How Can We Create an Imagine Nation?

How about a little stream-of-consciousness blogging? Let's start with this:

1. Implement innovative teaching styles and instruction to build capacities of the imagination.
2. Build capacities of the imagination by supporting time and resources for an education in and through the arts.
3. Support integrated and interdisciplinary processes and approaches. Save money and time by organizing discrete subjects around a thematic interdisciplinary process.
4. Relate to learner lifestyles. Know your learner audiences and adjust to contemporary methods.
5. Teach beyond assessment. Move beyond average and scoring that focuses on the minimum, which ultimately stifles students and educators alike.

These are the five recommendations for educators and policy-makers made in the executive summary of The Imagine Nation report. They seem to make sense for me on a very general level but, at the same time, they seem to ring hollow. Perhaps it wasn't the purpose of the report to provide specific recommendations, but the language is so vague that it undercuts the overall message. What is an "innovative teaching style" and what are "contemporary methods"? How do we "teach beyond assessment"?

Moving beyond the vague language, it seems like these suggestions aren't revolutionary. Innovative education styles, arts education, interdisciplinary learning, addressing different learning styles, and teaching beyond assessment are all ideas that have been around for years and ones that are widely accepted as good educational practice (well, except maybe for arts education!). But, for some reason, we don't do these things in our educational system. It reminds me of Paulo Freire when he states, "An educational practice in which there is no coherent relationship between what educators say and what they do is a disaster."

Hmm... Well, where does this disconnect come from? I'd assume (and maybe that's a bad assumption!) that the vast majority of teachers learn this stuff (well, once again, maybe not arts education!), but the report seems to indicate that teachers don't already practice this otherwise they wouldn't report it. Why doesn't this happen? Is it about the need to demonstrate a learning process in this standards-based environment? (Isn't being able to demonstrate knowledge the goal of the teaching/learning process?) Is it about the system? Is it about teachers and the lack of training in "building the capacities of imagination" of our students? How can we expect imagination in our classrooms when the way we train teachers seldom--if ever at all!!--does not foster imagination?

You know, I find myself even more confused than usual at the moment. We talk about imagination in class and even a class of 40 people who are supposed to value "imagination" can't define what it is or how it can be carried out in the classroom. We may have some ideas, but how do we build these activities to scale and create the change that The Imagine Nation advocates for? Is that even possible? I'd like to "Implement innovative teaching styles and instruction to build capacities of the imagination" or follow through with any of the other vague goals of The Imagine Nation, but I'm having a very difficult time--and perhaps I'm showing my impatience--but I'm anxious to move away from the theoretical and experimental and start to get to the somewhat more concrete.

In the arts, we often locate ourselves in the process; we often savor the experimentation phase and I think that is a big strength of the arts. But sometimes, I also think we get stuck there and that can be our downfall. For a federal, state, or even a local policy-maker, I doubt that the findings of The Imagine Nation report would create much action. I'm certainly not an expert on surveys but I found the phrasing of their questions to be somewhat manipulative. How can you disagree with the following statements? "Using imagination is important to innovation and one's success in a global, knowledge-based economy." "Imagination is essential to success in the 21st century." It's not surprising that nearly 90% said yes given the choice between yes and no. But it's when you weigh imagination vs. other curricular goals (that may be more demonstratable) like minimal competency for all students, equality of educational opportunity, math skills, and knowledge of history that imagination falls by the wayside. How do we ensure that it doesn't? Or how do we create educational opportunities that suggest that all of this and more can be done with our students and our society?

It's not that I hate "process" or don't find the work enjoyable or valuable, but I have a fear that I will find myself stuck in the experimental and questioning stage. In essence, I don't want to be so immersed in the theoretical that I neglect the practical. If we aren't satisfied with the educational practice, how do make it better match what we say it should be? What have people done with imagination that have worked? What was successful about them? Is that transferable and/or scalable?

S-301 is dedicated to the research, policy and practice. I'm not under any sort of illusion that anything will be solved by studying these aspects of arts in education, but I am excited to see what happens as we shift our focus. Onwards and upwards!

