what the current education reform reports have to say about arts and humanities education

National Art Education Association

What the Current Education Reform Reports Have to Say about Arts and HumanitiesEducationAuthor(s): Charles G. WiederSource: Art Education, Vol. 43, No. 3 (May, 1990), pp. 44-49Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193223 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 19:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.77.28 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:00:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193223?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Charles G. Wieder What The Current Education Reform

Reports Have To Say About

Arts And Humanities Education

The whispers of anticipation began to surface in the arts and humanities community as the calls for educational reform came in from one blue ribbon task force after another. There was a flurry of activ- ity - and media attention on education -

following the commotion over the Presiden- tial Commission report A Nation at Risk (1983). There is no need to recall here the stemness of the Commission's findings or the uproar that ensued. Education experts of all sorts were given a public forum. In the arts and humanities community there were hopeful signs that these authoritative critiques of the American public education enterprise might call attention to deficien- cies beyond the expected concerns over declining math, science, and literacy scores. After all, in the case of the tradi- tional 3 Rs, it was a matter of finding unsatisfactory results despite a massive, concerted national effort; whereas, arts and humanities instruction, by all accounts, had been increasingly neglected (Fowler, 1988). Amidst the hubbub, if one listened carefully, the occasional calls for a shift toward cultural or humanistic values could be made out. This gave some the hope that there might even be consideration of long-overdue structural changes in school curricula or the reorganization of their management, as had occurred to some extent, for a brief time, during the post- Sputnik reform movement of the 1960s (Fowler, 1988, p. 34).

This optimism, however, appears to have been premature. Having reviewed a

number of the major educational reform reports and several summaries of their findings and recommendations, I would caution against the further raising of expectations. For the most part, arts and humanities education does not appear to be what the vast majority of these reports are about, neither primarily nor secondar- ily. Hausman and Fowler in Can We Rescue the Arts for America's Children (1988) agree that the arts are continuing to lose ground, with little help in sight from the current education reform movement (pp. xiv, 163). Fowler describes the current status of the arts in education as one of "neglect, poverty, and powerlessness" (p. xi).

In a critique of The Holmes Report (1986), Maitland-Gholson (1988) had expressed the hope that there may be an opportunity for the arts to "provide a needed evaluative counterpoint to current trends toward simplistic standardization" (p. 47), to, in effect, sensitize all of education (p. 52). That now seems as desper- ately distant a hope as ever. If anything it would appear that with their backs against the wall arts educators are doing just what Maitland-Gholson had feared: trying to "buy legitimacy and (seek) a safe and sanctioned place in the existing structure (of schooling)..." (p. 52). Maitland-Gholson was quite correct in observing that more often than not the assumptions about teaching and learning underlying these reports "are in conflict with (such) stated purposes (as)...accommodation of diverse

44 Art Education/May 1990



V-I

? Vivienne della Grotta 1979

(student) populations and fostering critical thinking" (p. 47). The overriding thrust of the current education reform movement turns out to be more of the same. Not even the two recent efforts by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA, 1988) and the American Council on the Arts (ACA, 1988) provide a substantial counterpoint to

the current back-to-basics thrust. Hausman, in a brief commentary contained within the latter report entitled Can We Rescue the Arts for America's Children (1988), even goes so far as suggesting that, 'The tactics our 'advocates' are using may be obfuscating the real issues of day- to-day operations in the schools," going on

Art Education/May 1990 45



to describe these would-be advocates as generalists who have "shifted (attention) away from the individual idiosyncrasies ... (of) particular art disciplines to a more general focus on 'what every one should know'" (p. 164).

But first, for the eternal optimists among us, there were some notable exceptions which may leave the door slightly ajar. I will summarize these possible openings before turning to the predominant themes of these documents and their less than encouraging implications for education in the arts.

In a number of the reports there are mentions of such general educational values as "lifelong leaming" (Adler, 1982; A Nation at Risk, 1983), which give the appearance of a shift away from a narrow

academic vocationalism. And beyond that is the common reform theme noted by Imig (1986) of the need for increased study in the arts for school-age students. Regarding the preparation of teachers, Imig further notes calls for increased study in the arts and humanities. Even in the report of the National Science Board Commission on Pre-College Education in Math, Science, and Technology, Imig calls attention to recognition of the importance of humanities study in the development of communica- tion skills for science majors.

