Robert Mapplethorpe in the classroom

The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation out of DC advocates for (inter alia) school choice, ambitious standards, rigorous assessments, and accountability. The Foundation publishes the Education Gadfly, a weekly bulletin of education news. In this week's guest editorial, Gadfly provides space for Dana Gioia, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, to comment on the need for arts in public schools. Hey, attendance is mandatory - the students are captured, so why not indoctrinate them. My response follows:

Dear Editor:

I respond to Pleasure, beauty, and wonder by Dana Gioia, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts.

Gioia makes the positive statement, "We need a system that grounds all students in pleasure, beauty, and wonder." Missing is any definition of the terms pleasure, beauty, and wonder. This is important to note for two reasons: Gadfly adheres to the concept of explicit standards; and, NEA has funded many artistic adventures that are explicit by any standard.

Given the debates over standards for mathematics, not to mention less solid subjects such as social studies, does Gadfly really believe that a curriculum based on NEA's concept of pleasure, beauty, and wonder, would even approximate a standards-based education? And, with such a loose description of educational outcomes, can he even imagine the stealth curriculum which would supplant real learning?

Certainly Gadfly knows that "stirring" talks do not by nature produce beneficial results. Does he want to divert his attention from discussions of education to debates over what constitutes art? Such debates will consume his time in a no-win pursuit.

Gaddy, rethink your position on this subject.

Note: Full disclosure: I have written articles for Gaddy in the past.