The VCFAE, which represents over 6,000 VA arts educators plus their students, is concerned about several aspects of HB 1081 and SB 434 and recommends against passage.
To begin there are problems with the language which allows students “...to personalize the pace of learning and accelerate their learning based on the mastery of course content by demonstrating at least 80 percent of the competencies required by course standards, regardless of time, place, or pace”. While personalized learning is critical in all arts courses, and accelerated learning encouraged, as important, particularly in performing arts classes, is group practice, critiquing, and performance/exhibitions all of which require students to be in attendance.
It is important in these disciplines for students to practice and explore individually, but working together as a group to, perform a piece of music, is also critical and included in the VA Music SOLs. If a student masters a flute part at 100% proficiency, and can demonstrate it, this bill could allow a student to stay home, earn credit, and never actually perform with the band. “Mastery" in fine arts courses has been measured in group performance settings and requires that students be in attendance.
Mastery is based solely on individual “course” standards, not necessarily SOLs and district curricula, leading to possible uneven implementation across districts and the state based on such factors as principal preferences/knowledge and teacher competency, interests, work ethic, and artistic expertise.
The following questions also need to be considered:
• There are no course restrictions here. What is the relationship between SOL testing and these models?
• Do students have to complete assignments, or can they meet course standards independently? This raises grading issues - as would individual pacing. Does this bill allow registration and earning credit in name only? In other words, could homeschooled students not attend class nor turn in any assignments and yet earn credit for classes if they achieve 80% mastery?
• What assessments will be sufficient for measuring 80% mastery?
• Is there any consideration for how administrative tasks and increased teacher workload are going to be handled?
• How are these models going to be evaluated programmatically?
• Are there any thoughts about how to ensure that student gaps that exist across other areas are not exacerbated and that in schools/districts of innovation all students have sufficient support to access these new opportunities?
The bills acknowledge that there are co-curricular aspects of courses that tie to curricular courses, such as marching band, after-school performances, and concerts, in the arts, that are course requirements. In the bill, each school division board is given the right to "adopt policy regulating student participation in curricular and co-curricular programs" if they are no more restrictive for part-time students than the regular full-time student body. This caveat could mean that part-time students could be required to be in attendance for all group practice and performance aspects of courses, but it means that each school system would need to designate, where, when, and how to apply the policy.
Again, we would ask the committees reviewing HB 1081 and SB 434 take these concerns into consideration and vote against them.
The VCFAE, which represents over 6,000 VA arts educators plus their students, is concerned about several aspects of HB 1081 and SB 434 and recommends against passage. To begin there are problems with the language which allows students “...to personalize the pace of learning and accelerate their learning based on the mastery of course content by demonstrating at least 80 percent of the competencies required by course standards, regardless of time, place, or pace”. While personalized learning is critical in all arts courses, and accelerated learning encouraged, as important, particularly in performing arts classes, is group practice, critiquing, and performance/exhibitions all of which require students to be in attendance. It is important in these disciplines for students to practice and explore individually, but working together as a group to, perform a piece of music, is also critical and included in the VA Music SOLs. If a student masters a flute part at 100% proficiency, and can demonstrate it, this bill could allow a student to stay home, earn credit, and never actually perform with the band. “Mastery" in fine arts courses has been measured in group performance settings and requires that students be in attendance. Mastery is based solely on individual “course” standards, not necessarily SOLs and district curricula, leading to possible uneven implementation across districts and the state based on such factors as principal preferences/knowledge and teacher competency, interests, work ethic, and artistic expertise. The following questions also need to be considered: • There are no course restrictions here. What is the relationship between SOL testing and these models? • Do students have to complete assignments, or can they meet course standards independently? This raises grading issues - as would individual pacing. Does this bill allow registration and earning credit in name only? In other words, could homeschooled students not attend class nor turn in any assignments and yet earn credit for classes if they achieve 80% mastery? • What assessments will be sufficient for measuring 80% mastery? • Is there any consideration for how administrative tasks and increased teacher workload are going to be handled? • How are these models going to be evaluated programmatically? • Are there any thoughts about how to ensure that student gaps that exist across other areas are not exacerbated and that in schools/districts of innovation all students have sufficient support to access these new opportunities? The bills acknowledge that there are co-curricular aspects of courses that tie to curricular courses, such as marching band, after-school performances, and concerts, in the arts, that are course requirements. In the bill, each school division board is given the right to "adopt policy regulating student participation in curricular and co-curricular programs" if they are no more restrictive for part-time students than the regular full-time student body. This caveat could mean that part-time students could be required to be in attendance for all group practice and performance aspects of courses, but it means that each school system would need to designate, where, when, and how to apply the policy. Again, we would ask the committees reviewing HB 1081 and SB 434 take these concerns into consideration and vote against them.