More specifically, in A Nation at Risk (1983), the National Commission on Excel- lence in Education recommends that high school curriculum "also" include subjects that advance students' personal as well as

Photo courtesy of the New York State Summer School of the Arts, The State Education Department. Photo by Nancy Mackley.




their occupational goals, mentioning as an example study in the fine and performing arts. And in the report of the New York College Board on Academic Preparation for College (1983), the arts are cited as one of nine high school curriculum areas. Boyer's (1983) Highschoolcore curriculum lists the arts, referred to in places as "aesthetic experience," as one of seven integrated, core curriculum components, albeit in the role of reinforcing study of literature, history, math, and science. Linkages between high schools and art museums are also recommended.

One final note in this commentary on the "good news." In Gideonse's (1985) "Guid- ing Images for Teaching and Teacher Education" (one of the background papers for the National Committee on Excellence in Teacher Education's "A Call for Change in Teacher Education"), a model of the teacher as an artist-craftsman is devel- oped. In this conception the teacher is seen as someone capable of making informed choices and intelligent moral decisions in the aesthetic context of teaching-learning.

But before hopes are raised too high, these are by no means to be taken as predominant themes of the reform reports. Apart from their occasional association with the academically more respectable literary and historical areas of humanities study, the visual and performing arts remain as marginal embellishments on the fringes of the curriculum. The foci and thrust of the various reports tend to center either on instructional outcomes such as SAT scores or on the conditions of schooling affecting instruction primarily in math, science, and those other subjects thought to impact upon industrial economic prow- ess. The first approach of calling attention to unsatisfactory outcomes, even when critics refrain from scapegoating, often comes with the sort of political assumptions associated with the post-Sputnik era back-to-basics accountability movement.

The latter type report on the conditions in which public school teachers today find themselves are generally more encouraging. Conducted often by sympathetic educational researchers, rather than by panels comprised of representatives of vested political constituencies, their concern is typically with the improvement of teachers' professional status and working conditions. Their recommendations are often even supported by reliably documented empirical accounts of school conditions.

Neither of these approaches, however, lends itself well to the kind of qualitative curricular refinements that would be supportive of the spirit of the goals of arts and humanities education. The political- economic agenda associated with the current reform movement is, if nothing else, unabashedly transparent: the calls are loud and clear for "regaining our national pride" by "re-establishing Amer- ica's international economic-technological prominence." Admirable as these goals may be, they are worlds apart from those of the liberal arts and humanities. Com- plaints that the schools are responsible for the economic setbacks of John Deere and Chrysler in recent decades are an unlikely backdrop for the infusion of the arts into the curriculum. The same can be said for study in areas of the humanities where personal or cultural values are paramount.


- . . .



On the contrary, the current resurgence of governmental interest in education is spurred by very different concerns.

Critics have begun questioning the affects of such politically inspired agendas on educational policy making. Fowler (1988) criticizes the bulk of the major education reform reports for "(defining) the mission of the schools...along narrowly vocational and utilitarian lines" (pp. 24-5). One obvious result of past government intervention in education has been to scapegoat the schools, perhaps for the purpose of diverting public attention away from problems in the economy or in foreign policy. This concern from our legislators and governors with educational reform can be seen as part of a long-standing tradi- tion of employing the public schools in the service of industrial and social purposes. (Joel Spring has written extensively on this subject, including a Kappan (1984) article which takes to task many of the blue ribbon education task forces.)

?Vivienne della Grotta 1983

But what of the recent efforts by the Na- tional Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the American Council on the Arts (ACA). These are, after all, arts advocacy agencies with more or less direct pipelines to the very same National Commission on Excellence in Education which caused all of the commotion in the first place. Toward Civilization: A Report on Arts Education (1988), is the NEA's handiwork and Can We Rescue the Arts for America's Chil- dren: Coming to Our Senses Ten Years Later (1988) is authored by Charles Fowler under the auspices of the ACA. Rather late in joining the fray, these advocacy state- ments represent efforts to capture for the arts a "fair share"of the government revenues. Of the two, Fowler's statement is far more critical of the current reform reports and in its approach to the subject. Though, in all fairness, one can hardly expect such insider agencies as NEA and ACA to bite the hand that feeds them.

