I remember reading not too long ago that the WCBOE is proposing a special magnet school for the arts to be located in downtown Hagerstown.

I wonder if this is necessary or desirable as viewed by the majority? What are the benefits vs. the additional costs per pupil of creating a "special" school?

Why a school for the arts vs. one for, say, science and technology? I would think that there will be few opportunities for students to get jobs after graduation in the arts, but many more for science and technology (to include healthcare).

What are some other's thoughts?

I think the arts magnet is at Fountaindale and the science is at Emma K Doub. I remember reading something about turning around the old Henry's Theater downtown into some sort magnet school but I can't remember what that was all about.

You're right about science and tech probably being more useful than arts. But you can't eliminate arts all together. We still need our musicians, artists, writers, poets, novelists, journalists, etc.

I just don't understand the specialization in education. There were "advanced" classes when I went to school and no special "magnets".

What a waste of money! Why do we need specialized education? They still teach art and music in high school.

The WCBOE master plan says "School for the Arts:WCPS has been working with the City of Hagerstown to develop a plan for full expansion of opportunities
for students who are interested in the arts.The recent donation to the city
of the former Henry's Theater by owner Vincent Groh will help to fast-track
a planned magnet School for the Arts for the Western Maryland region."

There was an article in the paper saying something about a related grant that Don Munson announced -- I think it was back in March '04.

Arts are fine, but what can we afford, and how do we get the most for our tax dollars. Do "special" schools give special treatment to a few at the expense of the majority?

Who decided it would be an arts school vs. something else and why?

Who knows what the WCBOE has in mind? Don't forget it's run by an ex-Baltimore City schools administrator. The same school system that recently misplaced, what, 53 million dollars?

And yes, in my opinion, "special" schools do give preferential treatment to a minority at the expense of the majority.

Actually, many, many high schools, AND elementary schools have had to cut these programs out of their budgets because they aren't getting enough money to fund them. I feel that in the "Video game era" art and music is VERY important to have, it helps childrens imaginations, instead of just staring at a blackboard all day, and learning things that a monkey could do. We need our artists, they are quite important, STILL. I have a few friends that went to art school, and they seem to be doing just fine and dandy in their endevours...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/08/13/sprj.sch.cuts/

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/04/05/ar...n.ap/index.html

[quote=McGrupp,Apr 15 2004, 02:13 PM][quote=WVU-Mountaineers,Apr 14 2004, 10:00 PM]
We need our artists, they are quite important, STILL. I have a few friends that went to art school, and they seem to be doing just fine and dandy in their endevours...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/04/05/ar...n.ap/index.html[/URL][/quote]
Seems to me we had artists, writers, etc. before we had magnet or special schools. If their talents and desires are there, you probably can't stop them once they are exposed. So maybe some "exposure" art/music classes should be provided to help students find their areas of interest and talent. But do we need special schools dedicated to this if it unfairly penalizes the majority of students? Some kids have great interest and talent in baseball and football, but these are extracurricular programs or non-school programs beyond what they get in gym class. I'd ove to be able to offer a great variety of classes in every school from K-12, with subjects from art to music to ballet to electronics and computers and health, but we can't afford all this. So, we must decide where we get the best bang for the buck for all stakeholders. I am not convinced this is accomplished by a special arts school. Again, I'm not anti-arts at all. Becasue the school does not offer it, I pay for my child to take a music class and a dance class because she likes it, and as long as her basic school grades stay up, this is fine. The same deal applied to my son who was a baseball/football fan -- some would say this is very similar to the arts. But the "three R's" are most important.

