Art Education Australia Inc. 150 Palmerston Street, Carlton, VIC 3053 Australia Phone: (03) 9349 5188 Fax: (03) 9349 3389 Email: [email protected]1 VAESAFriday, 12 November 2010 Dear Minister, Art Education Australia (AEA) is the national body of Visual Arts Educators concerned with the scholarly exploration and promotion of art education practice, research and theory. AEA represents the interests at the national level of over 2000 art educators as members of state professional associations in Victoria, NSW, Queensland, ACT, Tasmania, WA and SA along with those interests ofart education researchers from universities and schools across Australia. AEA acts as an advocate forthe Visual Arts and fosters collaborations amongst art educators and industry groups, locally and internationally. All affiliates of AEA advocate for a high quality education in the Visual Arts as a necessary entitlement in the Australian Curriculum. The inclusion of the Arts is an important investment in Australia’s future in the Visual Arts and Design and related fields of practice. This investment also contributes to Australia’s artistic, cultural and economic identity and the recognition afforded to Australia in an increasingly globalised world. As you would know, AEA is currently contributing to the development of the Australian Curriculum in the Arts. In this context we believe it is important that we highlight for you the serious concerns that are emerging about the quality of the draft curriculum as proposed by ACARA in The Australian Curriculum: The Arts - Draft Shape Paper. Currently the Draft Shape Paper does not draw on existing best curriculum practice in Visual Arts education or provide a curriculum framework of any rigour. In fact, the document is nothing other than a conceptual downsizing of existing curriculum provision in the Visual Arts. Recently AEA hosted the International Society of Education Through Art(InSEA) South East Asia- Pacific Regional Congress, with the National Gallery Victoria. During the Congress AEA members attended a Forum to discuss the proposals for Visual Arts in the Australian Curriculum. Serious faults were identified in the The Arts - Draft Shape Paper. The 150+ delegates passed three motions as outlined below. 1. We reject the draft Shape Paper for the Arts as presented. 2. We call for a substantial extension of time to allow for considered discussion and debate about the structure, design and content of this curriculum. 3. We call for a return to the name of the ‘Visual and Performing Arts’, as proposed in the Melbourne Declaration of Educational Goals for Young Australians (2008) rather than ‘The Arts’. AEA believes that the draft Shape Paper is offensive and unworkable. We have developed a constructive working model that indicates the serious problems in what has been proposed and lays a superior conceptual framework for the development of the curriculum. We trust that you will attend to the issues as raised and we look forward to meeting with you and discussing these points in more detail. Yours sincerely, Marian Strong President Art Education Australia (Attached: AEA Position Paper & Tables 1 – 3)
Art Education Australia Inc.150 Palmerston Street, Carlton, VIC 3053 AustraliaPhone: (03) 9349 5188 Fax: (03) 9349 3389Email: [email protected]
1
VAESA
Friday, 12 November 2010
Dear Minister,
Art Education Australia (AEA) is the national body of Visual Arts Educators concerned with thescholarly exploration and promotion of art education practice, research and theory. AEA representsthe interests at the national level of over 2000 art educators as members of state professionalassociations in Victoria, NSW, Queensland, ACT, Tasmania, WA and SA along with those interests of art education researchers from universities and schools across Australia. AEA acts as an advocate for the Visual Arts and fosters collaborations amongst art educators and industry groups, locally andinternationally.
All affiliates of AEA advocate for a high quality education in the Visual Arts as a necessary entitlementin the Australian Curriculum. The inclusion of the Arts is an important investment in Australia’s futurein the Visual Arts and Design and related fields of practice. This investment also contributes toAustralia’s artistic, cultural and economic identity and the recognition afforded to Australia in anincreasingly globalised world.
As you would know, AEA is currently contributing to the development of the Australian Curriculum inthe Arts. In this context we believe it is important that we highlight for you the serious concerns thatare emerging about the quality of the draft curriculum as proposed by ACARA in The AustralianCurriculum: The Arts - Draft Shape Paper . Currently the Draft Shape Paper does not draw on existingbest curriculum practice in Visual Arts education or provide a curriculum framework of any rigour. Infact, the document is nothing other than a conceptual downsizing of existing curriculum provision inthe Visual Arts.
Recently AEA hosted the International Society of Education Through Art (InSEA) South East Asia-Pacific Regional Congress, with the National Gallery Victoria. During the Congress AEA membersattended a Forum to discuss the proposals for Visual Arts in the Australian Curriculum. Serious faultswere identified in the The Arts - Draft Shape Paper . The 150+ delegates passed three motions asoutlined below.
1. We reject the draft Shape Paper for the Arts as presented.2. We call for a substantial extension of time to allow for considered discussion and debate about thestructure, design and content of this curriculum.3. We call for a return to the name of the ‘Visual and Performing Arts’, as proposed in the MelbourneDeclaration of Educational Goals for Young Australians (2008) rather than ‘The Arts’.
