THE ARTS IN THE NEW ZEALAND CURRICULUM

A SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT

NOVEMBER 1999

EDUCATION FORUM

This version includes the Executive Summary only.
For a full copy of the Submission please contact us at info@educationforum.org.nz

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Access to the arts is an important hallmark of a civilized society and a significant contribution to the quality of life of individuals within it.

The Arts in the New Zealand Curriculum (the Draft) clearly recognized the vital role of the arts as well as the difficulties involved in the work of arts teachers including assessment and evaluation. It has noble aims, but if they are to be achieved several problems need to be addressed. [Chapter 1]

There are two main epistemological problems with the Draft. First, it explicitly adopts a generic approach in that all the art forms are developed within a common structure of strands, under the common umbrella of art "literacies", and are seen as leading to common ends. At the same time the view is expressed that each art form is a separate discipline with distinctive bodies of knowledge, concepts and so on. This contradiction is not recognized or resolved. The arguments for the generic approach cannot be sustained as each art form has its own form of rationality.

The second problem is that there are a variety of philosophies of knowledge in the Draft which are sometimes at variance. This appears to be deliberate under the policy of what the Ministry of Education (the ministry) calls "rigorous eclecticism". However, this policy begs more questions that it answers and appears to be an ex post facto rationalization for an often confusing set of sometimes contradictory positions: it brings into question much of what the ministry has written. The Popperian view that every theory should be regarded as an hypothesis for examination and, if attempts at falsification fail, as the best provisional theory is to be preferred. [Chapter 2]

The aim of developing competency in the artistic literacy of each art form is good but insufficient. It is also important to develop in students' dispositions in favour of the arts as worthy in themselves and not simply for contingent satisfactions. This would also require specific reference to the importance of achieving the qualities involved in making artistic and aesthetic judgments. This goal should replace the unhelpful and meaningless aim of the ability to "critique" art works.

The education of the emotions is also essential. This involves learning to cognize works of art as falling under certain descriptions towards which certain cognitive/emotional responses are appropriate and about which judgments can be made involving rational/emotional elements. This means teaching students to perceive works of art in particular ways and to make judgments about them of an appropriate kind. The approach to encounters with works of art does not require us to purge ourselves of emotions or to control or redirect emotions but, by understanding the works in particular ways, to cultivate, extend and deepen the range of our emotions. This involves treating works of art in a rational manner that is also at the same time a passionate business. For us works of art underline the truth that reason is a passionate business and that emotions are deep
and rich forms of rationality, for which the arts give special occasions and opportunities to develop. [Chapter 3]

The notion in the Draft of art works as "social texts" reduces all such works to equal status, and removes the possibility of, and indeed the need for, acquiring criteria with which to discriminate between them. Nonetheless, the Draft clearly gives priority to Maori art over the much more influential European traditions.

Contrary to the view of art as "social texts", criteria are in fact used to rank art works and to distinguish between the outstanding and the banal, the innovative and the derivative and so on. Students need teaching in order to develop the complex ability involved in making such artistic and aesthetic judgments and in exercising discrimination.

In any case, artists do produce work to present various forms of meaning - not as "social texts" - with which to enlighten or enrich their audiences. Thus students need to learn the 'languages' used in the various art forms.

However, the Draft predicates both a generalisability of arts "literacy" and the separateness of the language of each art form - a view posting logical and practical impossibilities in so far as it requires students to understand and value the arts of other cultures as well as of their own.

The approach adopted in the Draft has led to a stress on Maori art out of all proportion to the representation of Maori in the New Zealand population and of the relative significance of traditional Maori art forms vis-à-vis those originating in the northern hemisphere. The danger here is of imposing political objectives into art education; thereby 'dumbing-down' the arts and removing from art education the hard work of learning to acquire discrimination and to strive towards excellence. It is to betray the arts, which have intrinsic value and a civilizing effect through engagement with works of great intellectual, moral and cultural merit, for some extrinsic political purpose. [Chapter 4]

The Draft uses "meaning' as indicating that statements made in works of art are intelligible and communicable. However, that the task of grasping artistic and aesthetic meaning involves sophistication and much hard work is nowhere even hinted at.

The complexity of the task arises from the complicated and protean nature of artistic meaning and the non-discursive, non-logical, nature of much of the language used to convey it. Indeed, meaning may only be accessible in dialogue with the works in question; the special kinds of dialogue involved have to be learned and applied from the inside.

Learning to grasp elusive artistic and aesthetic meanings can, however, be learnt: it is not some mystical experience or vague feeling of uplift. Learning to search for, and acquire, artistic meaning requires long exposure to, and engagement with, suitable paradigms under the direction of teachers already deeply involved in the art forms concerned and conversant with the languages used. Unfortunately the Draft does not consider the significant implications for teacher training and development if such tasks are to be successfully carried out. [Chapter 5]

The main view in the Draft of the term "expression" appears to be the putting of ideas, thoughts, feelings and such like that lie within the communicator and evoking corresponding thoughts and the like in the receiver. This presupposes inner and outer worlds of meaning in both artist and audience, with art works transmitting meaning between the two inner worlds. In this 'expressionist' view, artistic merit lies in the expression of feelings or emotion.