OK, so what would you do if one day your children came to you and said I don't want to play sports anymore, I want to be an artist or musician? Would you try to sway their dreams, because you don't think it's important? Or would you support their every wish and want them to go to the best specialized school around? What's so wrong with that? I also don't see why they can't attend one of the other THOUSANDS of schools that DO offer science, or technology. You have HCC, you have Ship, University of MD, there are a plethora of other schools these kids can go to if they want to get into science or technology or anything else. How is it giving preferential treatment to a minority at the expense of the majority, when the majority has PLENTY of schools they can attend? There are very few specialized art schools left in the country, and I just don't see what's so wrong with the arts field, and giving them the tools to become a great artist or musician or whatever they want to do. I just don't see what the big deal is.

The deal is the possibility of sapping necessary funding from general education schools to fund specialty schools. Nothing wrong with teaching arts education or science/tech education as long as the funding of those specialty schools doesn't have a negative impact on the general education schools.

And, to make elementary schools into specialty schools may border on the ludicrous. At this point in their young lives, children are still thinking about becoming police officers, firefighters, cowboys, space explorers, etc. Heck, most people don't decide their career path until they're in college or at the very least, the latter part of high school.

Rare is the intellect of the young elementary-aged child mature enough to be able to make a career path decision.

Mc Grupp,

Your first question I think I answered. My son wanted sports to be his "extra" thing, so as long as his grades were A's and B's, he got to play sports. My daughter prefers music and dance, so that is what she does if the grades stay up. In each case, the extras were/are outside school -- at least until high school where they did have after-school football and baseball -- at a cost to me. I do not try to sway them and I never said these things were not important -- just less so than the basics.

As for the schools like HCC, Ship, UMD, etc. you mention -- those are colleges -- not elementary or grade schools which is the subject of the discussion.
If the BOE has a special magnet school for arts my concern is that this will cost more per-pupil than a "regular" school and will be less efficient, thereby spending on those arts school students more money than most kids. And, if there has to be a special school, why arts?

I could ask them same for science and technology, ESPECIALLY technology...I work in the technology field, so I know a little about that, and good luck finding a decent job in that field! I still don't understand why it would be "TAKING AWAY" from other students, and I still don't see what the big deal is. Especially since the building was DONATED, and there has already been money DONATED for the school. Obviously there are some people who feel it is a good idea.

Just because something is donated does not mean it has no cost...the opportunity cost of this endeavor is sky-high...it sacrifices resources($$$) from the basic school system(they are always trying to raise taxes--they all claim to be Underfunded) which the kids need first....and yes, my kids do things like art class, which I pay for after school...and I do not mind a bit..

I ask "why arts" because I wonder what the thinking was to select arts over other specialties. Who decided and what data did they use to base their decision on?

Again, I am not convinced we should have any special schools -- arts or technology or anything else. But if there must be such special schools, I want to know why a certain specialty was selected over other specialty options.

You may think it is hard to get a technology job, but when you look in the classified ads of the Herald-Mail do you see more job openings for arts-related jobs than technology-related jobs? Does the US Bureau of Labor Statistics show more job openings in the future for arts-related jobs than for technology-related jobs? No and no. (And by technology-related, I include electronics, computers, biotech, healthcare, and much of manufacturing.)

You mention donations: Okay, what are the donations vs. the added costs? If the donations are only available if the school is arts-related, and if the donations make the costs per pupil the same as or less than the cost per pupil for a "regular" school, then I have no objection on cost grounds. But I do not think this will be the case, especially for the long-term.

Sure, "some people" feel it is a good idea. But how many? "Some people" think the earth is flat. How many would pick arts over technology or something else? Have you seen any polls?

We have to make decisions based on facts, not feelings, and I detect a lack of facts in this decision. But I am open to being proven wrong.

Perfectly put Snoopy!

