ColumbiaMagazine.com
Printed from:

Welcome to Columbia Magazine  
 



































 
Cassie Davenport responds to Sen. Wise's clarification of SB 1


'Senator Wise and his colleagues will say that they do not devalue the arts. However, the language and actions of Senate Bill 1 does.' - CASSIE DAVENPORT
A response to Senator Max Wise: Myths & Facts about SB 1

By Cayce Davenport
Personal commentary

To follow up my previous request to act against SB-1 and in response to Senator Wise's clarification of the bill I wanted to point out a few details. This past Wednesday in the Kentucky State Senate something repeated throughout the Senate Bill 1 proposals from its stewards was "let the teachers teach." One could hear the collective bipartisan rise of agreement from all teachers state wide in all grades, all subjects.
No teacher will dispute that the amount of bureaucratic paperwork and non-instructional responsibilities slash into time we have to do what we are needed for most...teaching. Not to say that all non-instructional responsibilities are time wasted. Monitoring students between classes, contacting parents, coaching a team, or sponsoring a club are some non-instructional responsibilities which strengthen relationships and create connections that makes time in our classroom more meaningful.



In response to Senator Wise's clarification of Senate Bill One:

Social Studies was initially to be removed from accountability. However, Senator Wise "heard these concerns and amended the bill to restore it." I will point out that Senator Wise, a member of the committee who wrote the bill is a political science professor. He is the closest thing to an educator who took part in devising this educational reform model.

I'm sure that had there been an arts representative that the same would have been done for the arts. There can be no denying that his and other SB-1 authors' offices were flooded with complaints regarding the removal of the arts. No one at the Kentucky Music Educators' Association, Kentucky Art Educators' Association, Kentucky Coalition for Arts Education, and Kentucky Humanities Council support this bill while it kept the arts out of a school's accountability. Their concerns were well voiced the last few months, apparently to deaf ears.

One of those "bureaucratic burdens" Wise speaks of is the tool by which the Humanities departments (visual performing arts & writing) are measured, scored, and added to a school's overall accountability score.

In the current model the Arts & Humanities/Writing/Foreign Language/Practical Living are worth 20% of a school's overall score. A Program Review evaluates the rigor and quality of these programs. Completing a Program Review does require a substantial amount of paperwork and collection of lessons, rubrics, and student work. It measures much more than "merely focus on the school's activity and do nothing to measure or contribute to its productivity." Quite the opposite from what Senator Wise has stated. A subject matter like the arts are performance based.

The Program Review was created to measure these programs rather than give students a standardized test which would not accurately measure a performance based subject. It would be like judging a baking contest without tasting anything. An arts teacher will complete this document over the course of the school year alongside their other arts teachers and collaboration of administrators.

The new method of "accountability" for which the arts will be held does not include student work, teacher feedback, or examples of rigorous content. Instead comes in the form of a "letter of assurance" written by administrators to state the arts content is being covered. This is most worrisome to all arts teachers across the state. In essence, a school could "assure" that arts content is covered through embedding the material in other classes: math, social studies, science. The arts content could potentially be taught by non-certified art/music teachers.

Another detail failed to be clarified by Senator Wise is that the Humanities requirement needed by every high schooler can, through the new model, be fulfilled with a foreign language, computer, technology, or industry course. Again, another attempt to thwart the arts through a career based course. Which brings me to my next detail.

Schools will be given even more incentive to have students in a career pathway. Through the new model schools will receive incentive points for just having students enrolled in an industry course: welding, nursing, computer science, ect. Much less completing the pathway.(which also gains a school accountability points).

Thankfully not here in Adair County, but I have already seen students removed from an arts class in order to be placed in an industry type class. This is purely motivated by gaining points. Something that really bothered me that Senator Givens and Wise mentioned in their argument for SB-1 was that through the current model schools were "chasing points".

By giving incentive points just for having students enrolled in an industry course will encourage this in other schools. Again, thankfully, it has been my experience at Adair County that the arts students are being allowed to take those courses they desperately want.

My last point is something that I think most teachers will appreciate. This educational reform bill was written by politicians with no educators on the committee while the bill was being created. This was pointed out numerous times by other Senators opposing the bill during the proposal this Wednesday. They have since, after receiving criticism, added Commissioner of Education Stephen Pruitt to the committee. I will remind that the new commissioner, Mr. Pruitt is also the person who removed the Arts & Humanities Career Pathway due to "lack of considerable career opportunities in the arts."

Senator Wise and his colleagues will say that they do not devalue the arts. However, the language and actions of Senate Bill 1 does.


This story was posted on 2016-02-21 12:39:35
Printable: this page is now automatically formatted for printing.
Have comments or corrections for this story? Use our contact form and let us know.



 

































 
 
Quick Links to Popular Features


Looking for a story or picture?
Try our Photo Archive or our Stories Archive for all the information that's appeared on ColumbiaMagazine.com.

 

Contact us: Columbia Magazine and columbiamagazine.com are published by Linda Waggener and Pen Waggener, PO Box 906, Columbia, KY 42728.
Phone: 270.403.0017


Please use our contact page, or send questions about technical issues with this site to webmaster@columbiamagazine.com. All logos and trademarks used on this site are property of their respective owners. All comments remain the property and responsibility of their posters, all articles and photos remain the property of their creators, and all the rest is copyright 1995-Present by Columbia Magazine. Privacy policy: use of this site requires no sharing of information. Voluntarily shared information may be published and made available to the public on this site and/or stored electronically. Anonymous submissions will be subject to additional verification. Cookies are not required to use our site. However, if you have cookies enabled in your web browser, some of our advertisers may use cookies for interest-based advertising across multiple domains. For more information about third-party advertising, visit the NAI web privacy site.