The Euphoria of Victory, The Snakepit of Unintended Consequences by Donn K. Harris

The piece below is an edited version of a 2015 blog I wrote for Americans for the Arts when we had finally replaced No Child Left Behind. The message about unintended consequences resonates with the November 2022 passage of California Proposition 28 - first year, nearly $1 billion in public funds for arts in schools, and we need to make sure it will not get swallowed up by the massive bureaucracy. One test will be the next budget cut that comes along - does this save the arts programs? One angle to consider - Prop 28 doesn't change high school graduation requirements, and in 2022 in California you can receive a basic high school diploma without taking any arts classes at all. Most Districts add on to that baseline, but the arts don't always benefit from that.

Not to rain on any parade. This is a PR victory, this is a real victory, and well-designed aspects of Prop 28 - the equitable distribution of 70% of the funds and the use of 30% to deepen the support to our more needs-intensive schools - give confidence that good thinking and good people are behind this. With Creative Corps programs being structured and funding models for its $60 million being decided at the California Arts Council level as Prop 28 secured its victory, we are possibly looking at one of the great Renaissance moments in arts funding in recent California history. The Governor has shown great leadership in funding creative initiatives, the public is on board, yet I know many in the field share my belief that strong, insightful detail orientation is critical to the near future. Strong vision without a rigorous implementation design is a recipe for mediocrity and disappointment.

"To whom much is given, much is expected." That is only fair. Expectations are high and the students and the State await our very best efforts.

The 2015 piece:

The relative quiet around the process to finally move beyond No Child Left Behind?highlights the almost unreal skill with which the NCLB authors were able to put their concept before the educational community and the public. In 2001 NCLB surged into the national consciousness so quickly it seemed as if it had always been there: its proficiency percentages and timelines for growth looked like a sales chart from a successful manufacturing company; its attention to subgroups addressed fears of problems hidden in large aggregates; its escalating consequences for failing schools seemed appropriately urgent. The language it employed resonated across many different fields and social groups. It sounded promising. Yet the unintended consequences it unleashed bordered on the catastrophic.

A few weeks back a former student, on tour with a Broadway show, e-mailed me as part of a research group he had joined to ask whether public education had improved in the past 20 years. My response:

In 1994 the standards movement emerged and required teachers to cover specific topics within the full curriculum. But there were too many standards, teachers were forced to go too fast, and subjects like Algebra suffered as teachers felt compelled to race ahead before students were ready. Depth was an early casualty. NCLB?arrived in 2001 and testing became like a cult ritual. Teachers were forced to get new credentials to prove they had expertise in precise subjects like Economics and Physics. There was public shaming for low test scores, and scripted curricula emerged specifying hour-to-hour adherence to pacing guidelines. Remedial classes dominated the school day. Chronically low-performing schools?focused on reading and math to the exclusion of even social studies and science (I'm serious), and finally the failed renewal of NCLB in 2006 was followed by nine years in limbo, with an untethered NCLB given free reign. In 2015 a first step was taken toward a new law (Every Student Succeeds Act - ESSA) and we have a deeper curriculum framework called The Common Core. Testing will be somewhat reduced, we have real stats on how different groups are doing, and the arts are staging yet another comeback. Curricular innovations have raised the bar, good people still love to go into teaching, and nationwide we have nearly 200 arts schools.

So, yes, we have improved, but we paid a high price -- we became rigid and data-crazy and we almost decimated arts education for an entire generation. Not sure I’d make that trade-off again.

This describes the unintended consequences of putting into place a structural model that sparked a twitchy psychological climate we endure today. No one I have spoken with on any side of the debate wanted the rigidity and fear that NCLB dragged into the mix. The idea that social studies and science were minimized in some schools goes counter to the very purpose of NCLB: driving us toward global competitiveness. It seems ludicrous, yet it happened – by design. Now that we’re headed in what seems to be a better direction, let’s take some best practices from the NCLB roll-out back in 2001: keep the language clear, the goals easily recited and the larger message inspirational and accessible. And let’s really think about the unintended consequences of putting any wide-sweeping legislation into action. Will there be a technology glitch that renders data unusable? Are less advantaged schools unable to train teachers in The Common Core? If scores are low, what forces will the remedies unleash? NCLB taught us a lot, but we have to know how to apply the lessons.

Using a family systems metaphor that seems to fit the topic, if NCLB was the stern old-school father demanding success and doling out rewards and punishments, then ESSA is the millennial parent listening to its children, able to live in a world less codified and measured, who builds consensus and values process as much as product. Let’s hope the child learned from the mistakes of the parent, and can craft a more humane and meaningful system to determine how much real progress our children are making.

And in 2022, let's craft our creative programs utilizing features that highlight successes and get people excited about the results.We need to make it so that reducing arts programs and laying off arts teachers is never again considered, no matter what the circumstances. The arts play too valuable a role in schools: among other strengths, the arts are the only place in the school where students' output is entirely theirs, tied to their imagination and the development of their inner worlds. That is the prime job of a teenager: to develop their identity, and to remove that from a school is short-sighted and contradicts our own research. Prop 28 makes a statement that we want stability and continuity and solid support for the arts to be a permanent feature of our schools; let's be sure we maintain that commitment when the next storm hits.