It is said that “you measure what you value, and you value what you measure.” Nowhere is this more apparent than in education. In the United States, we increasingly measure students’ scores on standardized tests in math and language arts. These scores are often primary measures of student learning and school quality. Unsurprisingly, we tend to value standardized test scores most.

After the infamous A Nation at Risk report in 1983, policymakers began looking to schools primarily as fuel for the United States’ economic engine. Worst of all, according to the report, that engine was sputtering in relation to the rest of the world (Hursh, 2007). This philosophy was largely responsible for the bipartisan support of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2002. Drafters and supporters of the legislation sought an educational system of increased “efficiency, accountability, fairness, and equality” (Hursh, 2007, p. 499). The primary tools of measurement of these goals were nationally mandated standardized tests.

The problems associated with placing too much emphasis on standardized test scores are numerous and well-documented – for example, it encourages “teaching to the test” (Au, 2007; Bae, 2018), can be punitive to teachers (Welsh et al., 2019), and rewards cheating (Amrein-Beardsley et al., 2010). As Gagnon and Schneider (2017) write, “(m)easurement systems shape school priorities, inform policy, and affect parental behavior. They also constitute the basis for accountability structures” (p. 751). The question this article asks is: assuming we value what we measure, are we measuring the right things? Are we sure that standardized test scores in two subjects are the best indicators of student or school success? This article focuses on a phenomenon often called “curriculum narrowing,” how it affects arts education, and why we should care.

Curriculum Narrowing

The high stakes testing environment associated with No Child Left Behind has focused instruction primarily on building literacy and numeracy skills. This focus has resulted in a narrowing of the curriculum in favor of tested subjects – math and English language arts (ELA) – and test preparation (Au, 2017; Supovitz, 2007).  As the share of instructional time per week devoted to mathematics and ELA has increased, time for science and social studies has decreased (Dee et al., 2013). Especially in urban districts, there is pressure to center instruction on content specific to math and ELA standardized tests, often to the detriment of more intricate facets of those subjects and non-tested subjects altogether (Hursh, 2007).

Student scores on standardized tests are typically relied on heavily when media organizations rank schools and districts (GreatSchools, 2020; Morse & Brooks, 2020). In my home state of New Jersey, NJ Monthly magazine publishes a “Top Schools” feature every two years, ranking every public high school in the state. Looking at the criteria for NJ Monthly’s ranking methodology (Top Schools 2018: Methodology), although there are three categories – School Environment, Student Outcomes, and Student Performance – student scores on standardized tests account for over 57% of the school’s rank on the “Top Schools” list. Is it any wonder why districts prioritize raising standardized test scores? These rankings are widely touted by districts and towns and are often included in real estate listings. There is little doubt these rankings affect perceptions of communities, directly impacting home values, rents, and property tax assessments (Unger, 2020).

Teacher evaluations also incorporate standardized test scores. In New Jersey, the law AchieveNJ (New Jersey Department of Education, 2017a) requires districts to evaluate teachers differently depending on whether or not they teach “tested” subjects. For those who teach math and language arts, evaluations are based on the following criteria:

• 30% of a teacher’s overall evaluation rating is based on data from state standardized assessments.
• 15% is based on Student Growth Objective (SGO) data. SGOs are “long-term academic goals for groups of students set by teachers in consultation with their supervisors” (New Jersey Department of Education, 2017b).
• 55% is based on classroom observations.

All other teachers, or those who teach in “non-tested” areas, are evaluated using the following formula:

• 85% of a teacher’s overall evaluation rating is based on classroom observations.
• 15% is based on SGO data.

Then there is the threat of school takeovers, in which the city or state dismantles local education agencies and assumes control of a school or district. The decisions to take over schools are often a result of perceived inadequate student achievement on state standardized tests. This threat, added to the weight given standardized test scores in teacher evaluations, contribute to practices such as “teaching to the test” and spending too much attention on bubble students (Welsh et al., 2019). This may save teachers’ jobs and districts’ autonomy but hardly benefits students. The effects of these practices are disproportionately negative for children of color and other marginalized students (Welsh et al., 2019).

