WizardMarks wrote: > This is my point of disagreement. The 3 Rs, yes, and the arts. > Kindergartners and pre-kindergartners don't get much science, > history, or civics.
This is part of the problem that I originally raised: kindergartners and pre-kindergartners don't get much science. There are all kinds of things that you can teach children about physics and yet if you mention teaching physics to elementary school teachers they are nonplused. > The arts are great ways of addressing arithmetic (so are the > odds at the race track, the way I learned), they also > address hand-eye coordination, and better still, hand-eye-mind > coordination. Listen to a four year old sing; it takes a while to > hear and have the voice repeat a sound, it takes even longer to > repeat a series of sounds. Okay, let's ignore the lack of supportive research for a moment. Just what does music and other arts teach children about mathematics? 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4... Okay, so what about octaves? Well I've had three years of college math and I still don't understand how octaves work in music theory, maybe someone can explain it to me offline (please explain it in relation to the design of a piano keyboard). So what are we going to do anyway? Read children "Gödel, Escher, Bach?" Regardless, these concepts are more advanced than the mathematics of music taught to children and the type of mathematical skills taught in elementary school. BTW, just to help you in your argument, there are some studies that show a relationship between *language* and music (I can provide references Jon), whereas it is more difficult to provide evidence to show that there are no effects. The responsibility for that evidence lies with those who are arguing for the Arts, but there is no evidence that the effects would even come close to those attributable to direct instruction in the specific subject areas. > The most important part of this discussion is that, even in > broke times, we cheat ourselves, the world, and the species > when we cheat the children. Which is exactly my point: If you fail to provide children with the skills necessary to earn a living wage, then you have indeed failed to educate them. Elizabeth Greenbaum wrote: > I will ditto what WizardMarks implies. Children absorb > language, math and reading (i.e. the basic alphabet) skills in > the blink of an eye just by singing songs. > Music, movement and visual ques are perfect for facilitating > learning the 3Rs in ways that are very accessible to children. Music, movement, and visual cues can facilitate learning, but they certainly are NOT SUFFICIENT and I don't believe that there is any evidence that they are NECESSARY for learning the 3Rs. Whether music, movement, and the visual arts have other benefits is a separate argument that no one here is arguing against, although we are often accused of arguing against it. > When it comes to illiteracy and the bigger issues of children > not learning, I think we have to honestly look beyond the schools at > what is not working in these children's lives. If we expect classroom > teachers to work mericles, with or without the arts, when these students > don't have enough food to eat, are in abusive situations, and/or have a > lack of parental/family/guardian support. We would be pretty nieve to > think the schools can solve such dire problems. We are most likely going > to loose these children with or without the arts. I hate this rationalization. Whenever you back liberal educators into an empirical corner, they always try to slip out by saying, "Ah, you see it's not really our methods that are failing, it's the parents." It's the parents! Not. The research on early childhood education has repeatedly shown that you can equalize achievement differences between poor and middle class children (partly by involing the parents), but that many of the effects disappear as children advance though the school system. So, I would claim that it is not the parents, it's the school system (peer groups and minority cultures). > The only small hope is that the opportunity for the arts to spark > something in any these children is a reality that happens all the time. We might also expect that if they accept Jesus as their true savor, that they will be saved from poor academic achievement, but that doesn't imply that we should teach Christianity in the schools. (For anyone who is interested in this topic there's a fascinating article in the NYT today about changes in the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Spanish government.) I am making this analogy because I really believe that there are many parallels between this argument for Arts in the schools and faith based initiatives. AND, I MUST reiterate that I am not arguing for reducing the arts emphasis in the MPS schools, I am arguing for increasing the opportunities and emphasis on math and science. I am sorry to admit that I haven't had time to finish a post that I've been working on for several weeks to identify exactly what I see as the lack of emphasis on math and science, but I'll try to get to it as soon as I can. Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
