Recorder: Catherine Leffler, Elementary Teacher/Art Coordinator, Encino Elementary School, Encino, CA

The elementary educator, who is responsible for implementation, rarely takes part in theory development, and this fact can lead to a polarization between theorists and practitioners. The Affinity Group, however, suggested that the absence of an elementary generalist as presenter or panel member should not be taken as an indicative of the generalist's role in the process of change.

The topics of the discussions arising in the Affinity Group may have been suggested by the formal presentations, but tended to focus on concerns that affect the thinking and practice of elementary teachers in regard to cultural diversity. Not surprisingly, more questions than answers were generated, including the following:

1. What is art?
2. Does the cultural environment in a community and its school affect multicultural art education?
3. What cultures should be included in the curriculum and should these be the cultures in the school or in the nation?
4. How does one become "fluent" in a culture? How does one find bridges to reach this fluency?
5. Is it necessary to address the aesthetics that are unique to a particular culture?

This last question was posed by a Native-American participant who noted that the word "art" does not exist in her language, but is infused in many other concepts, such as "religion," "science," and "family." The group was particularly concerned about whether multicultural education "could be all things to all people," and whether it could be taught according to a formula.

Because teachers are responsible for translating theory into practice, and because changes in the total system must begin at the elementary level, the participants sought special recognition for the problems they face. The generalist teacher must schedule approximately thirteen areas of instruction into one week, as well as deal with drug abuse, AIDS, abused and homeless children, the learning disabled, language problems, and the physically and mentally challenged. One participant noted that society was "like a three-legged stool, with church, the family, and the school each constituting one leg." However, the first two legs are no longer functioning for many students, leaving schools with the sole responsibility for some children's futures.

As practitioners, the participants called for more dialogue with representatives of higher education. Additionally, it should be noted that many of the elementary educators had attended DBAE institutes and have been implementing superior multicultural art education programs for many years without a published curriculum. Educators, however, will need high-quality instructional materials and curriculum guides if they are to become culturally fluent and enrich their art teaching.

The group briefly identified some of the sensitive issues that can arise in discussions of art and provoke concern from parents, staff, and the community at large. These include religion, education, sexuality and representations of the nude, politics, and sexual orientation. There was also a consensus that agreed-on definitions and structures would help teachers "understand, sharpen, and refine the tenets of multicultural education." In response to this demand, one participant offered a matrix whose horizontal axis consisted of the four disciplines of DBAE and whose vertical axes included elements such as beliefs, values, artifacts, cultural expression, language, and environment.

The successful dynamics of the group's discussion led the participants to institute a network for further discussion and a participant volunteered to assume the responsibility for organizing the network. The group report concluded by urging speedy action, noting that the level of passion among teachers is high, and that the nation does not have the luxury of taking its time.

For more chapters on-line, see Contents.