Editorial

The first three papers of JADE 14.2 are analyses of aspects of the current, apparently inter- national tendency, to create ‘national’ curricula, or something that closely resembles them. Two are ‘British, the other a slightly earlier Aus- tralian equivalent. What is perhaps surprising is that all three identlfy very similar concerns despite the different frameworks they use. These concerns are extendible to other coun- tries not represented here, and appear to point towards a ‘common’ view of the purpose of education; one that is closely linked to the pre- vailing economic orthodoxy of capitalism. Swift, Steers and Boughton in different ways contextualise the socio-political purpose of the curricula’s rationales and their effect on the con- cept of a ‘national’ curriculum, and its specific effect on the role of art and design education within it.

Is the picture painted too negative, or is the context so powerful that we are helpless tools within its framework? The writers believe that unless we clearly understand the actual reasons for change (as opposed to those offered), we will never be in a position to interrogate, affect or challenge them. Working within a vacuum is neither healthy, nor ultimately relevant. Unless one understands the context in which one works, there is no possibility of changing it.

There is a widespread belief in art and design education, that we can understand its develop- ment and current practice by a chronological account of movements, exhibitions, exemplary practitioners, and their various practices. In other words, we can locate our own practice by knowing the practice of others. This is not to deny that there are concepts and practices that arise from the specific study of art or design, but to suggest that knowledge of these alone is insufficient to engage as an educator with the particular problems that externally imposed curricula demand. The problems are not uni-

directional - they are not merely about trans- forming suggestions into practice - they flow the other way too, i.e. towards the implicit pur- poses behind the ‘need’ for a ‘national’ curricu- lum. The ‘need’, in turn has to be disentangled from the ‘reality’ - the massively transformed, and some would argue reduced current version.

The three writers explore these reductions - indeed they suggest with different emphases that the movement towards ‘national’ curricula is reductionist in intent - and develop reasons which have little to do with art and design edu- cation as such, and more to do with a particular concept of the relationship between individu- ality, nationhood and systems.

Individuality and its particular location in art is at the crux of this. We fondly believe that a series of lessons neatly blending practice, con- text, criticism and response fulfil all the neces- sary criteria for a successful meeting of minds - and yet we still find a sort of general orthodoxy of approaches, subject matter and treatment in learners’ work. This can only be because the art that learners make is too often removed from their lived experience. Three papers in JADE 14.1 consciously articulated this phenomenon, and it is not exclusive to us. In Studies in Art Education 36 (2) Winter 1995, Peter Smith writes of North American children’s art work:

Unless connections are made between the e-riences of children, aesthetic eqerience as Dewey formulated it, and art as a subject, school art will remain totally irrelevant in the lives of students. ... No matter how structured, sequential, or adult-advocated, unless students are able to create imagery truly evoking their experiences, art in the schools will remain a very dispensablepart of the curriculum [p. 1251.

The two papers by Cox, Cooke and Griffin, and Kuper are directed at infant and primary level art and design education. Cox et al describe a

ONSEAD, 1995

I 1 2 ED I T 0 R IAL

method of teaching that is termed ‘negotiated in that the teacher invites the class to verbally correct a drawing being made on the black- board. When ‘complete’ this is removed and the children draw their own picture (usually with a further verbal stimulus). The belief here is a fairly well-founded one that children are cap- able of responding to teaching at a much younger age than some would recommend - in this case towards drawing which in the main, but not exclusively, is concerned with accurate rendition of observed objects. A series of tests are reported which identify that the ‘negotiated method whether taught by Cooke (the originator) of by another, is typically marked higher by a panel of ‘experts’. Cox sensibly reminds the reader that this is only one aspect of drawing and that the method should not replace other types, and points to the need for further research to see how far development can be promoted, and whether the method is best suited for replicative drawing alone. Mark- ing on the replicative drawings had a high cor- relation, but those for imaginative drawing did not - perhaps this also says something about orthodox views on replicative drawing as mani- fested by the panel?

Kuper’s paper reports on her experiences in conducting her Berol/NSEAD scholarship which attempted to link art, science and tech- nology in primary school by inventing ‘scientific toys’. She offers a frank view of the pressures she sees primary teachers working under, and of her learning through experience during the study. The main project is the making of a but- terfly house using a variety of teaching stra- tegies - visits, teacher-directed and learner- experience methods, linked to learning art tech- niques, scientific principles, and technological know-how. She attempts to provide a practical link between the visual arts and the sciences using technology as the bridge. She sees tech- nology as much reduced in the revised Orders, and fears that this might lead to its eventual demise and a return to a polarised position between the arts and sciences in primary school teaching.

MacGregor’s concise paper was a keynote presentation at the NSEAD Conference at Card-

iff in November 1994, and also explores the relationship between art and science which was a theme of the Conference. Taking a more theoretical position, he sets out a process of constant re-evaluation where each domain reconstitutes its central tenets, methods and boundaries. He uses an anthropological frame- work of ‘life as lived and life as told’, which through examples from science, computing and art show a tendency to overlap, cross-over, or coincide. This might appear untidy and indeed he describes it so, but this is seen in a positive way as interchangeable items on a continuum, which momentarily at least, have art and sci- ence moving at the same speed and direction on the continuum, and therefore open to inter- change and mutual benefit.

The final three papers deal with aspects of multi-culturalism and art education; two English, and one American. Galbraith’s paper reports a round-table dialogue from Arizona where eight visual art teachers discussed practi- cal teaching issues with the researcher. Many of these focused on the problems of dealing with ethnically diverse classrooms, adolescent and street culture in art, language and communi- cation, and the shortage of teachers of colour. One consequence of language communication was an emphasis on producing art rather than being able to discuss the different cultural ideas raised. The teachers believe only a good in-ser- vice provision, that is of a continuous nature, will enable them to deal with their wish to use the ethnic diversity of their students as a rich- ness rather than as a limitation.

The positive identification of ethnic variety is echoed in Parson’s paper which compares art staff attitudes in two colleges of further edu- cation and the impact of Race Awareness Train- ing sessions. In her small but detailed study she found a preponderance of ‘unconscious’ race prejudice, and her solutions at an individual level are not unlike those suggested in Arizona, but she also locates the problem at an insti- tutional level which raises a whole new set of questions.

Burtonwood’s paper takes a different pos- ition in that he argues for a cosmopolitan view. He suggests that this goes ‘beyond culture’ by

0 NSEAD. I995

EDITORIAL 113

participating in a ‘plurality of cultures’, ferent cultural positions which affect the con- accepting divergence and contrast rather than tent of art and design education, but also reveal attempting conformity to any local cultural the need to address the issue at an institutional norm. In essence this is a ‘world view which level and above. counters the view of affirming the student in his or her own cultural identity.

These three papers offer a perspective of dif- John Swift

0 NSFAD. I995