Envisioning the Future

Kids’ education is something almost everyone has an opinion about. So it was probably inevitable that the way the arts is to be included in the national curriculum in schools would generate some heat. Not that it is any more peaceful in the other discipline areas currently being developed.

The release on October 5^th of the draft Shape Paper: the Arts for public consultation by the federal government’s Australian Curriculum, Assessment, and Reporting Authority (ACARA), has seen various arts education groups around the country swing into action to ensure that there is a considered response from a broad range of stakeholders. Many of these groups have asserted that there are a number of things that need fixing in this draft paper which, in its final form, will set in place the guiding principles for the actual writing of curriculum.

One recently organised group: The Visual Arts Consortium: Australian Curriculum (VAC:AC) is lobbying for the development of “a rigorous, world class and future looking curriculum for the visual arts” and wants to ensure that the new curriculum will match or better the quality of the current visual arts curriculum in NSW and in other Australian states and territories. The high standard of the visual arts curriculum mandated in NSW, took years of careful work which VAC:AC maintains would be jeopardized if the current proposal were to proceed unchanged. Rumblings of concern also were expressed in October at the International Society for Education through Art (InSEA) regional conference in Melbourne. It was felt that the way the Shape paper is written harks back to a somewhat dated approach to the arts rather than preparing students for the changed circumstances of the C21st.

There are several sticking points in the Shape document which proposes that three “organizing strands” of “generate”, “realize” and “respond” (apprehend and comprehend), should be the common principles which apply across all five artforms (dance, drama, media, music and visual arts). Some arts education advocates don’t think these are adequate in shaping the structure of the curriculum rather than using the distinct forms and language of each artform from the very beginning, They are seeking an assurance that the statement that the “Arts will be integrated across the curriculum” will not be used to justify taking a ‘blanc mange’ approach to arts teaching especially in the early years, though they fully acknowledge at times there will be some connectivity between artforms. They also want to be confident that the organizing strands will not be used as assessment criteria.

Another area of contention is the treatment of design. As an integral part of visual culture, it is felt that design should be taught with the same comprehensiveness and historical and conceptual sophistication, as the rest of the visual arts curriculum. The current descriptors do not incorporate the concept of ‘design thinking’ where design is used as a problem solving technique which goes far beyond simply the production of aesthetic objects. The inclusion of design at all levels of visual education is strongly supported by the newly launched Australian Design Coalition, the peak advocacy group for design in Australia.

The big challenge is always time. The ‘crowded curriculum’ is under pressure from every direction. The current proposition that each of the five artforms should be taught has raised the question of how this can be accommodated within the tight time allocation currently being considered, without compromising quality and depth. Within the propose 160 hours in two year bands, if each subject was given equal time, this would translate to an average of 20 minutes per week for each artform. Compared with the 100 hours devoted to the visual arts curriculum alone in NSW, this would be a clear diminution. While ACARA says that the schools will be free to give more time if they wish, it is not hard to see why this has raised hackles.

The National Advocates for Arts Education (NAAE) want to ensure that each artform is taught sequentially, developmentally and in depth, though understanding that choices may need to be made by schools to privilege some artforms over others depending on the staff skills and resources available. However, NAAE wants to ensure that each artform curriculum is written to a sophisticated level, not the lowest common denominator. Throughout the process, the NAAE has played a pivotal advisory role. Made up of the peak arts industry and education bodies across the five artforms, the NAAE represents a powerful voice on behalf of arts education, and its success in securing the government’s commitment to the inclusion of the Arts in the national curriculum gives it some authority. It is to be hoped that its ideas will be taken on board.

Another group with an opinion is the Visual Education Roundtable formed by the National Association for the Visual Arts (NAVA) five years ago to lobby for the mandating of visual education in the school curriculum. The Roundtable was successful in persuading the then Coalition Government to invest funds into the National Review of Visual Education. The findings of this review were salutary: ‘visuacy’ it was said should be accorded the same status as literacy and numeracy as essential C21st skills for all adults. The ubiquitous use of visual tools in everyday communication across every part of the community has made it paramount that it should be an integral part of every child’s education. 

No doubt the debates will escalate as the deadline of 17^th December for submissions in response to ACARA’s draft Shape Paper: the Arts draws closer. To read the paper and make your own submission go to http://www.acara.edu.au/arts.html 

ACARA is now advertising for expressions of interest from people nominating to write the curriculum or to be a member of the steering committee. Information about this is also available on ACARA’s website.

You can go to http://www.apo.org.au/audio/national-arts-curriculum to hear a discussion on the subject between:\

• Rob Randall - General Manager of Curriculum for ACARA;
• Derek Weeks - Head of Arts at Indooroopilly State High School in Brisbane, president of the Australian Teachers of Media for Queensland and a member of NAAE; and
• Brian Ladd - until recently Head of Public Programs and Education at the Art Gallery of New South Wales and one of the founders of VAC:VA.

This blog was written by Tamara Winikoff – Executive Director, National Association for the Visual Arts (NAVA).