Reading Reflection #5

The two chapters this week from Eisner and Freedman, both on curriculum development, were helpful to me in terms of defining what curriculum truly is, what purpose it serves (or ought to serve), and how we use it to draw broad concepts, information, and values together into meaningful, digestible experiences for the students. Clearly, there are numerous ways in which we can shape the experiences of our students by creatively shaping curriculum and re-conceiving the experience and purpose of arts education in a whole new way. For example, Freedman calls into question the single medium approach, a practical paradigm within most secondary level arts education programs. She suggests that "thematic courses can often enrich student learning of visual culture better than single media-based courses" and that "Rather [than start with the object] instruction can start with the people or context in which and for which it was produced and extend far beyond the work itself.  In this way, students can develop an understanding of the conditions (cultural, social, political, economic, environmental, etc.) that made the production of the object possible and the study of it worthwhile." (p. 119) An approach such as this which focuses on meaning, context, and significance of work presents broad opportunities for subject integration and would seem to have relevance for a wide audience of students, even those who will not pursue the arts specifically as a career path. As is consistent with the overall thesis of her book, visual literacy is a skill that will benefit all students, not just those on a path to professionalism in the arts. Furthermore, a curriculum which clarifies the meaning of the work the students are participating in tends to be more inspiring and effective.

Eisner would agree that an integrated art curriculum, and a more integrated curriculum in general, would be beneficial, but he is unsure how to perfect this model without compromising the integrity of any particular subject. Even attempting to do so requires a certain amount of artistry in teaching, meanwhile the liberty to utilize intuition and cultivate such artistry becomes ever more incumbered by rigorous curriculum standards.

“What we do know is that political, economic, and social events do affect schools, and that student interests develop that provide teachers with teachable opportunities, opportunities during which sticking to the lesson plan is the surest road to a pedagogical Waterloo. What is needed in such circumstances is pedagogical improvisation in the service of meaningful teaching and learning. It is here, especially, that teachers' professional judgment must come into play so that they can exploit those moments in the classroom. The ethos of much of what flies under the flag of standards-based reform flies in the face of such improvisation.

In the arts, as in many other fields, surprise is a friend, not a foe. During the course of their work, students and teacher alike encounter the unexpected, students in images and qualities that they could not have foreseen but that beckon in one direction rather than another, and teachers in surprises that unscripted students create. The joys of teaching are often found in these unpredictable events. Just what do such events have to do with standards? Only this: to the extent that standards dampen the desire to treat the content and aims of teaching flexibly, they impede artistry in teaching and therefore impede moments in learning that can be among the most meaningful for students. Planning and teaching profit from flexibility, from attention to the changing colors of the context. Assumptions and concepts that seek predictability of routine and the security of conformity militate against it.” (p. 164)

Amen! I realize this is a rather long passage to quote, but I absolutely could NOT have said it better myself. I actually had to stop and re-read this out loud to my husband. (He's a very tolerant man.)

Eisner is not saying that there is no place for standards or a well constructed curriculum to support them. Rather he is saying that although a little planning goes a long way, without flexibility, a rigid plan will crumble. Moreover, the the value of genuine excellence, artistry, and intuition in teaching cannot be overstated. I for one, second that.

But how to get others on board?  I think, in part, the answer may lie with individual communities.  I am absolutely in love with the idea of “educationally interpretive exhibitions” mentioned near the end of the chapter which “explain to the viewers the features of the work on display and describe the forms of thinking that the child had to engage in to create such work.”(p. 176) Albeit challenging, if we can effectively communicate the value of students experiences, then we have a much better chance of building trust, community, and dialogue between parents, teachers, administrators, and students.