Recorder: Enid Zimmerman, Professor of Art Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN

Higher Education Group B began their meetings with a discussion of the cultural roots and biases of the participants. Although the group appeared "monocultural" in the sense that is was composed of White men and women, it was discovered that they represented different sexual orientations, religions, and ethnicities. All shared, however, a dedication to the teaching of art to students of all backgrounds.

There were two issues that the group could not resolve during their discussions. The first concerned the relationship between DBAE and cultural diversity and centered on whether cultural diversity could be added to the existing DBAE paradigm or if DBAE needed to be radically restructured, in a "paradigm shift," to become culturally diverse. The second issue was one of academic freedom: "Can or should you dictate to a faculty member what he or she should teach or how to behave?" The bulk of the discussions occurred simultaneously in subgroups with the following results:

Subgroup 1: Facilitating the Paradigm Shift
Because it is not possible to continuously add new materials to the curriculum, subgroup 1 focused on the feasibility of a paradigm shift within DBAE and the development of art curricula. Current frameworks include the "Royal Academy" approach, the "telephone book" or all-inclusive approach, and the "consumer reports" approach, which argues for the importance of particular works and cultures. The group proposed that a "reflexive critical inquiry model" could be used to modify these frameworks in light of the concerns of cultural diversity. They also suggested that goals and content should be used

1. to facilitate students' study of artworks, and
2. to help teachers make curriculum choices relevant to all their students.

Other suggestions from this group included the development of a pool of "content helpers" or resources in the local community and the articulation of culturally consistent values through aesthetic inquiry, so that "big" questions can be addressed.

Subgroup 2: Changing the Higher Education System
This subgroup addressed the problem of increasing support for multiculturalism in the college or university setting. Some of their suggestions included the following:

1. Changing the "supply and demand" relationship through active recruitment of diverse students and faculty. This process should begin as early as the middle school years.
   
2. Encouraging faculty to play strong mentoring roles and create supportive environments for diverse students. This will require modifying traditional practices in higher education, such as tenure review procedures and reward systems, that inhibit the development of a diverse environment.
   
3. Taking advantage of the expectation in the university community that the art and art education faculties will be nontraditional and the first to initiate and implement changes.

Subgroup 3: Preservice Teacher Preparation
Subgroup 3 raised the following concerns:

1. The need to generate support for multicultural education among administrators at all levels.
2. The need for partnerships with experts in the social sciences to help in addressing multicultural issues in class.
3. The importance of encouraging college and university students to "take ownership" of their learning experiences, including bringing their multicultural understandings to bear on the processes of teaching and learning.
4. The need to encourage college and university students to engage in early field experiences with diverse student populations.

Subgroup 4: Shaping the New Generation
The key question discussed by this subgroup was: "What kind of art education doctoral students do we need to produce in the next decade?" Future doctorates will be earned in a new educational climate, where an emphasis on formalism in art has given way to multicultural, feminist, economic, and political analyses of artworks. The canon has been expanded to include performance, installation, video, and other new art forms. The group offered the following as a key question for further discussion and debate: "How do we assure that the new generation of doctoral candidates in art education will be thoroughly grounded enough in the works of art that are the focus of art education, and at the same time be well grounded in criticism, ethnography, semiotics, philosophy, psychology, and history that it will allow them to interpret these works fully and comprehensively?"

A related question was whether there should be a multicultural requirement at the doctoral level and whether doctoral candidates should serve an internship in a multicultural context. The group concluded that there is a risk that future doctorates will be unprepared for the cultural, technical, and theoretical challenges they will be expected to meet; therefore, immediate action is necessary.

After each of the four groups summarized their findings, it was agreed that the discussion exemplified a key tenet of multicultural education: "No one can do it alone; we all need each other." To address the concerns raised by the groups, collaborations among many people of different backgrounds, in a variety of contexts, will be needed and necessary.

For more chapters on-line, see Contents.