performance. Education Week (August 4) 12:5. . (1993). Standards seen as step to insuring arts education. Education Week (March 17) 12:14. . (1994). Arts education standards set for unveiling. Education Week (May 9) 13:1. ______. (1994). Board set to approve framework for NAEP arts assessment. Education Week (May 9) 13:9. Vygotsky, Lev. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. Wadsworth, Barry. (1989). Piaget's theory of cognitive and affective development. 4th ed. New York: Longman. Washington, D.C. Department of Research and Evaluation. (1980). An approach to learning through the arts, final evaluation. Washington, D.C.: District of Columbia Department of Research and Evaluation. Washington Office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction. (1981). Chrysatis: Nurturing creative independent thought in children grades 4-12. Washington: Washington Office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Werner, Heinz. (1961). Comparative psychology of mental development. New York: Science Editions. Winearls, Jane. (1958). Modern dance, the Joos-Leeder method. London: Adam and Charles Black. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 372 Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction. (1981). Dance; Creative/rhvthmic movement education, a conceptual approach for K-12 curriculum development. Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction. (1988). A guide to curriculum planning in dance. Wisconsin: Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction. Zimmerman, Marilyn and Charles Leonard, ed. (1993). The future of arts education: Arts teacher education. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. Zukowski, Ginger and Ardie Dickson. (1990). On the move, a handbook for exploring creative movment with voung children. Carbondale, IL: Southern University Press. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (QA-3) A 1.0 ta I h 12.2 Là 1 4.0 2.0 i.i 1.25 mo u 1.6 1 5 0 m m V V > 1 P P U E D ^ IIW4GE. Inc 1653 East Main Street Roctiester. NY 14609 USA ■A PîKme:716/482 /% 0 1993. Applied Image. Inc.. All RigMs Reserved o/ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.