Toward Civilization is, above all else, a call for expansion of its own authority and that of the U. S. Department of Education. In response to a Congressional mandate in 1985 that NEA "study the state of arts education," the report recommends procedures designed to achieve "quality" control by means of standardized national assessment of arts curricula and art teacher certification. The Preface of the report frankly admits that the motivating force behind this mandate was "insecurity about

[America's] ability to compete [economi- cally] in world markets." Added to this concern over economics the report seeks to call at least some attention to the role of arts and humanities in the Nation's becom-

ing "a leader in ideas and spirit" (p. 1). The opening sentence of the forward of the report declares our "need to help our children move toward civilization...[to help children understand] what it is to be an American and what our civilization stands for" (p. v). In this noble effort, the banner of "cultural literacy" is raised high.




Armed with this statement of purpose the NEA proceeds to inform the President and Congress which of the arts "should be taught in school" (p. v), recommending consensus on the part of state and district education agencies on art curriculum content and goals (p. vii) and on high school graduation requirements in the arts. Weekly time allotments for art instruction are recommended, to be accompanied by recommended allocations of federal and state funds to support these efforts. And with this support would, of course, come the required scrutiny of "districts and school art programs in relation to state art education goals" and the mandatory tight- ening and expansion of art teacher certification requirements (p. vi). Although, "where there are shortages of specialists,...special procedures [would] permit qualified [non-certified] artists and art professionals to teach" (p. vi).

The body of the report contains all sorts of statistical surveys and charts indicating which states have district arts curriculum supervisors and teacher specialists, which require coursework in art for highschool graduation, the number of students taking art courses, etc.

In an apparent effort to assuage the back-to-basics thrust of the recent criticism of public schooling, the term "basic art education" is used repeatedly - as if that alone could redirect national priorities. Curricular "balance" is recommended, which basically boils down to a few more minutes of art instruction here and there, along with district and state curriculum standardization and intensified, centralized evaluation efforts (pp. 35-36, 67; also see Hausman, in Fowler, 1988, p. 164). Reference is made to a "master plan for arts assessment as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress" (p. 173). Throughout there are calls for increasing centralization of the authority of state education agencies - in disregard for such concerns as local community

values, teacher autonomy, and parental and student choice.

There is little doubt that if one digs deep enough through the mountains of paper that comprise all of the education reform reports, additional arts and humanities in- roads are likely to be uncovered. Fowler, 1988, for example, finds optimistic chords in Goodlad's (1984) A Place Called School and Boyer's (1983) Highschool. But, agreeing with Spring (1984), I question the

profitability of such excavation efforts when the writing on the wall is so indelibly clear in its political intent. The lesson is one that we fail to lear at our peril: that these

alleged reform efforts would move us still further away from aesthetic and humanistic concerns.

Charles G. Wieder is on the faculty of the Art Department at Southern Connecticut State Uni- versity, New Haven.

References Academic preparation for college. (1983). New

York: College Entrance Examination Board. Adler, M. (1982/83). Paideia proposal and Paideia

problems and possibilities. New York: Macmillan. Boyer, E. (1983). Highschool. New York: Harper &

Row. Fowler, C. (1988). Can we rescue the arts for

America's children. New York: American Council for the Arts.

Gideonse, H. (1985). Guiding images for teaching and teacher education. ERIC (#ED 250 304).

Imig, D. (1986). An environmental scan: Context statement for teacher education reform. American Association for Colleges for Teacher Education.

Maitland-Gholson, J. (1988). The Holmes Report: epistemological assumptions that impact art teacher assessment and preparation. Studies in Art Education, 30 (1), 47-52.

A Nation at Risk (1983). National Commission on Excellence in Education. Washington, DC: Govern- ment Printing Office.

Spring, J. (1984). Education and the Sony war. Phi Delta Kappen, Apr., pp. 534-537.

Toward civilization: A report on arts education (1988). National Endowment for the Arts.

Washington, D.C.




what the current education reform reports have to say about arts and humanities education

Documents