 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arts Education K-12: The Effective Use of Itinerant Teachers The purpose of this document is to focus on the current circumstances most arts education itinerant teachers find themselves in and to suggest recommendations for improving these circumstances where they are not equitable with other teachers' responsibilities or demands. Arts programs in the public schools provide unique possibilities for students to develop their intellectual, emotional, creative, and expressive capabilities. The arts are discipline-based and represent bodies of knowledge worth transmitting and knowing. Through experiences in problem-recognition and problem-solving processes, they make it possible for the learner to develop critical thinking skills and creative abilities. Experiences in dance, music, theatre arts, and visual arts help students to become knowledgeable about the individual contribution of each of these areas to the development of civilization and the specific modes of communication unique to the arts. The content of programs in the arts is specifically delineated in The Basic Education Program for North Carolina's Public Schools (BEP) and through the North Carolina Standard Course of Study Frameworks (SCS) and the Teacher Handbook Arts Education K- 12. Each program includes factual and skillbuilding content, along with studies in history, aesthetics, and criticism. These program elements are intended to be developed in a sequential manner, and require consistent study throughout the years students are involved with them. Effective teaching of the arts demands a consistently high physical and mental intensity and on-going active involvement on the part of the instructor. The nature of the effective arts teacher's role does not permit less than this. (See Department of Public Instruction document Arts Education K- 12: A State Perspective on Classroom Instruction, Monograph No. 2 1997 Arts Education Series.) The vitality of the program depends on the teacher being able to aid in the student's development of viable concepts in each area through involvement in the creative process, along with assisting student growth in appropriate attitudes, knowledge and skills. The comprehensive nature of this instruction, coupled with the diverse backgrounds of students in the schools, makes it mandatory for the arts teacher to have adequate time for program planning and to make necessary adjustments within the daily schedule. Because of the potential of the arts to affect the learner's total development and positive relationship to schooling, public school arts programs should be implemented in such a way as to help students achieve in these areas to the maximum of their potential. While we all know that student potential is best promoted by teachers who have an optimal teaching situation, frequently optimal or even reasonable practices and procedures are not provided for those teachers who are responsible for arts education programming. Indeed, this is often even more the case for itinerant arts education teachers. The reality is reflected in the high burnout rate and tremendous turnover in arts educators experienced by many systems. Arts educators are expected to do more with less, in less time, for more people and under conditions that, by today's standards, are less than adequate. The personnel shortage in arts education does not reflect a lack of interest in the field but can, to a large degree, be attributed to the well-known conditions under which both classroom and itinerant arts educators must struggle in order to survive in the public school arena. As a result, many potentially outstanding arts educators do not even consider teaching. Those who do enter the field, often last only a few years before looking for a way to escape the rigors of inappropriate practices and procedures that inhibit quality instruction from taking place. While the demand for quality instruction verified through teacher accountability and student achievement continues to increase, arts educators are seldom considered among those who need better conditions and an equal opportunity in order to accomplish the same expectations that are established for other teachers.
