Artistic Choices: A Study of Teachers Who Use the Arts in the Classroom

In recent years the arts have been introduced into many pre-service and in-service professional development programs for general education teachers. At the same time, pressure for immediate test-score improvement and standardization of curriculum has limited the creativity and autonomy of teachers. This study, the qualitative part of a mixed-methods investigation of teachers across the U.S., involved six New York City elementary school teachers who found ways to use the arts in their classrooms on a regular basis despite the pressures they faced. The study investigated the personal characteristics and the factors that supported or constrained arts use in teaching. The results suggest that general creative and artistic attitudes rather than specific skills as a maker of art are key to arts use. A willingness to push boundaries and take risks defined this group of teachers. They recognized obstacles and challenges to arts use, but made choices that helped them maintain a sense of independence and creativity in teaching. The strongest motivation to use the arts use was their awareness of the diversity of learning styles and needs among their students. The teachers articulated a variety of ways in which arts-based professional development experiences encouraged them to bring their creativity into the classroom, expand their teaching repertoire, and find effective ways to incorporate the arts in the academic curriculum. International Journal of Education & the Arts Vol. 7 No. 8 2 In an era of unprecedented standardized testing in the United States, teachers face serious challenges to their creativity and autonomy in the classroom. The political demands for accountability based on high-stakes tests drive a movement for standardization of curriculum and prescriptive pedagogy that places teachers squarely in the middle of a struggle for control of the curriculum and the classroom (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Gipps, 1999). Paradoxically, at the same moment, many schools and districts have emphasized the need to introduce the arts into professional development for general education teachers (Arts Education Partnership, 1999; 1999b; Remer,1996; Stevenson & Deasy, 2005). Interest in the arts in general education stems from many forces, most notably national and state standards in the arts (Consortium of National Arts Education Organizations, 1994) and the curricular frameworks, assessments, and teacher standards they have spawned (Council of Chief States School Officers, 1999; New York City Department of Education, 2005; Perpich Center for Arts Education, 2005, among many others), and influential research into the nature of learning, intelligence, and creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Gardner, 1993; Sternberg, 1988). This research underscores the need to vary teaching methods to meet the diverse needs of students. While the number of arts specialists in the U.S. has remained static or declined, depending on the art form (National Center for Education Statistic, 1995; 2002), approaches that integrate the arts into the academic curriculum have been promoted. To be successful these approaches require classroom and other subject area teachers to include the arts in their teaching repertoire. Applications of Multiple Intelligences Theory (Gardner, 1993), performance-based and portfolio assessment (Allen & Blythe, 2004; Wolf & Reardon, 1996; Wiggins, 1998), creative processes in writing and reading (Calkins, 1994; Peterson & Marion, 1990), cross-disciplinary and applied learning standards (Kendall & Marzano, 1997), among others, all employ aspects of artistic processes and rely on the teacher’s ability to facilitate and assess creative work in a variety of modalities, and to respond to students spontaneously and intuitively. While many of these approaches encourage teacher creativity, intense pressure for immediate test score results pushes teachers toward the most directive forms of drill and repetition. Highly prescriptive, even scripted methods such as Direct Instruction (Adams & Engelmann,1996) and Success for All (Slavin & Madden, 1999), show quick results in some circumstances but undermine the creativity and autonomy of both teacher and student (Deci, Kasser & Ryan, 1997; Hattie, Jaeger & Bond, 1999). The flood of new standards and curriculum in all of the major subject areas, while often emphasizing the development of higher order thinking skills and creativity, can overwhelm teachers and inhibit their use of creative, open-ended explorations and in-depth projects. In this climate, many teachers report that they lack the time and the autonomy to use the arts and that their jobs will be in jeopardy if they do not follow the given structures or scripts (Fried, 2005; Gatto, 2002). Oreck: Artistic choices 3 Despite these pressures, some teachers find ways to bring the arts into the classroom on a regular basis. Given the low priority and lack of resources for the arts in many schools we might conclude that teachers who employ artistic approaches are simply highly unusual people driven by their personal passions. The central issue we face as staff developers in the arts becomes: “Can we teach the skills and attitudes needed to include the arts frequently and well, and if so, how?” We are often challenged by teachers with basic questions such as, “What do you mean by arts?” “What priority should the arts have and how can I add another subject to the curriculum?” “Can a teacher who is not an artist be expected to teach the arts?” “How can I justify the time spent on an art process?” “What are the outcomes of artistic learning and will they show up on tests?” These and other personal and philosophical questions concern teachers as they consider how to apply the lessons learned in professional development to their own teaching practice.