“Talent” and the Misrecognition of Social Advantage in Specialized Arts Education

Market “choices” or structured pathways? How specialized arts education contributes to the reproduction of inequality

“…Cloaked underneath the banners of "talent" and artistic interests or inclinations, discourses of the arts are mobilized to justify unequal outcomes in terms of who is admitted to SAPs (Gaztambide-Fernández, Saifer, & Desai, 2013), who feels more or less "entitled" to the benefits of an arts education (Gaztambide-Fernández, Cairns, & Desai, 2013), what kinds of parents "choose" such an education (Saifer & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2017), and what sorts of future careers different kinds of students might pursue (GaztambideFernández, VanderDussen, & Cairns, 2014). This misrecognition is further entrenched by the kind of neoliberal "creativism" that enforces a narrow conception of creativity at the service of the market economy (Gielen, 2013;see Kalin, 2016).…”

“…Davis, 2005). By contrast, we build on our prior research through the Urban Arts High Schools (UAHS) project to argue that the kind of homogeneity that characterizes specialized arts education, as well as the schooling pathways that lead to them, is evidence of persistent structural inequality, rather than the outcome of individual talents and interests in the arts (Gaztambide-Fernández, Saifer, & Desai, 2013;Gaztambide-Fernández, VanderDussen, & Cairns, 2014;Saifer & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2017). We suggest that ideas about the pedagogical value of the arts and the needs of young artists reflect the neoliberal commodification of creativity and ultimately occlude the pervasiveness of racism and structural inequality.…”

“…When presented with this paradox, school constituents mobilize discourses of "talent" as a way to justify exclusion and unequal access (Gaztambide-Fernández, Saifer, & Desai, 2013). This move reveals the double gesture in how discourses of "the arts" are mobilized, on the one hand, to promote equal opportunity for all, while on the other, to limit opportunity for most (Caillier, 2006;Gaztambide-Fernández, Nicholls, & Arráiz Matute, 2016;Krahe & Acuff, 2013).…”

Introduction to the special issue: Studying school choice in Canada

“…Likewise, in the public sector, a wide range of enriched programs have been adopted across provinces, ranging from literature to science to language to sports and the arts (Gaskell, 2002;Gaztambide-Fernandez, VanderDussen, & Cairns, 2014;Yoon, 2015). While some programs admit students based on a lottery or a first-come, first-served basis, an increasing number of specialized choice programs are selective and available only for those who are high-achieving students (Gaztambide-Fernandez, Saifer, & Desai, 2013;Taylor, 2006;Yoon, 2011Yoon, , 2016. Also, digital delivery is offered in Vancouver, with virtual learning options for students to take courses online, while Alberta is notable for its thirteen charter schools offered as school choice options (Bosetti, 2004;Bosetti & Gereluk, 2016).…”

“…However, a majority of school choice studies in Canada also shows that school choice has become a middle-class privilege, or is practiced largely by parents who place a high value on education as a means to further advantage their children (Bosetti & Pyryt, 2007;Davies & Aurini, 2008;Gaztambide-Fernandez et al, 2013;Taylor & Woollard, 2003;Yoon & Gulson, 2010). For instance, a highly popular French Immersion program tends to appeal to Anglophone middle-class parents, which ends up excluding immigrant families whose mother tongue is not English, thus further segregating different socio-linguistic and racial groups in a city with increasing immigration (Yoon & Gulson, 2010).…”