Editorial: Primary Concern

It is feasible to define the ‘hidden curriculum’ as art, craft, and design in many of the primary schools of England and Wales. This vital area of creative education is not ‘manifest’ in them.

A Jeremiah, who cries out decline or decay, is today in no danger of being thrust down a dusty well by his colleagues, but he will not be popular among those in the higher reaches of art and design education, who have inherited the blind optimism of the Sixties and believe like Doctor Pangloss, that all is for the best in this best of theoretical worlds. It comes as a nasty shock to be told that, despite all the growth in theory, the practice of art, crafts, and design has declined in general education, in initial teacher- training (and in post-graduate courses, inasmuch as the former post-graduate course, the ATD, had much more provision for practical work on crafts suitable for schoolchildren). The decline in practice is most evident in primary schools and Colleges of Education.

A headmaster of an English primary school, Geoffrey South- worth, who obviously from the art work in his school has a positive and constructive attitude, refers to ‘the present down- ward trend in the quality and purpose of education in the visual arts’ ( JADE Vol 1, No 2, p. 228). Southworth also states that ‘it is the misfortune of primary art to be considered as simply a decorative frill’.

Evidence shows that the frill is getting narrower and less decorative.

The downward trend began slowly in the mid-Sixties with the move towards an all-graduate teaching profession, linked with the increasing time taken up in training courses by theoretical Education Studies not related to subjects in the primary curriculum. The slow drift downstream has changed to a waterfall in the last few years.

The rapid fall in provision for practice in art and design at the Colleges of Education in a period of Government cuts manifests disregard by their academic boards for truly creative work, and a laissez-faire attitude at the Department of Education and Science in recent years. Many Colleges have built up and retained degree courses on subjects not in the primary curriculum and cut art and design which is, yet present Government policy is that these Colleges must, as far as training is concerned, concentrate on producing primary teachers. If one now peruses a handbook listing all the main options, or even minor options in art and design which can be taken for BA or BEd, especially to Hons. level, one can see such options are practically extinct even in some of the larger Colleges.

Active learning through doing is under threat. Despite more study of ‘creativity’, it is evident that passive academic learning

3

..

Journal of Art & Design Education

Vol2, No 1, 1983

Editorial and verbal tutorial debate rule. The chapter on art and design in the recent Gulbenkian report stressed that ‘the art and design disciplines in higher education provide an excellent basis on which to build an out-reach system of “education through doing” which would fulfil a growing need in all sections of society’ (The Arts in Higher Education, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, London 1982, Chapter 7, report on Art and Design by Jon Thomson (Chair), David Bethel, Christopher Frayling, S. M. Gaskell, Robin Plummer and Peter Welton, in attendance Peter Scott and Dame Leonelli) .

The neglect of learning through doing (the most creative way) in the primary teacher’s training is not confined to the art, crafts and design area. Anne Williams found during her recent survey of 300 primary teachers and their training that ‘some students do very little physical education and some none at all’ as a result of which, when they become teachers, they admit they do not implement schemes because they do not understand them (Education 3-13, Vol 10, No 2 1982, Studies in Education Ltd, Nafferton, Driffield, N. Humberside) .

Geraint Jones, head of art and design at Tarporley County High School, Cheshire has provided evidence of the lack of provision for art and design for primary teachers-in-training during the period of decline. From a research involving 39 primary teachers, he found that, in their opinion their training courses lacked the following:

(a) Information on various ‘Art’ techniques. (b) Discussion of the relevance of Art in the primary

(c) Opportunity for personal experience in various Art

(d) Information on the teaching of Art. (Jones, G. A survey of the attitude of a group of Primary School

Teachers towards their education in art, DASAE Liverpool University Institute of Education, 1973, and A study of the use of drawing in the curriculum of Prima y and Secondary Schools MA Manchester Polytechnic, 198 1 ) . Since two of the above categories, (a) and (c) , mainly involve

learning through doing experiences, it seems proven that for the teaching of art the primary teachers judge this type of learning as the most needful.

Jones found that 26 per cent of the primary teachers used for his survey had received no art education at all while in training.

Peter Dormer, in his review of The Arts in Schools: Principles, Practice, and Provision (Gulbenkian Report) , referring to the primary school chapter, comments ‘it is surprising that the authors felt compelled to make recommendations such as “Develop powers of observation and description”. Or, “Experi- ment with different media-watercolour, crayon, paper, cloth, clay etc. . . . ” These are hardly novel aims or practices for the primary school classroom-are they?’ ( J A D E Vol 1 , No 2, p. 341 ) .

Dormer adds the rhetorical question as if he suspects that the

4

curriculum.

areas.

recommendations may perhaps be needed. Indeed they are. Take the first: developing powers of observation. Theories that stress art as a language, art as communication, art as expression of the verbal ideas of the child, and the integration of art with verbal subject areas have resulted in a neglect of informed observation, skills in using tools and materials, and the joyful and educational production of ambitious art and design. Primary school work is in danger of becoming merely crude ‘comic strip’ illustrations, or poor visual reportage, for verbal work.

Jones’ research of 1981 found that 12 out of 36 primary teachers regarded drawing as communication, and that 9 out of 38 regarded it as a means of personal expression. Only 2 of the 11 primary schools investigated used drawing as a direct observa- tional exercise leading to analytical work. Needless to say all the schools used drawings to illustrate written work.

Gillian Figg’s recent research, which won the NSAE/Berol award also revealed the lack of art curricula and teachers with art training in the Welsh primary schools (G. Figg, ‘The Provision of a Framework for Art Teaching in the Primary School’ 1982).

The Gulbenkian report on the arts in the schools comments on their low status, derived from the poor regard in which they are held by head-teachers, governors, and parents. How has this poor image arisen as far as art and design is concerned? It was not so in the Fifties when headmasters regarded the subject as useful, serious and disciplined. Paragraph 41 of the report states ‘Creative work has to stand on the shoulders of previous work and understanding in the discipline in question’. The sequence consisting of visual enquiry, skilled work, and understanding must start in the primary schools.

Readers can not fail to notice the stress on creative work. We do not wish to produce a class of non-productive Orwellian proles, educated only to observe, push-key people squatting in front of illuminated boxes designed and made by other nations.

Stuart Macdonald

Editorial

The cover of this journal shows what exciting drawings eight year- olds can create. It is sad that some primary teachers do not believe young children capable.

5