|
Paper presented to the 30th
World Congress of the International Society for Education Through
Art in Brisbane on 24 September, 1999
© Donald Richardson, 1999
Abstract
In October, 1995, the Australian
Parliament received the report of the Senate's Environment, Recreation,
Communications and the Arts Reference Committee, entitled Arts
Education. This excellent report came out just prior to an
election and, as a result, its far-sighted and positive recommendations
were subsequently completely ignored. These recommendations -
while admitting some responsibility of the Commonwealth for arts
education - also lists many which are the province of the states.
The only changes in arts education since 1995 have been deleterious
ones, and this paper highlights key recommendations for visual
arts education that are made in the report and calls for a revival
of the initiative.
When I read Senator John Coulter's motion in the Senate (Senate
Hansard 19/10/'95, p.2200 ff) that that body 'take note'
of the report my heart rose. (Senator Coulter - Democrat, South
Australia - was the Chair of the committee.) The millennium had
come! It seemed that the way ahead would be smooth and positive
for the arts in the education systems of the land. The report
not only raised so many issues that had concerned arts educators
for years: it proposed solutions to them.
But, it was not to be. Not many weeks later there was an election,
the government changed and the new government had its own agenda
for the arts and for education - which has become all too familiar
to us by now. As far as I can see, the issues raised in Senator
Coulter's speech and listed in full in the publication Arts
Education. Report by the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications
and the Arts Reference Committee, October, 1995, were never
discussed in any parliament ever again.
My purpose in this paper is try to ensure that the issues raised
before, - and reported upon by - the committee (many of them
by us and people like us) are not lost forever in the ether of
time, but remain on the agenda and are revived by us and people
like us whenever possible.
I propose simply to list some of these issues - in particular
those reflecting on visual art education - in the hope that at
least some may be revived when possible and carried through.
Practically the first matter mentioned by the Senator is that
'many of the submissions carried complaints about the status
or resourcing of arts education'. This was taken on board, but
not commented upon - apart from noting that the same could be
said about any sector of education. But, it will not surprise
anyone in this audience..
Next, it was reported that, whereas many made submissions relating
to the various arts as such, few were about to arts education.
This, too, may not come as a surprise. (And I have to admit that
I myself may not even have know of the Committee's inquiry had
I not met Robert King, the secretary of the committee, at a conference
like this one - where he had come seeking more input from art
educators.) We all know how bad people like us are at reading
and making reports - but, we must thank the committee for pursuing
this matter so that a number of educators did finally contribute,
and contribute significantly.
While recognising that 'much of the funding and administration
of education comes under the jurisdiction of the states', Senator
Coulter was of the opinion that 'the Commonwealth should play
a major role in further improving the quality and direction of
education, including arts education, in Australia.' This places
arts education in a similar category to that of native title
in that many feel that the that state governments cannot be trusted
to deal with it fairly alone. It seems reasonable to me.
It seems that Senator Coulter, a scientist, may have had an epiphany
during the hearings for he states that 'six million years of
human evolution would have built the need for and the satisfaction
to be derived from artistic expression into our genes. It is
against this philosophical background that I view with alarm
the growing dominance of.economic rationalism..Art has become
a market commodity; arts education is valued as a training for
employment. Art, like science, has been corrupted to serve the
needs of the industrial system.' Encouraging words, not - unfortunately
- yet out of date four years later.
After decrying that many witnesses apparently 'felt obliged to
use the language of economic rationalism' because he felt that
'this was not the way the witnesses would prefer to argue their
case', Coulter observed - tellingly - that 'giving in to this
view of the world and using its language serves to reinforce
its hegemony.' A caution we would all do well to observe.
In fact, Coulter advocates 'the rejection of the application
of the economic rationalist paradigm' to the arts.
Coulter also bent his scientific gaze on to the figure of several
billions of dollars, which some claimed the 'arts industry' to
be worth, and found that this amount represents only about 1.9%
of GDP and that one third of it is accounted for by media advertising,
publishing and the like. Anyhow, 'dollar values are a totally
inadequate surrogate for aesthetic value', he says. 'We must
reject the pressure to redefine education as vocational training
lest, as a society, we become merely a human ant colony'
'This is not to deny that there is an economic and industrial
component to artistic activity, but it is to say that these elements
should arise as secondary to the creative and re-creative purpose.'
You can see, I hope, why reading this report gave me such hope
-and also why its philosophy is currently unpopular with government!
Coulter's motion concludes: 'The application of the key competencies,
as currently listed, seems to have damaged the arts relative
to the other disciplines. It may be that a competency relating
to aesthetic awareness needs to be added to the list. However,
it may be that the very idea of measured competence in aesthetic
awareness does irreparable damage to the very concept of aesthetic
awareness.' He leaves this opinion hanging in the air.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
It was nineteen months before the new government responded
to the Senate' Committee's report, and then it was in the form
a document tabled, but not discussed (Senate Hansard,
13/5/'97). It was prepared by the Departments of Employment,
Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA) and of Communication
and the Arts (DOCA) jointly. Much of it is in public service
face-saving language, but it makes some telling points.
DEETYA enumerates the Commonwealth programmes which aim to sponsor
arts training, but seems not to realize that arts education
is something different. DOCA lists its programmes, but very few
of them are in the visual arts. And it asserts that it works
closely with state governments - in the National Collaborative
Curriculum Project, for example - thus warding off total blame
for deficiencies. It also, quite rightly, states that the universities
are independent entities and choose their own curricula.
But the shadow which lurks behind the response document is the
immense responsibility which the state and territory governments
must bear for education - and arts education in particular.
Matters which must be referred to, or discussed with, the states
include
* 'the development of competencies for specialist art teachers
and generalist primary teachers teaching arts'
* 'matters relating to school curriculum and teaching'
* expanding the key Learning Areas beyond literacy and numeracy,
ie to include the arts (although it appears that the Commonwealth
may support this)
* ensuring that national curriculum initiatives are not 'relatively
disadvantaging the arts' (again the Government appears to support
this)
* discrediting the current philosophy linking arts education
and employment.
* investigating of the relative cost of training arts and other
educators.
What does this leave? Not much, so it is up to us all to lobby
our state governments to seize the opportunity of Commonwealth
cooperation in these areas - if it is not already too late.
There is a lot more in the report. 'The government sees merit
in establishing a mechanism between key agencies' (DEETYA and
DOCA and others) 'to facilitate consultation on arts and education
matters' so as to prevent initiatives from both fields 'falling
between the stools'. This is hopeful. However, it will not continue
to fund the National Professional Development Program or in-service
professional development. Instead it will leave it to the states
(and professional associations) to do this. And it did not support
the recommendation to establish a competency relating to aesthetic
awareness.
But, much of this is old news now, so I will not dilate upon
it, except to remind us all that we need to work continuously
within our respective state bodies and build on this excellent
report for the betterment of art education in the nation.
This paper was presented with the assistance of the South Australian
Country Arts Trust
|