State Education Agency Directors of Arts Education

Respond to Race to the Top Initiatives

We are encouraged that the recently released proposed guidelines for RTTT provides an emphasis on school reform that includes an opportunity for a balanced curriculum beyond the currently identified common core subjects.

Arts instruction, with its innate emphasis on problem-solving and individualized instruction, uniquely contributes to what current brain research tells us is most important in preparing students for college and career readiness.  In addition, we are encouraged by the clear connection, confirmed by research, between high-quality, comprehensive, sequential arts instruction and improvement in our lowest-achieving schools and students.

In his letter to schools, dated August 2009, Secretary Duncan states:

“The arts can help students become tenacious, team-oriented problem solvers who are confident and able to think creatively.  These qualities can be especially important in improving learning among students from economically disadvantaged circumstances.”

Nationwide examples of arts instruction infused with STEM curriculum, such as the initiatives in Ohio and Wisconsin, further add to the connections between RTTT goals and a balanced curriculum.

Overall, we are encouraged by the equal treatment of the arts, social studies, science, and physical education in many areas of the statute.  However, we would like to offer our recommendations concerning further inclusion of these and other non-tested content areas.

Section I.  Proposed Priorities

Proposed Priority 2

We are concerned by the section that gives STEM a competitive preference priority.  This priority may prohibit thousands of data-driven and well-documented school reform and student achievement interventions from being applied.  In addition, this priority could be viewed by grant jurists as preferring a STEM-only, as opposed to STEM-focused, grant application.  Therefore, we recommend that the competitive-preference priority for STEM clearly indicates that content-integration approaches include various curricular areas, such as the arts and humanities.

Section III.  Selection Criteria

A. Standards and Assessments

We are encouraged that, according to Section III.a., RTTT supports a balanced curriculum by allowing common-core states to apply for funding for programs that encompass the Arts, Science, Social Studies, Physical Education, and other non-tested subjects.

B. Data Systems to Support Instruction

We are encouraged by the opportunities afforded the Arts, under Section III.b., for inclusion in data collection systems, both as a part of the RTTT initiative and to add to data points that might support and expand the NAEP results.

E. Overall Selection Criteria

We are dismayed at the continuing emphasis on the narrowing of the curriculum that prioritizes ELA and Math test scores.  In accordance with Secretary Duncan’s recent letter, which reminds us that the arts are defined as a core subject under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), we recommend an emphasis on broadening the scope of the curriculum, to include the arts—dance, music, theatre and visual arts—and other non-tested content areas, in addition to math and reading, as core, essential, basic, and academic.