AEA believes that the draft Shape Paper is offensive and unworkable. We have developed aconstructive working model that indicates the serious problems in what has been proposed and lays asuperior conceptual framework for the development of the curriculum.
We trust that you will attend to the issues as raised and we look forward to meeting with you anddiscussing these points in more detail.
Yours sincerely,
Marian StrongPresident Art Education Australia (Attached: AEA Position Paper & Tables 1 – 3)
Art Education Australia Inc.150 Palmerston Street, Carlton, VIC 3053 AustraliaPhone: (03) 9349 5188 Fax: (03) 9349 3389Email: [email protected]
3
VAESA
ART EDUCATION AUSTRALIA – POSITION PAPER
THE PLACE OF VISUAL ARTS IN THE AUSTRALIAN CURRICULUMPROCESS ISSUES
Support for an Australian Curriculum in the Visual and Performing Arts
1. AEA supports the development of an Australian Curriculum in the Visual and Performing Arts buttakes the position that the proposed curriculum should be an up-cycling of current practice, rather than a down-cycling as is currently the case. It endorses a framework that identifies thecontribution of the Visual Arts and the Performing Arts to the education of students and theAustralian Curriculum (as per the Melbourne Declaration of Educational Goals for youngAustralians, 2008). In this way the contribution of the Visual Arts to the curriculum is acknowledgedand valued.
Extend the timeline
2. We believe the timeline for the development of the Visual and Performing Arts curriculum shouldbe extended in order that a high quality curriculum is achieved. The complexity of the Visual andPerforming Arts as a learning area cannot be underestimated especially when this learning areacomprises five distinct subjects which each have a body of knowledge, practices, traditions andtrajectories that are not interchangeable. Consultation on the Draft Shape Paper for the Arts occursat the end of the school year having been significantly delayed by the 2010 Federal election.Opportunity to engage in consultation has been minimal. ACARA is urged to extend the scope andfocus of consultation with different stakeholders in the artforms rather than accepting a genericapproach to the Visual and Performing Arts that undercuts the value of learning.
Involve state and national professional associations
3. AEA has throughout this curriculum change consolidated its relationships with state professionalassociations and has sought to represent these voices in all forums. In the processes leading up tothe development of the Draft Shape Paper for the Arts there has been a lack of acknowledgementof the huge commitment Visual Arts has made to the strength of the overall arts curriculum acrossthe nation. As the largest subject representing the largest cohorts of students and teachers, theVisual Arts has much to contribute to the development of the curriculum. As a statutory authorityACARA has sought involvement from national professional associations, most particularly anational alliance of arts educators (NAAE) and some few industry representatives. In this context,the voices of Visual Arts educators, including the state professional associations, are overridden.
The distinctions between the Visual Arts and Performing Arts has not been harnessed, cast asidebecause of an equal weighting given to the smaller artforms of Drama, Dance and Media Arts whoare keen to have their entitlement in the curriculum. Decisions weighted in favour of ‘equity for allthe Arts and all students’ is deceptive in that few if any schools could in all seriousness teachadequately in each of the Arts (given the time and resources made available) and the genuineconcerns of the largest and best theorised of the subjects in the learning area are marginalised byan ideological position.
Involve primary and secondary art teachers
4. To date the focus has been on the suitability of the proposed curriculum for early years of schooling. Non-specialist primary teachers have been involved in the development of the InitialAdvice and Draft Shape papers with little specialist input from secondary teachers. For example,only one Visual Arts specialist secondary teacher advised the writer via the reference group on the
Art Education Australia Inc.150 Palmerston Street, Carlton, VIC 3053 AustraliaPhone: (03) 9349 5188 Fax: (03) 9349 3389Email: [email protected]
4
VAESA
proposals for Visual Arts. AEA supports the focus on the early years in Visual and Performing Artseducation from K-6. However the focus on a continuum from K-12 has been proposed withoutadequate discussion of the impact on learning in the Visual Arts in the secondary years andbeyond. We assert that ongoing development of the Arts curriculum needs to include the expertadvice of specialist secondary teachers along with primary teachers, including those whospecialise in one or more of the artforms, to ensure that the high quality standards of existingprograms are maintained and enhanced rather than eroded.
Involve Visual Arts education researchers
5. ACARA has appointed a lead writer for the Arts curriculum whose background is in Dramaeducation and who favours a view of the Arts as an aesthetic domain. His approach privileges arelated arts approach which is valued over and above the subjects that make up the Visual andPerforming Arts in education. This approach is far from universally accepted. Qualified andexperienced academics in Visual Arts education, with proven success in curriculum design andpublished research, have attempted to contribute constructively to the development of thecurriculum for Visual Arts. To date their contributions have been largely ignored.