Benefits of Arts Education

The priority placed on standardized testing due to NCLB has compelled districts to sacrifice non-tested areas to the altar of math and language arts. Heilig et al. (2010) found that 58 percent of districts increased instructional time for language arts and 45 percent for math from the inception of NCLB in 2002 to 2008. In the same time period, instructional time for arts education decreased by 16 percent.

Cognitive Skills

Often, the value of arts education is ascribed to its ancillary benefits. One such benefit is improvement in students’ cognitive skills. Segarra et al. (2018) shows how STEM fields are dependent on visual, spatial, and graphic skills such as schematics, symbolic logic, scientific illustration, and photography. The authors also demonstrate how theater “can encourage students to find novel ways to integrate knowledge and articulate their understanding of natural phenomena that are abstract and hard to understand” (p. 2). In a recent Australian study, theatre integration in the language arts curriculum helped students develop literacy skills (Dutton & Rushton, 2018).

Noncognitive Skills

Another ancillary benefit of arts education is its positive impact on students’ noncognitive skills, often called “soft skills.” These skills, such as “adaptability, grit, motivation, empathy, conflict resolution, problem-solving, and teamwork” (Jackson et al., 2020, p. 2), are among the core competencies of social-emotional learning (SEL), according to the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL, n.d.). Jackson et al. (2020), in a study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that focus on students’ SEL is associated with both educational and adult success. SEL was shown to have a measurable positive effect on attendance, GPA, and success in college. Perhaps even more encouraging, SEL is also associated with a reduction in future criminal activity (Jackson et al, 2020).

There is a natural link between the skills developed in the arts and SEL core competencies. In theatre, students develop non-verbal communication. In dance, students are asked to follow complex directions. Music requires students to develop grit and self-management to master excerpts independently. Studies have matched arts instruction with improved communication, collaboration, leadership skills, personal agency, relationship management, self-regulation, and engagement in school (Casciano et al., 2019).

Arts-infused SEL is often most beneficial for the most marginalized populations. Lea et al. (2019) found that arts education helped young, formerly incarcerated Black men develop relationship skills, respect for others, empathy, positive racial and ethnic identity, self-awareness, and self-efficacy. Additionally, arts education was shown to mitigate the negative effects of adversity and trauma. Casciano et al. (2019) illustrate how arts education helps special needs students develop relationship skills, self-regulation, and leadership.

Cultural Value

Though recent advocacy effectively points to the ancillary – academic and social-emotional – benefits of arts education, perhaps the greatest benefit is the cultural value that students of the arts add to society. Song and Kim (2019) point to the ability of arts education to enhance “cultural welfare,” including social integration and citizens’ cultural participation and consumption. Dutton and Rushton (2018) show that integrating theatre with literacy education can enhance students’ sense of identity and community engagement.

Multidimensional Measures of School Quality

What is the solution to such a complex and multi-faceted dilemma? I would argue that the best way to realize the cognitive, noncognitive, and cultural benefits of a well-rounded education is to reexamine and reassess how we measure student, teacher, and school outcomes. Gagnon and Schneider (2017) agree that there is “nuance lost when school quality is presented as unidimensional.” As that dimension is currently largely test scores, the most significant victims of curriculum narrowing are children living in poverty. This problem only grows as families and teachers, influenced by unidimensional measures of school quality, seek schools identified as high quality within the current paradigm (Gagnon & Schneider, 2017). Measurements of school quality, therefore, can also be viewed as a problem of social justice.

Noncognitive skills are, admittedly, difficult to measure. Cultural value is arguably even more so. The solution should not be to do what has always been done because standardized test scores are relatively easy to measure, compare, and explain to stakeholders. Giving all students access to a broad curriculum that includes a robust arts education requires developing more creative and meaningful ways to measure educational quality.