Itinerant teachers often endure the most difficult circumstances. In some cases, itinerant teachers are treated equitably and adjustments are made in their schedules and duties to make their jobs feasible and possible. Too often, however, itinerant arts teachers must serve numerous schools in a single day or week and thus, have no home-based school or time to spend there anyway. It is not uncommon for them to be assigned fifty classes a week, with up to 1300 students and to prepare for eight separate grade levels daily, not counting achievement levels of each class. Even as this overwhelming teacher load is described, it represents only a fraction of the true load an itinerant teacher faces in the arts. In addition to the assignment of as many as ten or eleven classes per day, the itinerant teacher may travel to as many as three different schools in that day or to twelve different schools in any given week. In some counties in our state, those schools may require that a teacher travel forty to fifty miles a day, often without reimbursement. Itinerant teachers are expected to integrate knowledge of the other disciplines into their instructional programs. This may require communication with as many as fifty classroom teachers and a working knowledge of those subjects. In other words, we expect our arts educators to be renaissance people with unlimited energy and time. Hours are spent preparing lesson plans, being resourceful in gathering and using instructional materials not provided for in the annual budget, and having those materials ready and available at the beginning of every class. This demanding weekly instructional load encourages teachers to deliver a quick activity-based lesson, instead of an educationally sound, sequential program. In addition, this instructional load provides teachers very little time to fairly evaluate or assess individual student performance and achievement. In order to adhere to such a schedule, classes are often scheduled with absolutely no time in between. Planning and coordination time, lunch and breaks, even if scheduled, are seldom sufficient or feasible and end up being nullified by traveling and trying to be on time. Upon arrival at a given school, facilities are rarely appropriate and the traveling only continues as the teacher, laden with records, books, fabrics, art supplies, props, or audio-visual equipment, moves from classroom to classroom, touching children's lives whose names are never known. For many, the task is not preparing quality lessons but how to beat the clock. Appropriate sequencing, evaluation, and student rapport take a back seat to disciplining students who almost always only see this teacher on an infrequent basis. Extra-curricular demands require many hours beyond the regular school day. Exhibiting student work in the buildings and central office, presenting performances in schools and communities, maintaining inventory of student works and supplies, keeping equipment in good repair, and gathering free materials from the community is extremely time consuming. Funding for their programs often comes from numerous sources, is generally poor and difficult to obtain. The amount of funding is most likely predetermined and there is seldom any opportunity for the teacher to request or negotiate the necessary funds to support the materials, supplies, equipment, and resources required by the program. Complicated Teacher Evaluation A further complication is created by the teacher evaluation process, which is often done by various administrators at different levels who do not have an understanding of arts education or its nuances. For example, itinerant teachers are often evaluated at each school to which they are assigned. Therefore, some itinerant teachers may be evaluated by as many as three principals. In very simplistic terms, itinerant teachers are often confused as to their place in the system's chain of command. Will each principal in the schools to which they are assigned supervise them or will their supervisor be someone from the central office? Compounding this situation, itinerant teachers are often locked out of the decision-making process at any of their schools, because of non-assignment or inaccessibility of administrators in the system. This, then, is the management maze that itinerant teachers have to struggle with professionally. Everything from the simple task of receiving mail to the more complex situation of supervisor identification becomes a burden to these "homeless" educators. Therefore, instead of the itinerant teachers' place of employment nurturing their professional growth, this "homeless" situation becomes a source of frustration and one of the contributing causes of teacher burnout and dissatisfaction. In this hectic schedule, there is virtually no time or energy left to pursue career growth, participate in the mentor program or take advantage of staff development training. Itinerant teachers almost always find themselves rushing around trying to look and act professional and competent while inside they are stressed out, frustrated, in a world only they can understand with no relief in sight and with quickly declining physical and mental energy levels. They feel each day is a gradually growing challenge which they are consistently less able to meet. They begin to resent their inability to provide what they know could be quality instruction for the students they so strongly care about. Their only alternatives are to stay and struggle, knowing that they will most likely only achieve mediocrity, or to throw in the towel and seek a more humane existence and opportunity elsewhere. They are the street people and the "bag ladies" of the education world, traveling with all of their worldly belongings through fragmented days filled with fragmented relationships... and no place to call home. Prior to the advent of the BEP, teachers in the arts, especially at the elementary level were frequently employed to carry out an unstated philosophy of delivering service. Following this approach, a teacher was utilized