Last week I carefully attempted to confirm the ways that VTS might support Winner’s “studio habits of mind”. This week I was surprised to learn that Housen, and Yenawine, et al took offense to Winner and Hetland’s justification that the arts be taught for the sake of the arts.
As one who goes to extreme measures to avoid conflict, I read and reread each article. I found points I agreed with in each. Yes, Winner and Hetland, I grow weary of justifying the reasons that art education is important. I feel insulted when my administrator requires that I include writing at each grade level twice a month for the purpose of improving communication arts skills. I do agree, “…teachers of academic subjects might well benefit from making their classes more like arts classes.” Then again, I also agree with Burchenal, Housen, Rawlinson, and Yenawine, “What’s wrong with saying that experience in the arts teaches abilities useful in other areas of schooling?”
Although in conclusion the Winner article promotes teaching the arts as vital to living in a rapidly changing world, I would argue that isolating the importance of arts is the complete opposite of what it means for students to be proficient in many literacies, a key goal for 21st century education. The website Partnership for 21st Century Skills identifies 'a blending of specific skills, content knowledge, expertise and literacies' with innovative support systems to help students master the multi-dimensional abilities required of them in the 21st Century'. Housen, Yenawine, and associates have persuaded me. In my opinion, to say that the arts must be valued solely for the sake of the arts is tantamount to cutting off the nose to spite the face.
No comments:
Post a Comment