No, I haven't seen any polls, have you? First of all, I could really care less if they put it in or not, I have no children and don't plan on having any in the near future. I just think that kids SHOULD be exposed to art, and music...weather it be in the home, or after school or whatever. If you don't mind paying that extra money for arts after school programs then more power to ya, but some CAN'T pay the extra costs. Secondly, I work in the technology field, and when you see those jobs in the paper, how much do they pay, and where are most of them located? DC, and they pay CHUMP CHANGE...I have a good job now, but that was nothing but COMPLETE LUCK. I was driving 173 miles per day to get to a technology job that paid chump change. I also know a few people who have graduated from great schools with degrees in the tech field, and they are having A LOT of trouble finding jobs, or making enough money to even live. Lucky for me, I was in the military and have been in the tech field for about 12 years now. Most tech companies look for EXPERIENCE over EDUCATION, so you can have all the tech schools you want, but I guarantee you they'll pick the veteran techie before they'll pick the person that has a piece of paper saying they graduated from a college.

All in all, it's not going to matter what you or I think about it. If they want it bad enough they'll get it, and I just can't see busting on them for that, big deal.

Are we having two different discussions here?

Seems that perhaps some posters think other posters are against the arts being taught at all.

I don't think that's the case. I haven't seen anyone here say they didn't want arts taught in the public schools.

I think the discussion is around whether or not there should be special schools to concentrate on the arts curricula.

I also see posters saying that they send their kids to arts programs AFTER school and pay for it out of their own pockets. So are they teaching arts in the public schools around here or has that been cut out here too? I never said they shouldn't teach it in public school either. I never felt that anyone was against it, I just don't see the big deal with a "SPECIAL" school coming in.

Okay let's try this again:

The deal is the fear and potential of the special school sapping funds from the regular schools, thereby causing less resources for the regular schools.

To my knowlege, however, that's not the case in Washington County. I just don't understand why schools like this are being funded when educators are complaining about not getting enough money.

I never said it was a GOOD or BAD idea. I really could care less one way or the other, my point was, IF THEY DO PUT THIS SCHOOL IN, WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL? Yossarian...I understood the whole point of money being taken away from regular schools, but WOULD THAT BE THE CASE? Has anyone worked out the details of this? Or are we all just flying by the seat of our pants on this subject? Who's to say it will take money from the other schools? Has that been mentioned? WVU...That was one of my questions...SO THEY STILL TEACH ART AND MUSIC IN WASH. CO. OR HAS IT BEEN CUT OUT?

They do not teach you to play instruments or to do tap or ballet, etc. in the Wash. Co. elementary schools. This is why I pay for my daughter to do this -- she likes these "arts" so I support it to the dergee I can afford it as long as grades in the basics are good. They do have some basic "art" classes in elementary school -- not positive about "music" -- but the art class is very basic (draw a picture of a leaf or a tree, etc.) and short.

My concerns, again, are: What are the costs of the "special" school vs. "regular" school? If the "special" is cheaper (I can't imagine it is, but let's just say it is) then I would like to suggest several "special" schools for lots of other things as well. If they are more expensive, can we really justify the additional cost through a basic cost/benefit analysis? Also, how and why was "arts" chosen to be the "special" school -- was it a data and fact based decision?

Look, folks, I and not anti-arts. Okay! If I was, would I pay to send my daughter to "arts-related" activities? I posted because I wanted to see if anyone had more factual info. on this issue and also to get people to thinking whether they supported this or not. If it is not already decided, people can make their views known to the powers that be. I plan to do so. Peace!

I don't think anyone knows anything yet...I just think it stinks that you have to PAY for your kids to get into art, etc. I think it's stupid that's it not in the schools anymore. BUT...that's the first thing that gets cut, and I just think it stinks to take art out of schools. It spawns imagination, and imagination is something that a lot of kids are lacking these days, thanks to video games an TV.

"They do not teach you to play instruments or to do tap or ballet, etc. in the Wash. Co. elementary schools."

They don't teach you to play instruments in elementary school anymore? Wow, things have changed since I was in school.

OK, I have to weigh in on this.

