Board of Elementary & Secondary Education February 12, 2019 Draft Revised Arts Curriculum Framework Request to Release for Public Comment Board of Elementary & Secondary Education February 12, 2019 RN Good morning Chair Sagain, Secretary Peyser and members of the Board. Craig Waterman and I are excited to be before you today to request that you vote to release the draft revised arts curriculum framework for public comment. You received a copy of the draft in the Board mailing for today’s meeting. We’ll review the highlights this morning. Ron Noble, Associate Commissioner, Instructional Support Craig Waterman, Assistant Director, Instructional Policy

Highlights of the Draft 01 Timeline CONTENTS 02 Highlights of the Draft RN Over the next few minutes, I’ll briefly review the timeline for the revision process and then Craig will share a few highlights of the draft that are improvements over the current 1999 arts framework. Finally, we’ll share some information about how we hope the draft framework will support increased access to the arts and respond to a few of the questions this Board raised when we were before you in December on this topic. 03 Access to the Arts

Timeline 01 RN

Refinement and Board Approval Revision Process Preparation Oct 2017 – May 2018 Stakeholder outreach Facilitator training Panelist recruitment Writing and Revising Jun 2018 – Jan 2019 Panel meetings Content Advisor input Framework drafting Refinement and Board Approval Feb 2019 – June 2019 Review draft Public comment Board discussion and vote RN As a reminder, and consistent with recent framework revision processes, we approached this work in three phases. Preparation consisted of extensive stakeholder outreach and culminated with the selection of our review panel. Phase 2, Writing and Revising, began last summer and just recently concluded. Today marks the beginning of our final phase. Should the Board vote to release the draft for public comment, we will issue a statewide survey and host feedback sessions throughout the Commonwealth to solicit feedback. We will make any necessary changes to the draft in light of public comment and come back before you in June with a final draft for your approval. I’m going to turn it over now to Craig Waterman who will talk you through some of the highlights of the draft. Craig has led this review process from the beginning, so today is a big day for him.

Highlights of the Draft 02 Thank you Ron

Framework Shifts - Organization 1. Consistent organization of each discipline Promotes clarity around learning expectations Supports integration across artistic disciplines and other academic areas 2. Inclusion of Practice Standards Consistent with other curriculum frameworks that balance practices and content standards Aligns to National Core Arts Standards 3. Integrates “connections” into the standards for each discipline The 1999 Framework’s Connections Strand includes standards on: purposes and meanings, roles of artists, style, technology, and interdisciplinary connections Members of the Board, I’m going to briefly review 6 important shifts we have made in the draft revised framework from the current 1999 framework. First, the draft applies a consistent structure to each arts discipline. In the 1999 standards, each arts discipline has its own unique organizational structure, which creates challenges for teachers attempting to integrate content. The consistent structure used in the draft revised standards makes it easier for teachers to make connections between arts disciplines and supports integration both between disciplines and with other academic areas. Number 2. Consistent with several other frameworks, the draft includes practice standards. These eleven Standards for Artistic Practice apply to all arts disciplines and at all grade levels. They represent processes and skills students learn as practitioners of the arts throughout the elementary, middle, and high school years. I will show you an example in a few minutes of how the practices intersect with content standards in the draft framework. The practices align to the National Core Arts Standards, which is important because arts educators in the Commonwealth have come to rely on the national standards, given the age of our current framework. By aligning, we are ensuring arts educators are able to build on the work they’ve been doing. Number 3. The 1999 Arts Framework includes a Connections Strand that sits outside of the arts disciplines, leaving it on teachers to figure out how to integrate “connections” standards with the standards for their arts discipline. The draft revised framework takes the important concepts covered in the Connections Strand and treats them in discipline-specific ways right in the standards for each discipline. This new specificity makes it easier for teachers to design instructional experiences for their students. For example, one of the connections standards that sits outside of the disciplines in the 1999 Framework relates to the role of the artist. In the draft revised framework, there are standards now within each discipline that describe the specific roles of the artist within that discipline.

Framework Shifts - Content 4. Addition of media arts as a fifth arts discipline It joins dance, music, theatre, and visual arts 5. More precise expectations 1999 Framework presents standards in four-year grade spans. The draft Framework presents standards in two-year grade spans for PK-8 and in three or more courses per discipline for high school. 6. Emphasis on a balance between: Performing and creating in specific disciplines (music, visual arts) Creating and responding to great works. As we’ve discussed previously, the draft revised framework adds the discipline of media arts to the existing disciplines of dance, music, theatre, and visual arts. This addition responds to demand in the field. Media arts is a unique field of artistic work that uses technology, interactivity, and collections of images and sounds to create art in forms including websites and videogame environments. Number 5. The draft revised framework provides more specific student learning expectations. The 1999 standards provided standards for four-year grade spans. We heard from the field that this was too wide a range to be useful in guiding curricular and instructional decisions. The revised standards are organized in grade dyads from PK-8, and offer multiple high school courses for each discipline.   Finally, the draft places an increased emphasis on the importance of creating original work in the performing arts (dance, music, and theatre) and on presenting in visual and media arts. This emphasis ensures a balance between creating and presenting/performing across all disciplines. The draft also emphasizes responding to the work of other students and work from masters, with a focus on understanding the context in which art works are created. The guiding principles in the draft reinforce the importance of engaging students and ensuring exposure to a wide range of cultures and styles.

