Aesthetic Education

The Old Guitarist by Pablo Picasso
with words from Wallace Stevens'
The Man with the Blue Guitar

It was my great privilege yesterday to attend a workshop at Lincoln Center with the legendary Maxine Greene.  She is Philosopher Emeritus of Lincoln Center Education and founder of The Maxine Greene Center for Aesthetic Education and Social Imagination.

At 96, Dr. Greene is still an active force readily inspiring those around her.  She spoke of the tenets of John Dewey's work and how an electrifying connection with a work of art can help "open up new experiential possibilities".

During her presentation and in our conversation afterwards, I was struck by her genuine interest in education and in those of us who teach.  She repeatedly expressed a desire to foster a dialogue so her own understanding would continue to evolve.

Never satisfied, she encouraged us to push against the boundaries of what is comfortable and to live in the question (I am not sure exactly what that means but I suspect it is that childlike place of wonder coupled with an adult sensibility of reflection).

In her 2001 publication Variations on a Blue Guitar she writes about art, "The attention we offer, the rapt attention--taking time, being quiet--is very different from a practical, utilitarian, consumerist approach, one taken far too often in the presence of works of art.  I am sure you know what I mean; the going to ballet because good, sophisticated, prosperous New Yorkers go to the ballet so that, in some sense, they can tell themselves they have had the ballet, the way some people say they have done Paris. I am sure there are people who look at paintings and try to figure out what they cost or if they will fit over the living-room couch.  Again, we do not want to use or to classify or to consume works of art.  We want to encounter them and to realize, when doing so, that it is a free act. Only as a free act does an encounter have the possibility of becoming what we would call aesthetic".

The day was designed to deepen our understanding and allow us to see how we can incorporate aesthetic education into our daily practice despite the current educational climate of conformity and blankness.

I already happily dance in this space, somewhat, but accept the challenge to bring more beauty, wonder and connection to my students though art in all its forms.

Thank you to The Academy for Teachers for hosting an incredible day of discovery.

Spheres, Cubes and Pyramids

Children are brilliant!

If we provide them with rich experiences, tangible connections between aspects of our curriculum and seamless instruction they will consistently step-up to plate.

The brilliant part of all this is that even when instruction is less than stellar they still pull all of their experiences together and make sense of things.

In one of my doctoral classes we are reading this book. One passage reads:

"From a student's perspective, school work should ideally have a cohesive, cumulative quality in which specific activities and their goals can be seen to form part of a greater whole, as part of a purposeful educational journey" (p.114).

An aspect of our curriculum is, of course, adherence to the state & city standards. In mathematics a geometry strand involves shapes.

And I applaud the myriad ways this is supported by the fine educators at our school.

In art the students are exploring spheres using balloons, glue and yarn (see above). Next they will create cylinders out of clay while they continue to examine the difference between 2D and 3D shapes.

In Physical Education (not gym as our P.E. teacher likes to stress) the students are playing with spheres, cubes and pyramids.

I applaud these educators for allowing our students to use multiple intelligences to deepen their understanding and enjoy "a purposeful educational journey".

Looking Towards Our Future

While Lisa Burman was engaging in quality conversations with groups of students in preparation for ‘the book’ (and as an extension of her love for ongoing research) she uncovered an interesting phenomenon. Lisa became involved with uncovering the underlying schema surrounding children’s views on intelligence. She believes that children are capable of expressing insights about these ‘big ideas’ but are not often asked to do so. In an informal setting she met with small groups of three or four students and asked “What do you think smart means?” and “How do you know that someone is smart?” Student response to the open ended questions prompted quite differing feedback from the students in kindergarten and first grade.

The young ones in kindergarten responded by detailing events and skills associated with the home and their lives outside of school. The things they considered ‘smart’ and deemed worthy of mentioning seemed to be inspired by motivation, curiosity and drive. The responses were 'from the heart' and not formulated to match any preconceived ideals of 'right' answers or predicting what Lisa wanted to hear and supplying it.

The first grade students (many in my class) replied to the same questions by listing academic skills; “smart means being a good reader", "Sally is smart because she is good at math" etc. There was no mention of who they are outside of the school environment.

Lisa brought this news to me and of course I was perplexed. In our conversation we began to wonder if schools are narrowing children’s perspectives on what it means to be smart. Does this narrowing perspective increase the longer the student stays in school? What happens to children as they transition from one grade to another? Why do they start to view themselves as ‘student's’ first without considering themselves as well rounded individuals capable of what Howard Gardner describes as multiple intelligences? Why is it considered smart to calculate the answer to a mathematical question but not to figure out a winning strategy in basketball?

I think back to my own education and the archaic design of schedules and structure that continues to pervade education as a whole. Schools still operate under a factory model reflective of the industrial revolution. Classes are regulated by bells, children are taught to sit in rows and raise their hands as they progress through stratified grades. It has the feel of an assembly line. In my most recent class (Ethnographic Studies) we spent some time grappling with this issue. America is so ingrained with this way of thinking about education that we cannot fathom breaking the mold and reformulating things to fit with the information age of today’s world. We are still operating under the one room school house mentality in many respects.

I am not sure how to address all of this. I am certainly not in a position of power to introduce changes even if I knew what they might be. I simply find it a shame that as children shuffle along in the system a bit of their personality, individualism and motivation is eroded and replaced by conformity and standardization.

Is this what we want for our future?