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


Re: intergration

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
Terri (schurter)
Thu, 10 Oct 1996 13:13:19 -0400


I know exactly what you are saying. I will take integration seriously when
it is the math and reading teachers who are being _urged_ by their
principals to integrate with the art teachers. It seems as if the urging is
always the other way around. If integration occurs in which both the
academic subject and the art subject get equal emphasis, that is great. But
it doesn't need to happen in the art class using the time of the art subject
for the benefit of the other subject. Art has little enough time in the
school day. It would be interesting to see the biology teacher initiating a
painting lesson about bugs so the students could appreciate the aethetics of
bugs, rather than the art teacher initiating a painting lesson about bugs
for the purpose of teaching the subject matter of biology.

Continue to fight your fight. I understand what you are fighting for.

Terri

At 12:03 AM 10/9/96 -0400, Lynn Foltz wrote:
>Well, for goodness sakes - all I want to do is uphold and keep the
>integrity of art education at a high standard and REALLY TEACH ART rather
>than lose the real teaching of art by teaching students that art is a
>salt map or a pumpkin or a Christmas tree - I have been a supervisor and
>state presenter and Board Member of our state association and attending
>NAEA conventions for years and years and years ----- and what I have seen
>and observed so very many times is that people think they are teaching
>art by using patterns and season to motivate students.... this is not
>truly a DBAE approach------------- I also believe and live in a way that
>other subject areas become a part of teaching art WHEN IT IS A NATURAL
>AND REAL CONNECTION - I have fought this fight for most of my teaching
>career and I hate to see new and experienced teachers fall into the
>danger of creating sloppy and shallow programs - all for the sake of
>integration ---of course I integrate many, many, many times - but I truly
>make sure that it is APPROPRIATE for the goal or measure I am teaching
>for art. I hope I am making myself clear......Sorry to step on so many
>toes!!
>Most humbly and respectfully,
>Lynn
>
>On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Norman Melichar wrote:
>
>> I find Lynn's comments on intergration interesting, if not a bit narrow.
>> At the elementary level intergrated art lessons are often the only way we
>> are able to teach art, and have felt for a long time that intergrated areas
>> are very appropiate. Many of us at the elem. level do not have "art
>> teachers" in our buildings. When the Getty people visited our school, lo
>> and behold, they were looking for art as an intergrated subject, not an
>> isolated entity. Maybe I'm confused on this issue. It seems artifical to
>> isolate a subject that is so much a part of our life, everyday. Most
>> students will never be professional artists, but they will experience art,
>> be surrounded by art, participate in art, learn to appreciate art, respond
>> to art, all throughout their intergrated lives!
>> Norm Melichar
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TerriBlue: "What's obvious to me...
isn't always obvious to everybody else."

............................... Wintalk: TerriBlue.241
............................ e-mail: schurter
-----------------------------------------------------------------