AEA advocates that ACARA should invest in a more open debate anchored in empirical and bestpractice research in the artforms and art education, rather than accepting an outdated related artsapproach that was discredited in the1970s. ACARA should address the theoretical anddevelopmental underpinnings of each artform in the Visual and Performing Arts curriculum andrecognise differences in how each is theorised. AEA rejects the current proposal and supports amore robust conceptual framework for the Visual Arts and where possible, the other artforms.
Make the consultation submissions and outcomes public
6. Submissions made to the consultation on the Draft Shape Paper should be made public to ensureopen and informed debate about the directions for the Arts curriculum. Given the complexities of developing curriculum for five subjects in the learning area it is essential that educators in each of the artforms are apprised of the responses to ACARA’s claims regarding commonalities within andacross the artforms. AEA believes that the potential for the proposed curriculum to dumb down theArts should be avoided. It is critical that stakeholders understand the varying positions underlyingand informing further development of the curriculum for Visual Arts rather than accepting the onesize fits all approach that has been proposed to date.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND STRUCTURAL ISSUES
There is an overwhelming need for a stronger rationale and developmental articulation of content andlearning within the Visual Arts. A regressive and out-dated aesthetic approach has been adopted
which, if implemented, will undermine the current world-class standards of Visual Arts teaching andlearning that are celebrated in Australia and internationally (eg ARTEXPRESS (NSW), TopArts (VIC)and Perspectives (WA).
The development of the Arts curriculum would be strengthened by a strong and clearly stated rationalethat justifies the value of learning in the Visual Arts and the Performing Arts and its contribution to thecurriculum and students’ education: Currently:
• There is no clear statement explaining how and why the nomenclature of ‘The Arts’ has beenadopted to subsume or obfuscate the identity of the Visual Arts as distinct from the PerformingArts.
• There is no clear explanation of relevant content in the Visual Arts including media anddesign.
Art Education Australia Inc.150 Palmerston Street, Carlton, VIC 3053 AustraliaPhone: (03) 9349 5188 Fax: (03) 9349 3389Email: [email protected]
5
VAESA
• There is no clear statement justifying the adoption of aesthetic knowledge as Visual Artsknowledge. Existing curricula in different states, since the 1990s, have moved away fromaesthetic knowledge paradigms to more contemporary approaches to articulating what isknowledge in the Visual Arts informed by different theories and beliefs, practices andrelational concepts associated with the artworld.
• There is a need to explain the decision to offer all five artforms from K-8 as an entitlementparticularly when resources in schools, teacher preparedness and availability vary widelyacross Australia.
• There is a need to explain why the Arts is the only area in the Australian Curriculum thatnominates a learning continuum from K-8 rather than K-6 and then compresses theexpectations for students from years 3-8.
• There is a need to explain why the generic strands of ‘generating, realising and responding’have been adopted given they are outmoded concepts that belie differences associated withlearning in each of the artforms and undermine the teacher’s role. The strands are only triviallytrue and retreat to a process approach to teaching and learning that is ill equipped to deal withcontent that is particular to the Visual Arts or the other artforms.
• A coherent developmental continuum describing how knowledge develops within each artformis lacking. Without this, teachers are unsupported in how to articulate content for students of different ages, particularly during the formative years, the richest developmental period in achild’s learning and through to different stages in the secondary years.
• The lack of theory that informs the artforms learning negates the possibility for students to berespected as theoreticians and practitioners. Students are more than capable of developingincreasingly autonomous intellectual stances enabling them to make reasoned judgementsabout art, how it works and what it means. This is neglected in the current proposal.
We are concerned about the coherence of how the Visual Arts is represented in the Draft ShapePaper for the Arts.
The centrality of the experiential learning process runs contrary to how students acquire knowledge inart. Experiential learning paradigms favouring imagination and sensory negotiation of the world render the role of the teacher redundant and mitigate against explicit teaching and learning. ACARA assertsthat national curricula will draw from existing best curriculum practice. This is far from the case.
AEA proposes that state systems and schools should offer the Visual Arts and one Performing art as aminimum as Australian students’ the entitlement. This would draw on available resources, staffing andlocal traditions, rather than ACARA mandating experience and study in all artforms, which limitscurriculum time and thus opportunities of quality and deep learning.
AEA advocates for explicit identification of design practice as a form within the Visual Artsencompassing product, graphic and architectural forms amongst others.
AEA supports a clear mandate that film, video and digital forms of art remain located as legitimateVisual Arts practices in line with contemporary practice.
AEA advocates the inclusion of the concepts of artists, audience, artwork and world to provide astructural foundation for learning and teaching consistent with developmental progression according toage. The concept of practice should also circumscribe learning in making and interpreting artworks.Learning as the acquisition of knowledge and skills in conceptual and practical reasoning would alsopermit a variety of interpretive perspectives and pedagogical positions to be articulated in the VisualArts curriculum. This would be more consistent with the practices in the fields of Visual Arts ascurrently reflected in the visual arts education in schools across Australia.
AEA supports the development of a curriculum that clearly articulates knowledge, understanding andskills that can be taught and assessed.
