Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.

Lesson Plans


[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
Robert Beeching (robprod)
Thu, 08 Jan 1998 13:51:30 -0800

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


--------------B3990EA8ECF358CB3B91BA04 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline

Message-ID: <34B5486E.412086AD> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 13:43:11 -0800 From: Robert Beeching <robprod> Reply-To: robprod Organization: Robert Beeching Productions X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nancy Walkup <Walkup.EDU> Subject: Re: ART TRAINING CONTINUED... -Reply References: <s4b4925e.042> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Nancy Walkup wrote:

> Robert: > > I must respectfully disagree with your statement that "There is little > continuity in art at the elementary levels of instruction. If we > taught other subjects in the same hit-and-miss vein, we would be in > deep trouble!" > > I think such broad generalizations and negative attitudes towards > elementary art education are damaging.

-----------------------------------------------------rbI would appreciate receiving a copy of one elementary 36 week course of study of an K/8 consistent curriculum pattern for art instruction which elementary faculties consistently follows. Then we can asertain how broad my generalizations are.-----------------------------------------------------rb

> I know firsthand of many > elementary art teachers out in the field who are devoting their > efforts to providing comprehensive, meaningful, and sequential art > education.

-----------------------------------------------------rbPockets of good teaching practices exist everywhere. That was not my point. I am talking about a visual arts curriculum which is as consistent as those for reading writing and arithmetic that every elementary school classroom teachers follows.

1) This is currently impossible, because the requirements for an elementary credential do not mandate that all elementary teacher candidates take art methods courses.

2) Even if there were such a mandate, there is no consistency in course content between any two college professors of art education, despite the push for DBAE. Because of the nature of the university protocol which insists that the majority of class time be devoted to the "lecture" mode, very little time is left for hands-on problem-solving leaving art in the classroom as a decorative adjunct to social studies units, and seasonal changes.

3) Even if there were time, the professor of art education is faced with presenting a remedial form of catch-up instruction, because most students enter college with no art preparation. ---------------------------------------------------rb

> Your attitude is also a slight to the teachers subscribed > to ArtsEdNet


My attitude is born out of experience! Let's be specific here. My in-box has been chuck full of complements from the very people of which you speak! Perhaps it is a slight to those who disagree. I seem to have struck a cord and got the page off the "how to marblize paper, kick," and brought us to some very important issues which we must resolve if visual arts is to become a mandated subject in the millenium 2000.

We have had state and national commissions on art, curriculum guides, and conferences which have not made a single impression on the state of visual art education in our public school system. In fact, many art programs and facilities are being dumped for computer labs at this very writing. We have art teachers who have had to take up counceling positions in order to maintain their jobs. We are in a very precarious position at this writing. What are we going to do with all these art education doctoral candidates in the future. ---------------------------------------------------rb

> - I find that, for the most part, the people on ArtsEdNet > are the ones who have a strong dedication to the profession and their > students and are working for positive changes.

I AGREE---------------------------------------------rb

> I know there are many problems out in the field, but I would rather > focus my energy on working to improve the situation that complaining > about it

--------------------------------------------------------rbObviously, you have not kept up with the dialogues. Stating a condition is quite different from that of complaining about it.

I have worked for changes in education in general since the 1950s, and for art education in particular. As conference director for CAEA at Asilomar, a contributor to the NAEA Journal, Elementary Art Supervisor, Secondary school Art Chair, I have worked to elevate the standards for art education. As a visiting professor of Art Education at Indiana, I introduced art telecourse formats. In 1962, I formed my own company with my own money and produced a visual arts core curriculum and video instruction units before anyone ever thought about them. I would not call that complaining.

The problem I see here, is a conflict of interests.

There are those who talk about change and there are others who change. In my opinion, we are still putting a band aide on the problem of visual arts education in this country. Nothing has significantly changed in the field since the 1950s. If it had, we wouldn't be talking about it now! All the literature is circlular. Every doctoral dissertation seems to have the same "frames of references." June McFee was my advisor at Stanford. Guy Hubbard and Art Efflan were in my class. Nothing has changed.

Take a look at my web page, and then tell me who is complaining.

I am as concerned with the state of visual arts education as you seem to be, and it does no good to sweep problems under the carpet. The 10 points of change I put on the artsednet page, I think are viable.


Bob ---------------------------------------------------rb

> Respectfully, > > Nancy > > Nancy Walkup > Project Coordinator > North Texas Institute for Educators on the Visual Arts > PO Box 305100 University of North Texas > Denton, TX 76203 > walkup > 940.565.3986 > FAX 940-565-4867 > > >>> Robert Beeching <robprod> 01/07/98 04:54pm >>> > Deborah wrote 01/05/98 > > "Not many of our elementary age students will end up in a career in > the field of art, so to focus primarily - at that age level - on art > training would be to miss..." > > What are we saying here? Shall we dispense with teaching children to > read, write, and compute, because they may never become authors, or > mathematicians? Of course not! > > Beginning with kindergarten, children are "eye-hand" coordination > trained every day. Without training children from an early age when > they > are supple and flexible, we are relegating them to a life of > "non-verbal" rigidity found in most adults - "A FEAR OF DRAWING." > This > does not have to be the case. How much better to teach a kindergartner > that a brush is not a "scrub mop" than it is to allow this > inappropriate activity to fester through the grades. > > All children have the capacity to learn to draw, paint, and to > construct, as they have the capacity to learn to read, write, and to > compute. The basic reason they are allowed to stay at a low level of > proficiency in art at the elementary level is simply because they are > not taught in the same sequence order of content as they are in other > disciplines. There is little continuity in art at the elementary > levels > of instruction. If we taught other subjects in the same hit-and-miss > vein, we would be in deep trouble! > > BEAUTY IS AS BEAUTY DOES! LOOKING AT THE WORKS OF OTHERS WITHOUT > FIRST > LEARNING HOW BEAUTY IS CREATED, IS AN ANOMALY! > -------------------------------rb > > -- > MZ* > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Part 1.2 Type: Internet E-Mail Message (message/rfc822)