There are several difficulties with this view. For example, it does not tell us what emotions artists are having when creating their works or how the audience can be sure of identifying and receiving them correctly. What, if any, criteria are there for determining correctness or appropriateness? Moreover, it is not clear how feelings and such like are 'inner' and how artistic or aesthetic inner feelings are to be distinguished from all the other ones. Further, it denies the possibility of making judgments of an art work except in accordance with some 'inner' feeling. The dualism involved in the notion of inner and outer worlds inevitably leads to subjectivism.

The contrary view, support in this submission, is that while the arts are indeed concerned with feelings, their presentations of meaning are as equally open to rational and intelligible discourse as other forms of communication in that they use public and understandable language: there are no private languages involved. Our ideas, feelings and sentiments originate and develop in open and public forms of communication and thus can be shared. In this view, feelings are inseparable from understandings and one could not experience the former without the latter.

The 'expressionism' in the Draft runs counter to the development of knowledge and understanding with which it should be concerned and, if retained, would vitiate much that its authors are keen to secure. [Chapter 6]

As with other of the new curricula for schools, the Draft is based on a long-discredited student-centredness which puts the student at the centre of the educational enterprise as initiator and controller. Correspondingly arts teachers are portrayed as little more than facilitators with the role of placing students in an educationally helpful environment thus placing totally unrealistic expectations on the student's own unguided resources. A much tighter, more academically respectable, concept of student-directed learning is available and should be adopted instead. This alternative approach concentrates on different styles of student learning while upholding the role of teachers as authorities in content and procedures.

The concern for "outcomes" in the Draft has the advantage of emphasizing the importance of clearly identifiable learning gains. However, it is of concern that content has been almost entirely dispensed with. In fact specific reference to suitable content is essential to the work of schools.

The problem of imposing one curricular structure again arises in the case of the arts with the danger of losing both the uniqueness of individual art forms and the possibilities of their integration.

A serious problem with the "outcomes" approach is the loss of emphasis on engagement in the arts for its own sake rather than to achieve "outcomes". The emphasis is on the contingent and instrumental ends not on those intrinsic to education in the arts or to the development of the dispositions and attitudes associated with a sound and rounded education. Increases in qualities such as heightened aesthetic awareness and refinement and subtlety of taste are not amenable to the "outcomes" approach. [Chapter 7]

Values are properly recognized as no aspect of schooling is value free. The Draft constantly enjoins students to value and evaluate their own and others' productions and performances. What is missing from the Draft is any discussion of a number of questions which arise such as "What action should follow a value judgment?' and "What particular contribution to values education can the arts make?" A further vital question left unaddressed is whether value judgments should lead to moral judgments and, indeed, whether or not all value judgments are ultimately moral and therefore call for consequences in terms of commitment and action.

Likewise values clarification to which the Draft, as other of the recent curricula, is committed does not go far enough. Clarification goes part of the way but should be the indispensable precursor to moving on to conclusions, decisions and commitments that issue in judgments, recommendations or action.

The stance of The New Zealand Curriculum Framework (Curriculum Framework) and the curricular statements appears to be that values are subjective and idiosyncratic. The view of this submission is that values are objective in that they are inter-subjective and discussion upon them and resolution of differences in value judgments are possible. Such resolutions are settled at the level of the culture of a community.

Teachers of the arts should have the task of taking students beyond clarification and exemplifying commitment to the consequences of value judgments, some of which will be moral. [Chapter 8]

The Draft has the major aim of helping the arts become an essential part of everyday life for all. The achievement of this aim can be greatly facilitated by establishing linkages between schools and the wider community. The Draft does make some mention of the need to make such linkages but this is not sufficiently articulated. The advantages can be considerable in, for example, the sharing of facilities and expertise.

Partners for schools can be found in the wide variety of institutions that already exist for the purpose of promoting the arts: art galleries, museums, concert halls to mention only a few. In addition advantages can be secured in forming relationships with the business world for the sponsorship and other forms of mutual support for artistic endeavour. [Chapter 9]

The Draft proposes that a wide range of assessment procedures be used for the evaluation of student work and progress in the arts and for a wide range of reporting purposes. This is entirely commendable.

What is lacking is discussion about what the actual assessment procedures and strategies might be and how they can be appropriately chosen and applied.

