The other night I attended another great event at New Urban Arts titled Who Made Us Creative? People, Place & Power. The fishbowl conversation consisted of panelists representing many of the key arts organizations around Providence, including AS220, the Steel Yard, New Urban Arts, and Community Music Works. The discussion categories included origins of the orgs, space and place, resources, relationship to powerful institutions, and visions or life cycles.
There are a number of things I took away from the conversation. The most notable, however, directly have to do with education. I sat next to a woman I attended a Brown event with several weeks ago about documentation. She explained that she was a senior at RISD, and gave me several things to think about. First, and much less to do with this event in particular, she told me that RISD doesn't really connect their students with these types of events in the city. I found that to be really disheartening, and I wish with such a rich, diverse, inclusive and place-based city like Providence more classrooms would take down their walls to involve these types of things in their curriculum. Which leads me to my second thought that came out of this convergence.
The panel was asked how to involve even more of the student population in Providence. A long discussion around this topic ensued, and ended with a comment that really struck me; "...It doesn't mean we should mentor every student." If memory serves, more of an emphasis was placed on the word "should," indicating more of a statement about the nature of mentorship and imposition. However, taking that statement out of context a bit and coupling it with statements revolved around not enough space to reach students with art, I began to wonder about how we are reaching students. After hearing a student speak last week about her experience at NUA, I began to recognize what is often held as an "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to arts organizations and formal schools. What I wonder is if this idea of space-based organizations and community investment exists within the cracks in the pavement of our cities, and this strain of "not enough space," and this concept of NUA vs. Classical High, plus this program I learned about last week that teaches history and math through art, AND the struggle in educational institutions of retention and retainment, can all these issues be solved simply by partnering schools in Providence with local art organizations? It seems too simple, and my articulation is obviously in another state at the moment, but if (for example) Classical High School partnered with NUA right across the street to collaborate on curriculum, students would be happier, more involved, and as a result experience more learning. I am not saying NUA should run programs at the school, but that mentors should be brought in to help design curriculum as a consultant or to run a few classes out of the semester.
Arts organizations in Providence including those represented on this panel and others continue to collaborate to strengthen the community in spite of schools. What would happen if they all were invited and decided to strengthen youth community in schools? Would we experience a jump in school attendance, participation, retainment, and excitement? Or would that partnership only corrupt the nature of the organizations and turn students away from both? I don't know, but I will give this idea much more thought and deliberation. I'll get back to you soon...
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
New Urban Arts - Young Professors
Last night I attended an event at the local organization New Urban Arts, a space for high school students to explore creativity and arts projects. Three students who have graduated from high school through NUA hosted a discussion about education reform and the work they are doing since having moved on from high school. The conversation attempted to delve into the issues of our time, including pedagogical practices, successful and failed programs, and (of course) assessment. I enjoyed myself and felt surrounded by like-minded people, though I felt that the conversation was only beginning to get interesting and deep enough when we had to leave.
Despite the ill-timed departure, I was able to get a few things out of the discussion. First, one of the panelists spoke about his program teaching math, science and history through art projects. The panelist described how he discovered what a passion for learning his students had when they were able to engage with their work. He told a story of hosting the program in what was regarded as the most trouble-some class of students and their success in teaching them the material. He went on to tell about how after leaving the class after completing the project that during the week of the program those "trouble students" hadn't had a single problem the entire week.
Another topic that came up was the idea of creating a policy to implement on a national level the type of work that the three panelists were participating in. A member of the audience suggested that by the time any policy or pedagogy reaches the national level it ceases to work. I believe that it is less a question of time and more a question of the overarching ideal of a nation-wide policy in the first place. The projects and programs discussed were all very relevant to those involved in the communities they were hosted in simply because they were specific to that environment. Hearing that statement sparked my own thoughts and beliefs about this question of policy and I believe that there is no one program that will "fix" education. The most we can aim for is a best practice model with modular components that can be added on to, subtracted from, or uniquely adjusted to fit the current environment.
The final thought that I'll share is my ideas of what exactly we should be teaching students. It was clear from the biographical presentations that everyone there used art to teach the materials that couldn't be taught in the traditional way because of differing learning styles. But what I am wondering is whether or not we should be putting all our time into teaching those skills in the first place? Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe in learning math and science and writing, but I question whether the group of people I sat with Thursday night began to question the content instead of the practice. Yes, we need to teach students those skills. But should those skills take the entirety of a school day or week? More and more research is coming out that suggests that top employers are most interested in hiring people with emotional intelligence. I believe that if we can find a medium between teaching students 2+2 as well as teaching them the essential non-cognitive variables of life outside the classroom, we will all be much happier. Heck, maybe we can even find a way to teach them 2+2 through our non-cog practices. Or is that too radical?
Despite the ill-timed departure, I was able to get a few things out of the discussion. First, one of the panelists spoke about his program teaching math, science and history through art projects. The panelist described how he discovered what a passion for learning his students had when they were able to engage with their work. He told a story of hosting the program in what was regarded as the most trouble-some class of students and their success in teaching them the material. He went on to tell about how after leaving the class after completing the project that during the week of the program those "trouble students" hadn't had a single problem the entire week.
Another topic that came up was the idea of creating a policy to implement on a national level the type of work that the three panelists were participating in. A member of the audience suggested that by the time any policy or pedagogy reaches the national level it ceases to work. I believe that it is less a question of time and more a question of the overarching ideal of a nation-wide policy in the first place. The projects and programs discussed were all very relevant to those involved in the communities they were hosted in simply because they were specific to that environment. Hearing that statement sparked my own thoughts and beliefs about this question of policy and I believe that there is no one program that will "fix" education. The most we can aim for is a best practice model with modular components that can be added on to, subtracted from, or uniquely adjusted to fit the current environment.
The final thought that I'll share is my ideas of what exactly we should be teaching students. It was clear from the biographical presentations that everyone there used art to teach the materials that couldn't be taught in the traditional way because of differing learning styles. But what I am wondering is whether or not we should be putting all our time into teaching those skills in the first place? Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe in learning math and science and writing, but I question whether the group of people I sat with Thursday night began to question the content instead of the practice. Yes, we need to teach students those skills. But should those skills take the entirety of a school day or week? More and more research is coming out that suggests that top employers are most interested in hiring people with emotional intelligence. I believe that if we can find a medium between teaching students 2+2 as well as teaching them the essential non-cognitive variables of life outside the classroom, we will all be much happier. Heck, maybe we can even find a way to teach them 2+2 through our non-cog practices. Or is that too radical?
What impacts me as an educator?
The intent of this blog is to document my thoughts, opinions, research, experiences, and growth through my remaining time as an undergraduate student at College Unbound. The title of this particular post is the question that each successive post will address, a lens through which to view my experiences. These posts will allow me to reflect upon what impacts me most and how those events and reflections affect the way I think and feel about being an educator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)