I believe the arts school downtown is supposed to be a high school. It is probably a continuation of the arts magnet program already in existance at Fountaindale. Much of what goes on at Fountaindale is funded through grants. Do you remember doing little extra projects to go along with your lessons in school? Now most of that falls under "art". The art teacher collaborates with the classroom teacher to develop meaningful enrichment to further explain concepts introduced in the classroom. Call it job justification (no offense art teachers!). All students benefit from additional music lessons, keyboarding for grades k-3 and orchestra for grades 4 and 5. Remember that math/music connection? Fountaindale students have the option to take ballet after school at no cost, thanks to the director of City Ballet. As far as I know, she gets no payment for this. Magnet teachers do not get any extra salary, and, unfortunately, no real guidance from the BOE as to how to run the classes. They just have to be aggressive and creative to challenge the gifted students they are given.

So, does it financially impact the entire system in a negative way? At this point, no. If grants fall through, then yes, or the programs get shuttered. Does it benefit the privileged few? No, and more likely it benefits the underprivileged who attend Fountaindale and would get no extra lessons outside school.

Now that there is a tech magnet at Emma K. Doub, perhaps a tech HS will follow as well. And don't we already cater to some students by offering a school that is primarily vo-tech? How is that any different?

The problem with grants is they run out--then people yell and want it still to exist--thus they steal(borrow/raise taxes) to cover the additional "project" until the next pet project comes along..
LETS FACE IT FOLKS--THE PRIMARY GOAL OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM IS TO TEACH KIDS TO READ, WRITE, FIGURE AND BE PRODUCTIVE CITIZENS..THE REST IS GRAVY!!!
Therefore, we just need schools--boring old non-attention getting schools--I know they do not get much press time but their function is education the citizenry of this country to be tax-paying responsible citizens....so the rest is fluff--and guess who will end up paying for fluff rather than basic grammar???Do the rest of you realize the average graduate of high school reads at a 7th grade level???
AND EVERYTHING YOU DO--EVERY PROJECT, TAKES FROM OTHERS--NO MATTER THAT YOU SAY IT WILL NOT....

OK, Mr. Scientist! LOL! Moms...That was very well put! So, if most of these kids are reading at a 7th grade level, what do you attribute that to? I mean since the OLD BORING school is so great, how do you suggest helping these kids to learn to read??

It has been shown, time and time again, that children who participate in music programs continually score higher in math scores.

Below is a snippit of an article, taken from this link: http://www.todaysparent.com/education/gene...903_124111_1696

" Rena Upitis and Katharine Smithrim, professors of education at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, did a three-year study which included the effect of LTTA (Learning Through the Arts) on language and math performance. Using standardized tests, they compared the achievement of 467 students in grade six from schools participating in LTTA with 281 grade sixers from two types of control schools. They found that although there were no significant differences in most areas of language and math, the LTTA students scored higher in computation (basic arithmetic) and estimation. The differences were statistically significant, too big to have happened by chance."

I feel that it is EXTREMELY important to keep children interested in school. It's hard enough to get kids excited about school. Imagine if you take away all of the fun stuff (Music class, art, recess, phys. ed). You can't expect a child to sit in school for 8 hours and just pound facts into their brain. The "extracurricular" activities in school serve a purpose and sometimes provide an outlet for an interest that a child might otherwise not know he/she has. If a child is not exposed to art or music, how would they know their interest, or potential, in such a field? I think it is sad to take away these courses from schools and many children would be missing out, if they did.

http://www.vh1.com/insidevh1/savethemus/

We do have a Technical High School (used to be called Vo-Tech) which has been around for many years. In the old days (1980's when I was in school) it was mostly looked down upon as where the dummies went to get out of tough academic classes, though this was not always the case. Now, from what I know, kids have to interview to get into the THS and there are more wannabe students than openings. You can learn a technical trade which makes you employable right out of school or you earn college credit at HCC toward a degree. The classes offered are offered based on the wants and needs of the local business community.

I wonder if it could also be shown that kids who participate in baseball or soccer get higher scores in reading or math, etc.?

