Teaching Artists and Recent Changes in Arts in Education

Georgia A. Popoff

A student weaving Partners for Arts Education summer program Syracuse, New York

Teaching artistry has become a professional career path for artists inclined to match their skills and passions with educational curricula to enliven classrooms and inspire learning. Its development spans nearly 40 years. For the past 20+ years, the New York State Council on the Arts has made a profound investment in arts-in-education. In the last five years, the Association of Teaching Artists has strengthened the public voice of artists who teach. Both organizations have legitimized the artist as a partner with certified teachers in educating our youth. A true relationship in which all parties learn together, unified by learning standards and core subject tie-in, has become the norm rather than the exception. The role of teaching artist (TA) as a professional development facilitator has also grown from this trend. The TA has become more than a visitor, a “push-in” performer, and especially more than a volunteer. However, now that these accomplishments have been made evident, a tide has turned in education that is reflected in classrooms and school commitments to TAs.

Through an informal written survey prepared by the author answered by a select group of approximately 10–15 TAs polled (mostly throughout New York State and several beyond the state)—each with an average of more than 20 years in the field—the general consensus is that the past five years have eroded this higher ground. This subject was also recently addressed by a panel discussion during the 2007 Common Ground Arts in Education Conference in Rochester. Observations regarding the impact of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) on TAs have echoed common themes and observations.

Those polled recognized two predominant concerns: funding and the “assessment trend.” NCLB has mandated standardized assessment tests that limit time for creative learning experiences in the classroom. Students are now tested annually, starting with pre-K programs and at every grade level, which has also increased core subject teachers’ required attendance for professional development related to the testing process. Regarding this time out of the classroom and the demands to meet the burden of the testing schedule, one principal who served as a panelist acknowledged tremendous pressures on classroom teachers, limiting their willingness to consider anything outside of direct instructional needs of core subjects to meet the test structure. One polled TA wrote, “There is now an expectation of a specific result—product-based result—rather than an indication of growth and true learning, innovation, ‘teaching to be surprised.’”

Underlying these two concepts are the economic face of the state (and nation) and the impact of NCLB. Although the federal bill mandated compliance by states and the schools within their public school systems in order to receive federal funding, the funding to support compliance fell well below the cost, further complicated by other funding cuts on both state and federal levels. As the previously quoted principal stated, “There are so many unfunded mandates that create more problems. As the grants dry up, it does not come from the taxpayer’s pocket, the funds just dry up and the programs are lost.”

All of those polled recognize that the multi-contact session residency or partnership may be an easier “sell” for the inherent value but it is the pressure on teachers to meet the needs of the testing structure that drives interest. There is little room for “art for art’s sake,” and the TA is expected to help solve the problems of student engagement and success in learning evidenced by test results. If a TA proposal presented to a school does not address how students will test better, there is little hope in booking the gig. The TA has a greater obligation to join the classroom teacher in managing the pressure of the test schedules and preparing children to meet with success. Funding to districts is directly connected to this data and no one is absolved of the stress.

For the TA who can adapt quickly—who can become a shapeshifter—there is potential for continued employment and a broadly productive experience. Adaptability and creative application of one’s artistic discipline to core subjects, special education, curriculum requirements, and learning standards are required. The TA has to learn the language of educators and translate their own specialized vocabulary to teachers and children alike. This may actually be a positive result because of the bond it creates between the classroom teacher and the TA, based in a common language and set of goals. TAs have had to rely on deeper professional development as well to be informed in education theory, so they become stronger in practice as it relates to curriculum relevance. One TA suggests, “There are hidden benefits. The pressures that teachers are feeling have forced TAs to develop more effective lesson plans, learn the language, use time efficiently in arts-in-education instruction/experience, etc.”

Still, what has failed to change is that TAs are generally called on to work without benefits and to act as project coordinator. They need to be fingerprinted. They’re forced to provide background checks—at their own expense—for each district they work in. Add to these challenges a general frustration and disillusionment among veteran teachers who have lost the creative element of their own “art” to the quest for data and the atmosphere for teaching artists has become temperamental, to say the least.

Just as there are teachers and administrators choosing retirement out of a sense of frustration or defeat that this testing environment has created, there are TAs who are also choosing to leave the field. Some turn to arts administration. Many have stuck with it, hoping recent trends will change. These are the stubborn, for whom the passion of teaching artistry overrides the challenges. In the meantime, they are making the classroom a place where learning is still a creative, innovative experience. They make art an equal partner to pedagogy.

Georgia A. Popoff is a poet, teaching artist, performer, producer, and a senior editor of The Comstock Review. She is a board member of the Association of Teaching Artists and the Central New York Community Coordinator for Partners for Arts Education. Her collection of poetry, Coaxing Nectar from Longing, was published in 1997 (Hale Mary Press).