Aligning Practice and Content Standards Taking a look at the standards themselves, you can see how the intersection of practices and content standards plays out. Each standard clearly connects the relevant practice, seen here in bold, to the content standard for the grade span and discipline. As I mentioned earlier, the practices remain constant up and down the grades. The content standards provide concrete learning expectations for the grade span and discipline.

Access to the Arts 03 CW

Current Arts Courses: Percent of Students Discipline K-5 6-8 9-12 Total Dance 2% 1% 1.5% Music 91% 69% 16% 62.6% Theatre 4% 15% 8% 7.5% Visual 0% 24% 8.3% General 77% 10% 62.5% When we before the Board in December, Chair Sagan asked for information about how many of our students are currently taking arts courses. We worked with our colleagues in data services to attempt to answer that question as best as our data allows. The bottom row of this chart can cause confusion. Districts use an array of course codes in their reporting to the Department. Some of these codes for the arts do not specify which arts disciplines the course covers. We’ve labeled such courses as “general arts.” That said, given that our data show that 0% of students are taking visual arts in elementary school, which we know is not true, we can infer that the vast majority of the courses we’re labeling as general arts are, in fact, largely visual arts courses. Given that inference, this chart confirms that most elementary students have access to both music and visual arts. Theatre courses start to be more widely available at the middle school level. Dance courses are almost nonexistent at all grade levels. Percentages of students taking arts courses declines significantly at the high school level. Board member McKenna questioned in December whether these standards represent one more thing for schools and districts to take on. It’s a fair point given that these data show there is unequal enrollment in the various arts disciplines, while our draft framework provides an equal number of standards. The framework provides standards to accommodate a wide array of arts course offerings. By providing standards for all five disciplines at all grade levels, we’re providing guidance to schools and districts that offer or will offer a wider array of arts courses. By using a common organizational structure, we are seeding opportunities for arts educators to integrate multiple arts disciplines into their existing courses.

Integration of Music and Dance: Grades 1-2 Example Interpret intent and meaning in artistic work. Categorize musical works by feeling or mood. (1-2.M.8) Relate artistic ideas and works with societal, cultural and historical context to deepen understanding. Identify different genres and styles of music (e.g., folk songs, lullaby, jazz, reggae). (1- 2.M.11) Interpret intent and meaning in artistic work. Move to and categorize dance works by mood. (1- 2.D.8) Relate artistic ideas and works with societal, cultural and historical context to deepen understanding. Identify different styles of dance (e.g., tap, hip-hop, ballet, square). (1-2.D.11) Take, for example, these parallel music and dance standards for grades 1 and 2. Board member Craven and others identified integration as one strategy to address the challenge of scarce instructional time for the arts. We see this as a way to support expanding the arts within existing staffing and student schedule models. Since dance is built upon music, the frameworks provide an access point for music teachers to expose students to dance even absent an existing dance program.

Integrating with Other Content Areas Create Generate and conceptualize artistic ideas and work. Organize and develop artistic ideas and work. Refine and complete artistic work. Present Select, analyze and interpret artistic work for presentation. Develop and refine artistic techniques and work for presentation. Convey meaning through the presentation of artistic work. Respond Perceive and analyze artistic work. Interpret intent and meaning in artistic work. Apply criteria to evaluate artistic work. Connect Synthesize and relate knowledge and personal experiences to make art. Relate artistic ideas and works with societal, cultural and historical context to deepen understanding. Integration of the arts with other content areas is a second way to increase opportunities for students to engage with the arts in school. Here are the 11 standards of artistic practice that anchor the draft framework. You’ll notice how students use creative process embodied by these practices in other content areas. Consider, for example, how students do the same generating, organizing, and refining of scientific hypotheses in response to phenomena in a science class. Just as they work to perceive, interpret, and evaluate a novel when they are responding to literature in an ELA class.

Discussion and Vote We appreciate the opportunity to acknowledge the many members of the arts education community who contributed to the draft revised framework. Our 10 stalwart facilitators who volunteered countless hours of time in panel meetings and iterating draft after draft, the over 40 panelists who brought their content expertise and energy to the process, and the nearly 20 content advisors we consulted to ensure the draft represents the latest arts education scholarship. We are happy to answer any remaining questions at this time.

THANK YOU Ron Noble, Associate Commissioner, Instructional Support Craig Waterman, Assistant Director, Instructional Policy 781.338.3244 cwaterman@doe.mass.edu www.doe.mass.edu 75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148