No one is saying kids should not be exposed to art, music, phys ed, etc. in public school -- at least I did not say it. The issue is how much and whether there should be special schools just for the arts. Would everyone here who is for the special arts school feel the same way if the proposed special school were a "sports" school instead of "arts" because someone had found statistics saying kids involved in sports did better at academics or in post-school business, etc. ?

Tx, weren't you complaining that these children had too much English and grammar at the beginning of the school year? Too much reading, remember? Now this? I don't think any school system will ever satisfy you. You really should home school your kid(s).



I went to school at Emma K. Doub in the late 80's and I was taught how to play the clarinet for two or three years. Did they cut it out or what?

You missed the point..those kids are at school 8 hrs a day..our make it maybe 6....
How about the Chinese & the Japanese? Their day is more than 8 hrs and most weeks 6 days a week....

I'll bet the the Chinese and Japanese have art and music in their schools! So you're telling me the kids only go to school for 6 hours around here? THAT'S CRAZY! I always went to school for 8 hours!

TOUCHE for Heather! I love it when people point out contradictions! I also agree that maybe it's best TX homeschools the kids...Let's see how well you do then!

If you also remember from those discussions I think Tx pointed out that even though lots of time is spent on language arts, there isn't anything good coming out of it.

I just feel that our whole educational system in this country is completely screwed up. We spend more money on education than our European counterparts, yet they seem to be getting more bang for their buck. Administrators complain about not having enough money, yet they go out and create special schools for the arts or sciences. If I have kids, as I've said before, they'll be going to private school.

If a child is reading below grade level there is a very good chance that he/she gets no stimulus at home. The tv is on all the time tuned to non-educatinal channels, there are video games all over the place, there are no books in the house, and the newspaper is not read. That is what I attribute it to. The lack of parental involvement.

I'm right there with you, Observer, which is why I feel No Child Left Behind is going to be a total failure. Until parents emphasize education, tell their children it is important, there will be kids who don't measure up. I don't care how much extra tutoring, or bussing to another school, or what you give them, until the parents care, there will always be kids who fail, no matter how low the bar is dropped. (Great run-on sentence, eh?) Not to mention the kids who show up half the time, move in and out of the school 10 times during the year because their family keeps getting evicted, and just the general disregard for the value of schooling. I see way too much of it at Fountaindale. My second graders had a great discussion on oral sex the other day. These kids have no decent parents and are exposed to a lifestyle that most of us can't comprehend. Legislators need to come spend some time in the trenches before they make this B.S. law. If they saw the real world, they would know it won't work. Not that I knock them for trying.

I agree with you 100%, and I have mentioned the same thing in other posts.

Wow. Second graders?

So what do we do about these kinds of kids -- those whose parents are basically brain-dead idiots who don't care about their kids' education? I agree parental involvement is crucial, but if the kids do not get it, what are our alternatives? If we just give-up on them isn't it likely we will be paying for them in the future -- paying for their welfare, or paying for their crime, etc.?

My husband mentioned the other day that somewhere (I don't know where, I don't know when, I don't even know if it's true) they are planning on "rewarding" teachers for performance... raises & bonuses & such... for the # of students in the class that excel (pass? Again, not sure...) on certain standardized tests.

Again... that's just the main gist as I heard it secondhand... not sure about the details.

Any thoughts on something like that? Basing teachers' raises or bonuses on the performance of the students? Seems it could be one way to increase quality of education...

That's not fair to teachers because teachers have no control over what kids are going to be in their class, and I'm sure they don't place kids based on academic ability.

We all know from experience there are some teachers who are greatly better than others (just like in all professions). There must be some fair way to objectively determine who these really good teachers are and reward them for it and get help for the ones who need it. But the teacher's unions would probably have a problem with that...

Yup--raises based on performance..usually has led to grade inflation...ask any ivy league college how many A's are given out each semester...answer--70%...now even 30 years ago a C in a good college was a decent grade..not anymore..everyone who goes gets on the honor roll...so the intelligent students go SO what??
But more money is not the answer...it never is...we have more police than ever--is downtown any safer? Been on North Street lately? Been to Bester? Salem Ave school?