Joseph Elefante is a PhD student in Educational Leadership Policy at Texas Tech University. He holds an M.A. in Educational Leadership from Montclair State University and a B.Mus. in Music Performance from New Jersey City University. His research interests primarily center on arts and whole child education advocacy and holistic methods of measuring student success, teacher evaluations, and school quality. He is also interested in investigating the long-term outcomes of arts and noncognitive skill development and developing methods of measuring quality arts and noncognitive education in school settings. In addition to his doctoral studies, Joe is currently the Supervisor of Fine & Performing Arts, Family & Consumer Science, and Technology Education for a mid-size urban school district in northeastern NJ.

References

Amrein-Beardsley, A., Berliner, D. C., & Rideau, S. (2010). Cheating in the first, second, and third degree: Educators’ responses to high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(14), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v18n14.2010

Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189×07306523

Bae, S. (2018). Redesigning systems of school accountability: A multiple measures approach to accountability and support. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(8). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.2920

Casciano, R., Cherfas, L., & Jobson-Ahmed, L. (2019). Connecting arts integration to social-emotional learning among special education students. Journal for Learning through the Arts, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.21977/D915139672

CASEL. (n.d). Core SEL Competencies. https://casel.org/core-competencies

Dee, T. S., Jacob, B., & Schwartz, N. L. (2013). The effects of NCLB on school resources and practices. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(2), 252–279. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712467080

Dutton, J., & Rushton, K. (2018). Confirming identity using drama pedagogy: English teachers’ creative response to high-stakes literacy testing. English in Australia, 53(1), 5–14.

GreatSchools. (2020, November 5). About GreatSchools; ratings system and methodology. https://www.greatschools.org/gk/ratings

Heilig, J. V., Cole, H., & Aguilar, A. (2010). From Dewey to No Child Left Behind: The evolution and devolution of public arts education. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(4), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2010.490776

Hursh, D. (2007). Assessing No Child Left Behind and the rise of neoliberal education policies. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 493–518. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306764

Gagnon, D. J., & Schneider, J. (2017). Holistic school quality measurement and the future of accountability: Pilot-test results. Educational Policy, 33(5), 734–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904817736631

Jackson, C. K., Porter, S. C., Easton, J. Q., Blanchard, A., & Kiguel, S. National Bureau of Economic Research. (2020). School Effects on Socio-emotional Development, School-Based Arrests, and Educational Attainment (Working Paper 26759).

Lea, C.H., Malorni, A., & Jones, T.M. (2019). “Everybody is an artist:” Arts‐based education and formerly incarcerated young black men’s academic and social–emotional development in an alternative school. American Journal of Community Psychology, 64(3-4), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12378

Morse, R., & Brooks, E. (2020, April 20). How U.S. News Calculated the 2020 Best High Schools Rankings. U.S. News and World Report. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings

Murray, K., & Howe, K. R. (2017). Neglecting democracy in education policy: A-F school report card accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25, 109. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.3017

New Jersey Department of Education. (2017a). AchieveNJ. Retrieved December 20, 2020, from https://www.nj.gov/education/AchieveNJ

New Jersey Department of Education. (2017b). AchieveNJ: Student Growth Objectives. Retrieved December 20, 2020, from https://www.state.nj.us/education/AchieveNJ/teacher/objectives.shtml

New Jersey Monthly. (2018, August 23). Top Schools 2018: Methodology. https://njmonthly.com/articles/towns-schools/top-schools-2018-methodology

Segarra, V. A., Natalizio, B., Falkenberg, C. V., Pulford, S., & Holmes, R. M. (2018). STEAM: Using the arts to train well-rounded and creative scientists. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1360

Song, W., & Kim, B. (2019). Culture and art education to promote cultural welfare in civil society. Social Sciences, 8(12), 322. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8120322

Supovitz, J. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2–3), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9105-2

Unger, T. (2020, October 6). Affording a House in a Highly Ranked School Zone? It’s Elementary. Redfin Real Estate News. https://www.redfin.com/news/paying-more-for-a-house-with-a-top-public-school-its-elementary

Welsh, R., Graham, J., & Williams, S. (2019). Acing the test: An examination of teachers’ perceptions of and responses to the threat of state takeover. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 31(3), 315–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019-09301-y