In "Pleasure, beauty, and wonder" (July 12), Dana Gioia, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, states, "We need a system that grounds all students in pleasure, beauty, and wonder." Missing is any definition of the terms pleasure, beauty, and wonder. This is important to note for two reasons: Gadfly adheres to the concept of explicit standards, and the NEA has funded many artistic adventures that are truly explicit by any standard.
Given the debates over standards for mathematics, not to mention less solid subjects such as social studies, does Gadfly really believe that a curriculum based on NEA's concept of pleasure, beauty, and wonder would even approximate a standards-based education? And with such a loose description of educational outcomes, can he even imagine the stealth curriculum which would supplant real learning?
Certainly Gadfly knows that "stirring" talks do not by nature produce beneficial results. Does he want to divert his attention from discussions of education to debates over what constitutes art? Such debates will consume his time in a no-win pursuit. Mr. Fly, rethink your support of Gioia's position on this subject.
Jim Fedako
former member, Olentangy Board of Education