Assessment in the arts needs to take into account both the formal, descriptive aspects of an art work and also its intrinsic, unique meaning. Assessment of the former aspects is relatively straightforward. Assessment of the latter is extraordinary difficult involving elucidation and interpretation of its immaterial and informal qualities and special significance. To grasp and evaluate the meanings of art works is thus particularly difficult requiring deep knowledge, technical skills and much practice in choosing and applying canons and criteria appropriate to the works in question.

Assessment in the arts is further complicated by the difficulties and disagreements about the frameworks of understanding and meaning in which to evaluate arts and by the fact that progress in them is characterized by the development of qualities such as delicacy and imaginative insight that defy precise quantification.

All this requires considerable effort to developing assessors and examiners the necessary, sophisticated and complex competencies, techniques and skills which will differ in significant ways from those applicable to assessment in most other domains.

Unfortunately the draft does not even hint at what is involved or how teachers can develop assessment expertise. [Chapter 10]

The Draft's proposals have major resource implications which will require substantial additional funding. These include inservice training (including training in assessment), teachers for subjects now taught in all schools (dance, drama, the visual arts), and associated capital expenditure (studios, stages, lighting, television equipment and much else). Some schools may be able to tap non-government sources for some, but almost certainly not all, the additional funding required. Unless such additional funding is made available, the expansions called for in Draft will be implemented only piecemeal if at all and their educational value will be called into question. [Chapter 11]

Recommendations:

(1) The distinctive forms of rationality of each of the art forms should be respected and the generic approach removed from the Draft.

(2) The ministry should replace its unsatisfactory policy of "rigorous eclecticism" with an explicit philosophic approach which provides substantial and defensible epistemic warrant for their curricular proposals. The view that every theory should be regarded as an hypothesis for examination and, if attempts at falsification fail, as the best provisional theory should be considered as a suitable replacement.

(3) The Draft should include specific reference to the need for and importance of helping students acquire a disposition in favour of the arts and the qualities involved in making artistic and aesthetic judgments.

(4) The aim of developing ability to "critique" art works should be abandoned.

(5) Specific mention should be made in the Draft of the essential task of educating, extending and deepening the emotional responses involved in appraising, understanding and judging works of art under descriptions and in ways that are appropriate to them.

(6) The notion of art works as "social texts" is unhelpful and should be abandoned.

(7) Reference should be made to the importance of teaching students to develop the complex abilities involved in making such artistic and aesthetic judgments and exercising discrimination.

(8) The arts have intrinsic value which should not be betrayed by substituting for it some extrinsic political purpose.

(9) The Draft needs to be explicit about the complexities involved in learning to grasp artistic and aesthetic meanings and the role of art teachers in this regard.

(10) The ministry needs to consider the very substantial implications for teacher development and training if the tasks envisaged in the Draft are to be successfully carried out.

(11) Any suggestion that the arts act to mediate between an inner and outer world and that in this sense they provide merely occasions for the expression of artistic meaning should be removed. Emphasis should be laid on the importance of the arts as unique forms of knowledge and understanding of great richness and enormous potential for growth.

(12) The concept of student-centredness as promoted in the Draft should be rejected.

(13) A concept of student-centredness, which is more academically credible and rigorous and which should be adopted, seeks to identify differences in modes of learning, maintains the importance of knowledge and disciplinary procedures, and upholds the need for teachers who are authorities in both content and procedures.

(14) The structure should be reconsidered with a view to ensuring that the uniqueness of each art form is preserved and possibilities of integration allowed for.

(15) The outcomes approach has some advantages but also severe limitations. It should be rejected. Explicit content should be introduced and reference made to the intrinsic merits of education in the arts and to the qualitative changes in dispositions and attitudes which such education can promote.

(16) The Draft's discussion of values should be extended beyond clarification and to include the consequences of coming to value judgments including the commitments to action involved.

(17) The particular contribution of the arts to values education, including values peculiar to the arts, should be identified and made explicit.

(18) The view of values as subjective and idiosyncratic should be rejected and replaced by an understanding of values as objective and therefore capable of inter-personal discussion and agreement.

(19) The responsibility on teachers of the arts to exemplify the moral consequences of the value judgments involved in their work should be stressed.

(20) The realization of the Draft's commendable aim to make the arts an essential part of daily life for all can be greatly facilitated by schools establishing partnerships for the promotion and practice of the arts with other institutions and with business. The Draft could usefully expand on the possibilities for, and advantages of, doing so.

(21) Much greater attention needs to be given to the complex nature of assessment in the arts and to the forms and measures that might be used to evaluate and report on art work and to assess progress in the arts.

(22) Teachers and examiners will have to be encouraged and assisted to acquire and develop the knowledge, competencies and insights necessary for deploying appropriate and sophisticated forms, techniques and paradigms of assessment that will be both domain-specific and also true to the character and mission of the education enterprise.

(23) The Draft's proposals need to be reconsidered in the light of the additional funding likely to be made available.