One of the innate limitations of every intelligence test is that the test is forced to conflate the measurable aspects of intelligence with a general definition of intelligence. What can't be quantified is ignored. And what can be easily quantified is privileged. The end result is a woefully distorted view of learning, g, and education. Programs like No Child Left Behind only exacerbate this trend, since they turn K-12 education into one long test. Good teaching is confused with successful measurement.
Occasionally, we get depressing glimpses of what this "rigorous" view of education is leaving out. Take art education. Teaching a kid how to draw, or look at a painting, or appreciate a sculpture, won't generate great test results. In fact, these skills aren't particularly amenable to testing in the first place. Nobody wants to rank ten year olds on their ability to draw a flower. As a result, cash strapped school districts have been steadily cutting "arts time" from their curriculum, so that there's more time for academic areas that will show up on the standardized tests.
But when we cut out this sort of "subjective education" from the classroom, we end up denying kids a crucial set of life tools. A team of Boston researchers recently spent a year observing some lucky kids who got a few hours of arts education every week:
In a recent study of several art classes in Boston-area schools, we found that arts programs teach a specific set of thinking skills rarely addressed elsewhere in the curriculum - and that far from being irrelevant in a test-driven education system, arts education is becoming even more important as standardized tests like the MCAS exert a narrowing influence over what schools teach. The implications are broad, not just for schools but for society. As schools cut time for the arts, they may be losing their ability to produce not just the artistic creators of the future, but innovative leaders who improve the world they inherit. And by continuing to focus on the arts' dubious links to improved test scores, arts advocates are losing their most powerful weapon: a real grasp of what arts bring to education. It is well established that intelligence and thinking ability are far more complex than what we choose to measure on standardized tests. The high-stakes exams we use in our schools, almost exclusively focused on verbal and quantitative skills, reward children who have a knack for language and math and who can absorb and regurgitate information. They reveal little about a student's intellectual depth or desire to learn, and are poor predictors of eventual success and satisfaction in life.[snip]
For students living in a rapidly changing world, the arts teach vital modes of seeing, imagining, inventing, and thinking. If our primary demand of students is that they recall established facts, the children we educate today will find themselves ill-equipped to deal with problems like global warming, terrorism, and pandemics.
Those who have learned the lessons of the arts, however - how to see new patterns, how to learn from mistakes, and how to envision solutions - are the ones likely to come up with the novel answers needed most for the future.
Read the whole thing.




Comments (5)
I don't think it's a question of being able to so much as being wiling to. We CAN grade 10 yr olds on their ability to draw a flower and if we were taking art as seriously as math, we would be.
The study in the article looks at a couple of the very rare (at below the college level) dedicated art schools that do take it seriously. 3-4 hrs a day seriously. They're actually teaching the kids how to think like artists rather than just having telling them to make a pinch pot or draw a flower and giving everybody who actually did it a good grade. This kind of specialized education is normally reserved for college, where it is commonly said one learns to think like an engineer/artist/economist/chemist/jouralist/etc.
But not all kids can benefit from this. Some kids obviously won't take to the arts and for them an intensive arts education would be useless. The samples at these schools are selected for kids who do take to the arts, and they, unsuprisingly, probably get more out of it than the normal broadly spread superficial treatment of a variety of subjects that is the norm in American education. Some other kids would benefit from similar intensive treatment of subjects they have a talent for.
However, most children aren't precocious specialists. So should we place a greater emphasis on art in education for the median student? I'd say no. Science, math, and English are all much more broadly applicable, and are useful on a day to day basis for even the dabbler. Art, on the other hand, is useful almost exclusively for art. Being able to appreciate the composition of a painting is nice, but being able to write a coherent paragraph or calculate interest is essential for surviving in the modern world and the education system fails to instill the later skills to often to afford more time for the former.
To the extent that there is a case for change here, it is not for keeping art on the long list of superficially treated subjects that every student is subjected to, but for a return to more and earlier specialization. We should re-examine both the factory-style education structure imposed by the uniformity of public school content and the "liberal arts" assumption that a broad rather than a specialized education leads to better analytical thinking. The apprenticeship system of the past, where one learned a single discipline by via real life involvement under the guidance of an accomplished professional (and generally had pretty good career placement prospects as a result) looks increasingly attractive compared to the nothing-about-everything approach of the public school era.
Posted by: MattXIV | September 5, 2007 7:16 PM