Snoopy, I don't have a great solution to help these "parentless" kids. Sometimes I just want to take them home and try to "fix" them. It's so sad. The best thing I can suggest is volunteer in a school that needs help, even if your child doesn't attend there. Sometimes I think those kids just need to see that someone cares, and also you can model the behavior and attitudes that they just don't see at home. One of my girls appearantly has a dad in jail. She was telling a friend in line that if her mom goes to jail again, she will get the electric chair. She sees the same future for herself, but I can't get it through to her that it doesn't have to be that way if she studies and gets an education.

As much as I hate to have big government take over, I really think we need a national curriculum so that second graders in Iowa are doing the same thing as second graders here, and second graders in Alaska. At least those students who are highly mobile will have continuity in their education. It will also make testing standards the same everywhere, unlike now. ex. NC has very high standards, so a larger number of students don't pass. Other states set the levels low so they can be sure almost everyone passes.

then you have the everyone wears the same size six shoe problem...the old joke goes in Russia--Do you have any shoes?
Answer: Yes, if you wear a size 6.
Customer: But I need a 12!
Answer: But everyone wears a size 6.

I know it isn't the most appealing idea. I definitely think it should be a loose, general curriculum so that teachers can adjust it to meet the needs of their students and have some creative control. I just think it's a sorely needed standard for those who move frequently....whether poor and evicted or military family or corporate employee.

I actually think more local control is better than a national curriculum, because what's good for kids in Patterson, NJ might not work for kids in Hagerstown.

It's more for the mobile kids, and we have a lot of them that move numerous times in one school year. Continuity is key. If we can't give them good families at least we can give them consistency in the classroom. Obviously, it would have to be somewhat flexible. Here, Antietam is a big deal. Where I grew up it was Vincennes and George Rogers Clark. For a kid who moves a lot, schools can be like chap.1 of Jackie Collins, ch. 2 of Stephen King, and Ch. 3 of John Grisham. The story doesn't make sense. A national curriculum would provide one whole Tom Clancy, no matter where you happen to be.

I really like how you put that, Momsapilot.

Well folks let me tell you where I grew up Plymouth was the big deal..we spent eternity on the reformation and puritanism and so forth up to the revolutionary war...then I moved south and they worked on the civil war & then TX history...now I actually know alot of diverse parts of American History..so moving is not always a bad thing...
and as far as standardization--they have it--there is a set of criteria that the Iowa Placement Tests were based on in the 50's....thru the end of the 80's..then they began to jerk around with the test--it is unfair to this group or that group and by the 90's it literally required very little knowledge to get a good score! But that did not mean that our children learned more--they just got credit for being smarter compared with prior tested children..then we sent them to college and they had dumbed down college too-and then we graduated them with honors and now they work next to you and know nada...they have an old high school education...

Which is a good argument why we need magnet schools. Some children simply will not thrive in the average public school. They need an environment where they can succeed.

I for one attended the first magnet school in the area where I grew up. I was one of the first to go through the full program. If you had seen me before you would never have expected me to succeed there (bad grades and worse behavior). In fact I only took the admissions tests on a dare. But I got in, and they had raised the admissions criteria to the 85th percentile 'cause they could only take so many students.

Long story short: I excelled there, went on to College from which I graduated magna cum laude (not summa because I got B's in a few of my non-major classes which I rarely attended). Subsequently dropped out of Graduate school because it bored me to death - having tested at the Ph.D. level on their placement tests. I'm now an Industry leader and fairly well-known in my profession. But I can't say what would have become of me if it hadn't been for that magnet school.

So from personal experience I can say with confidence: there are kids right now who are failing not because they're stupid, nor because their parents are lazy, but simply because they aren't being given the opportunity to excel. These are kids who could be leaders in their fields.

IMO, we'd be fools NOT to make the investment in their futures.