The Rise of Arts Culture

You know, in case we forget, we're actually not doing too bad in terms of building arts culture. Douglas McLennan's recent post "The Rise of Arts Culture" reminds us of where America was in the 1950s and how much progress we have made. I haven't checked the facts and figures, but I always have to remind myself that, if you look at the number of undergrad majors in the arts, at no other time in human history are have we produced this many artists. The challenge as we move forward is to make sure there are outlets for all of these artists and that they speak effectively to those who are not artists. We've done a lot since the 1950s, and there's lots of work to still be done, but it's always nice to take stock and remind ourselves of our progress.

Why Support the Arts?

I'm delving a little bit more these days into the issue of arts advocacy and I'm slowly working though a public conversation from March 7-11, 2005: "Is There a Better Case for the Arts?" This is a series of blog posts by 11 prominent people in the arts over the course of a week. (Thanks to modern technology for the forum to hold an interactive discussion with such interesting and geographically diverse thinkers!)

This conversation was in response to the RAND study "Gifts of the Muse." (The summary the study is here, but it also has links to download the entire 104-page study as a pdf document or to purchase a published copy.) I'll be working my way through the RAND study as well and I'll keep you posted on any interesting things that come out of it. (Apparently, I'm the first one at Harvard University to ever check out this copy!)

Just as a teaser of information, the RAND study--and, consequently, the conversation--cover a very broad range of benefits to the arts within the dichotomy of "instrumental" and "intrinsic" benefits to the arts and also relating the benefits to "private" benefits (those that are primarily of value to individuals) and "public" benefits (of value to communities of people or societies as a whole). So it addresses rationales from improved test scores to pleasure and economic growth to expression of communal meaning. I'm very interested to see how this study and the conversation (and also readers comments!) play out and what this pushes me to think about!

A Recentering of Arts Advocacy?

Why is it that recent arts advocacy has focused on the benefits of arts education in other subject areas? Why do we insist on rationalizing arts participation through the lens of other disciplines and higher math/verbal scores? While this tactic draws in the interest of non-arts participants with the issue of translatability, it is difficult to measure and simultaneously diminishes the arts by defining its place in our society as a supplement in relation to other, more essential, academic areas.

Project Zero researchers Ellen Winner and Lois Hetland try to move away from that and argue for "arts for our sake." (Their ideas are more spelled-out in their book, "Studio Thinking: The Real Benefits of Visual Arts Education.") I'm not trying to deride their research or their idea by any means, but this idea does not exactly inspire policy makers to run for The Hill and tear down No Child Left Behind. In order to effect change, a more detailed feature of the arts must be found in order resonate with arts participants and non-arts participants alike and forge an independent valuation of the arts.

Perhaps the best way to go about it is to quantify the under-served in our educational system. In many instances, the US has demonstrated a reputation and a ingrained moral obligation to fight for the underrepresented and oppressed. While there are certainly other area of educational reform that need attention, Americans can rally against the current educational system that restricts different types of learning. Despite the research on multiple intelligences, first published in 1983, the way teachers are trained and the practice in the classroom has changed little to better address the research. The godfather of the multiple intelligence theory, Howard Gardner states:

"Students with strengths in the spatial, musical or personal spheres may find school far more demanding than students who happen to possess the 'text-friendly' blend of linguistic and logical intelligences." (Gardner, "The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach," pg. 149)

While, admittedly, addressing multiple intelligence in the classroom is not a terribly urgent item in the massive realm of educational reform, it may just resonate with the populace like the standards-based reform movement that culminated in the NCLB legislation. In fact, the imbalance of multiple intelligence teaching in public schools may give better focus to the anti-NCLB movement.

If anyone can point me in the direction of research quantifying multiple intelligences displayed in the public school classroom, I would be very interested to read it. Here at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, we are fond of saying that we operate at the nexus of research, policy, and practice. I want to see how policy and practice align with the theory of multiple intelligences, and if it doesn't, could this be the proper lens to more effectively advocate for the arts?