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 ]
Nancy Walkup (Walkup.EDU)
Mon, 12 Jan 1998 09:09:00 -0600

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline


I don't agree with you but I don't want this to turn into an endless
We may just have to agree to disagree.



Nancy Walkup
Project Coordinator
North Texas Institute for Educators on the Visual Arts
PO Box 305100 University of North Texas
Denton, TX 76203
FAX 940-565-4867
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from ([])
by (GroupWise SMTP/MIME daemon 4.1 v3)
; Thu, 8 Jan 98 15:48:21 CST
Received: from ( [])
by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA06104
for <Walkup.EDU>; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:48:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <34B5486E.412086AD>
Reply-To: robprod
Organization: Robert Beeching Productions
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
References: <s4b4925e.042>
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by id NAA06104
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 15:43:11 -0600
From: Robert Beeching <robprod>
To: Walkup.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

Nancy Walkup wrote:

> Robert:
> I must respectfully disagree with your statement that "There is
> 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

> 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

> 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.

> - I find that, for the most part, the people on ArtsEdNet
> are the ones who have a strong dedication to the profession and
> 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

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

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.



> 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
> 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
> 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
> not taught in the same sequence order of content as they are in
> 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!
> -------------------------------rb
> --
> MZ*
> Part 1.2 Type: Internet E-Mail Message (message/rfc822)