The Listening Rooms

There is a school in Belleville — a regular enough place, yellow brick, flat roof, the kind of building that looks apologetic about existing — where they have quietly removed the last of the band instruments from the storage room and replaced them with a server rack. Nobody held a meeting about it. Nobody sent a letter home. The tubas and the battered snare drums simply disappeared over a March break, and when the children returned they found a new elective on the timetable: AI Literacy, thirty-five minutes, Tuesdays and Thursdays.

I heard about this from a woman at the jazz series last summer, a retired music teacher named Cora who delivered the information the way people report a death — lowered voice, measured pause, eyes checking to see how much you could take. She was not wrong to treat it that way.

What is happening to arts education in this country is not a scandal in the way that political people mean scandal: no envelope of cash, no leaked recording. It is quieter and, I think, more consequential. It proceeds by attrition, by the steady reclassification of the unnecessary. Music is unnecessary. Visual art is unnecessary. Drama, with its flailing and its embarrassment and its occasional accidental revelation of who a child actually is — deeply unnecessary. These things lose their rooms, their periods, their specialist teachers, one fiscal year at a time, and the space is filled with something that carries the word literacy in its name, which is a word no school board trustee will vote against in an election year.

The argument, when it is made openly, runs like this: children need to be prepared for the world that is arriving. Artificial intelligence will restructure employment. Coding, data fluency, computational thinking — these are the new survival skills, and schools that fail to teach them are failing their students. I do not dismiss this entirely. There is a version of it that is honest and worth debating. But the version I keep encountering in school board documents and ministerial talking points is not that version. It is the version that treats preparation as a zero-sum competition and has already decided, without much argument, what loses.

What loses, reliably, is anything that cannot be assessed on a rubric that fits inside a spreadsheet.

Here is what I observed in forty years of bringing school groups through gallery spaces: the child who stood longest in front of a painting was rarely the child the classroom had already decided was bright. She was often the one who had been quietly categorized as slow, or difficult, or somewhere on a spectrum that had been named and filed. She stood there, and she looked, and occasionally she said something that made the adults in the room go still. I am not romanticizing this. I am reporting it as a consistent, observable phenomenon. The arts have always been the place where the sorting machine breaks down a little. Where a child who cannot sit still for long division discovers that she can hold a clarinet with absolute patience. Where the boy who will not read aloud turns out to have a devastating instinct for comic timing.

We are removing those rooms. We are telling ourselves we are replacing them with something more serious.

The more serious thing is not unimportant. I want to be fair to it. Understanding how a language model generates text, understanding that an image can be fabricated, understanding the basic mechanics of algorithmic recommendation — these are genuine forms of literacy in the present moment, and children should have access to them. But they are not a substitute for learning to hear a chord change, or to look at how light falls across a surface, or to stand in front of a room and be briefly, terrifyingly yourself. Those experiences do not teach content. They teach something harder to name, something about attention and embodiment and the fact that making something is different from consuming it.

Cora, the music teacher, told me the Belleville school has good intentions. The teacher running AI Literacy is young and enthusiastic and trying. I believe her. I believe the people making these decisions believe they are acting in the children's interest. That is almost the most troubling part: that we have built institutions so thoroughly shaped by a particular theory of utility that good intentions flow naturally toward the same destination.

The tubas are probably in a landfill by now, or sold for scrap, their bells full of old air from children who have mostly grown up and left the region for work. The server rack hums in their place. Outside, Lake Ontario does what it always does in early spring — grey, enormous, entirely indifferent to our priorities — and somewhere a kid who might have been a trumpet player is learning to prompt a chatbot, which is a skill, I suppose.

A skill is not nothing.

But a skill is not everything, either, and we used to know the difference.

Read in the app, leave a resonance, discover more stories.