to serve as many classrooms as possible and, unfortunately, this situation is still prevalent in a great many instances. However, with the advent of the BEP and SCS, and the program which is mandated to be in place, the philosophy has necessarily shifted from delivery of service to that of development of program. The essential question then, is not "how many classrooms can be served by one teacher," but rather, "how effective can any one teacher be in the development of the program which is mandated by the BEP and SCS." The question which necessarily follows is "how many classrooms and how many students can one teacher serve and provide the quality of instruction which will indeed lead to the kind of program development needed to satisfy the intent of the BEP and the requirements of the SCS." Recommendations for Improvement Before addressing the needs of the itinerant teacher, it is necessary to establish a context by stating some suggested maximums that should apply to my arts teacher. The school day should include the following:
In order to fulfill the requirements of the mandated program, it is necessary that the following suggested limitations be observed:
The recommendations for itinerant teachers at the middle and high school levels should be essentially similar to the overall load of the elementary teacher, with the exception of the total pupil load, which should be less, due to seeing students more often than once per week. The only variation to this exception should be ensembles that require larger numbers and this should only take place at the request of the instructor. In order to carry out the programs effectively, a relationship with classroom teachers should be established involving cooperative planning with other classroom teachers, which leads to support of the program according to the capabilities of the classroom teacher. Likewise, the relationship with administrators should be a cooperative one based on a mutual understanding of program goals and teaching demands. For the itinerant teacher, additional safeguards must be observed in order to maintain the desirable instructional situation. Where a teacher serves more than one school per day, the scheduling should be modified to reflect a load that is compatible with that of the teacher who is stationed at one school for the entire day. In order to achieve this situation, the following cautions should be observed:
Where the itinerant teacher is assigned to more than one school, it is sometimes uncertain as to who should carry out the teacher evaluation. It is important that this function be assigned to either the LEA Arts Coordinator or the supervisor in the teacher's subject area, if available. If these positions do not exist in the LEA, it is important that the individual assigned to this function have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the subject and instructional level to be effective. Provision should be made for the itinerant teacher to have input into this process for purposes of clarification. Additional input from classroom teachers and administrators should take place only if specific circumstances warrant it. This should apply also to evaluations related to participation in merit pay through processes such as the Career Ladder, again with the provision that the evaluator(s) understand the special problems associated with serving an itinerant function and have knowledge of the specific arts area. The budgets for arts education programs should come from the central office or school level, be adequately funded to serve the needs of each program, be administered in an equitable manner, and with expenditures to be supervised by the teacher responsible for the program. Provision should be made for the itinerant teacher to participate in site-based management in all matters relating to the pursuit of the teaching assignment. It is the hope that this document has provided insight into the rigors of being an arts education itinerant teacher and given some realistic and useful guidelines for making decisions about the use of these teachers in the public schools. In most cases, the status of itinerant teachers has come as a result of trying to build programs without the necessary funding for teachers, materials, supplies, equipment or the availability of adequate and sufficient facilities. The desire to try and serve as many students as possible has, with the best of intentions, often caused administrators to look for whatever means possible to provide the program. In providing quantity, the quality of programs many times necessarily suffered. While the lack of funding may continue to be a problem, it is always desirable to be realistic about the use of itinerant teachers and sensitive to their everyday circumstances. Effective teachers are always concerned about the quality of instruction they are providing to students. They feel it is neither professional nor ethical to provide students with less than quality arts instruction and experiences. They are significantly aware that instruction in arts education takes as much time, preparation, assessment and adjustment as instruction in any other subject area. Because of the hands-on and/or activity-based approach often necessary in arts instruction, the quantity and variety of materials and equipment needed, the organization, and the pre and post preparation of classrooms that is frequently required, arts teachers find their situations demanding at best. Any circumstances that exacerbate the already busy instructional day only complicate things. While the need to use itinerant teachers in arts education programs may not cease in the near future, a concerted effort to be sensitive, fair and realistic when designing itinerant arts education teachers' schedules, duties and responsibilities will go a long way in helping them to better provide quality instruction and survive the rigors of working in this type of teaching position. |
|
|
|
||
|
Mike
Ward,
State Superintendent Phil
Kirk,
Chair |
North
Carolina Department of Public Instruction |
|
|
|
||
