Art, music, and physical education are a few of the curricular areas commonly offered in public elementary schools that influence the comprehensive development of the whole child. Some research indicates that education in art, music, and physical education can benefit student
50
achievement (Graham et al., 2002; Ruppert, 2006; St. Gerard, 2011). Research by Moga, Burger, Hetland and Winner (2000) that contradicts this claim was published in the Journal of Aesthetic Education. A meta-analysis of ten studies was conducted, with seven indicating no causation between arts learning and academic improvement. This research found art to be extremely valuable to comprehensive learning, but maintained that it does not directly benefit non-arts student achievement or increased test scores (Winner & Hetland, 2007).
A review of the literature surrounding the history of art, music and physical education points to social, political and economic trends as major influences in the development of the content areas as we know them today (Efland, 1990; Spring, 2008a; Spring, 2008b; Wakeford, 2004). Educational accountability, an ever-present factor in public education, has varied in form since the inception of common schools in the United States. The most current form of educational accountability, known as No Child Left Behind (2001), has marginalized many non- tested content areas including art, music and physical education in public schools. These programs are often minimized or cut in order to focus on preparation for standardized testing in reading and mathematics (Center on Education Policy, 2007; Wilkins et al., 2003). Research available through ArtsEdSearch, an online collection of studies compiled by the Arts Education Partnership, cautions educators on arts education downgrades. The Arts Education Partnership’s analysis of over 40 studies has resulted in three major recommendations for principals to consider: arts integration within the literacy curriculum, the relationship between the arts and student engagement, and the positive effects of integrated pedagogy within teacher practice (Arts Education Partnership, 2011).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) designated the arts (which is generally interpreted to include music as well) as a core content area. Though physical education did not receive a core
51
designation, the content area is consistently maintained in many public schools due to state mandates developed in response to Public Law 108-265, which requires school wellness policies (Rikard, 2008).
Despite the arts’ NCLB “core” designation, the arts are not a tested subject under NCLB. A 2007 study conducted by the Center for Education Policy examined the effects of No Child Left Behind, specifically how NCLB has shaped curriculum and instruction. In a study of 349 school districts, 62% reported increasing instructional time in elementary schools for tested subjects like Math and English/Language Arts. As a result of the increased instructional time for tested subjects, 44% of districts reported a reduction of instructional time in elementary schools for non-tested subjects like art, music, and physical education (Center for Education Policy, 2007). As a result of the NCLB testing and accountability measures, art, music and physical education have been marginalized; the original “core” designation of the arts is offered with some futility (Rikard, 2008). A report published by the National Center for Educational Statistics (2012) indicates that over the last decade, schools in the United States overall have made little progress in advancing a comprehensive and relevant arts curriculum. This report also reveals that students in high-poverty schools have even less access to quality arts education. In some high-poverty schools, the arts may be taught by a classroom teacher rather than an arts specialist, or eliminated altogether (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2012).
Arts advocates are vehement in their classification of the arts as core and do not perceive the arts as extra-curricular (C. Smilan, personal communication, November 14, 2011; Eisner, 1998, 2004). With respect to this tension in education, and due of the contention surrounding the NCLB core/non-core designation of the arts, I classify art (core), music (core), and physical education (non-core) content areas as AMPE when discussed as a group throughout this
52
literature review (Graham et al., 2002). This acronym is in no way a value judgment and is simply intended for practical utility in referencing these content areas.
This review of the literature examines the history and evolution of art, music and physical education in public schools in the United States. I will discuss and analyze these content areas together because of their similarities within their content area evolution and current position in most conventional public (non-magnet, non-charter) elementary schools. Though some arts education scholars caution against categorizing these three distinct content areas together, the specific condition of art, music and physical education in elementary schools is of particular interest because these three non-tested content areas are commonly and simultaneously present in elementary schools (C. Smilan, personal communication, November 14, 2011; Graham et al., 2002; G. Graham, personal communication, September 19, 2012; M. Raiber, personal communication, June 27, 2012). The widespread presence of art, music and physical education teachers and their classrooms in elementary schools results in a distinct and prevalent teacher and content area subculture which will be the population for this study (M. Raiber, personal communication, June 27, 2012).
Another commonality of these content areas in public elementary schools is their exceptionality, that is, that these teachers are often the sole teacher of their specific content within the school. Often as a result of being the singular AMPE teacher in an elementary school, these teachers serve a significantly large number of students on a weekly basis (Barry, 2008; Krueger, 2000; Smilan & Miraglia, 2009). Smaller schools that cannot sustain full-time AMPE teaching positions may use itinerant AMPE teachers, who travel between several schools, to serve their student population (Barry, 2008; Holman, 1999).
53
In most traditional elementary school schedules students typically attend AMPE classes during their regular classroom teachers’ planning or preparation period. This common schedule structure diminishes AMPE teachers’ access to the team planning and discourse necessary for integration that the classroom teachers are often afforded (G. Graham, personal communication, September 19, 2012; Krueger, 2000; Reeves, Emerick & Hirch, 2006; Russell & Zembylas, 2007; Smilan & Miraglia, 2009). In order to accommodate various school schedule priorities, it is not unusual for art, music and physical education teachers to be given heavier or inconsistent teaching workloads (Barry, 2008; Krueger, 2000; Smilan & Miraglia, 2009).