DBAE and Art Education Reform.

Abstract

Pogrow's (1996) ideas on reforms and why they often fail provide a frame against which a number of controversies associated with DBAE are examined. Some myths that have been used to characterize DBAE's philosophi cal, cultural, and curricular orientations are described, and contrasted with dimensions of reality as these have been identified by Pogrow. reason to pursue discipline-based art education (DBAE) was simply to further the reformation of art education, moving from a peripheral role in the curricu lum to a fundamental place in basic edu cation. original definition (Greer, 1984), expanded in the monograph that followed (Clark, Day, & Greer, 1987), acknowledged antecedents that went back to the 1965 Penn State Conference. It seemed a simple extension of a direc tion already apparent in the field and there was little intimation of what was to follow. As I look back on what happened seems appropriate to address develop ments in discipline-based art education in relation to these first documents. It is my position that the ideas set forth in these documents continue to provide the foundation for a viable orientation to art education. Discipline-based art education is a way to address art in general educa tion and to provide the basis for special studies in art. Developments in DBAE make a compli cated tale. initial idea that this was a reformation in art education (Greer, in press) has been confounded in several ways: theoretical ideas have been con founded with efforts at implementation; efforts to reform art education, with ef forts to reform general education; ef forts of individual authors, with the work of the Getty Center for Education in the Arts; art education, with multicul tural education and with integrated cur riculum. I will look at these different confoundings, make distinctions, and turn to consider the state of art educa tion in light of my argument. Pogrow (1996) subtitles a recent article, Why Educational Reforms Almost Always End Up Making Things Worse. He suggests that proposals for reforms have buried us for a decade and that the problem is really with the reformers and not with education. In looking at DBAE I will con sider whether or not we, too, have been the problem. Pogrow says that there is a plethora of current reforms and gives as exam ples whole language, vouchers, hetero geneous grouping, teacher empower ment, authentic assessment, and team teaching. He suggests that these reforms will meet the same fate as earlier ones ? open space, individualization, and com munity-based education ? all of which have failed and faded from view. He cites educational historians who tell us that the history of educational reform is one of constant failure of major reforms to survive and become institutionalized. He refers to Drucker's Innovation and En trepreneurship (1985) as the basis for his critique. Pogrow (1996) emphasizes Drucker's conclusion that most innova tive ideas and changes remain as merely good ideas, and sets forth a series of myths and realities to account for the failure of innovations in education. I will consider these myths and realities as they relate to the fate of DBAE. It would be difficult to discuss the de velopment of DBAE without acknowledg ing the uproar that resulted from the in troduction of the idea into the field, with the support of the Getty Center for Edu cation in the Arts. 1 will return later to VISUAL ARTS RESEARCH ? 1997 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois 25 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.94 on Sat, 19 Nov 2016 04:34:43 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms consider the effects of people confounding DBAE with the work of the Getty Center. Many articles and other publications took issue with discipline-based art education as an orientation or philosophy and even more issue with efforts to see estab lished in schools. I have addressed these charges elsewhere (Greer, 1993); Clark, one of the authors of the 1987 monograph, responds to these criticisms elsewhere in this issue. DBAE as an Orientation or Philosophy of Art Education One contribution of discipline-based art education has been to provide a change in theory or philosophy of art education. Efland (1990) suggested that had be come increasingly apparent that the cre ativity paradigm that had dominated the literature for half a century would no longer serve. He suggested that a number of different forces had been at work to bring about change in the field. Discipline based art education was introduced into an already prepared arena. philosophical basis for the orienta tion proposed in the early days of DBAE was the lifelong work of Harry Broudy (1966, 1972a, 1987). As a philosopher of education, Broudy argued that for the first time in history was possible to make available to every citizen what had once been reserved for the elite. His ra tionale for art as something necessary rather than just nice, or art as the fourth r, formed the basis of the orientation we used, and he made the case for art in general education a cornerstone of DBAE efforts to reform art education. In a book that purports to offer an al ternative approach to education Noddings (1992) has taken special exception to discipline-based art education as an at tempt to substitute a general, academ ized art program for one that challenges the truly artistic student. She has used her own early days as a math teacher as a touchstone for her criticism. Noddings admits that art has lost its place entirely in many schools and long as sports an arty look, will con tinue to be suspect in its very dif ference?to be relatively unimportant in college admission, to appeal to a limited number of students, to be at the mercy of the budget ax (p. 161). In her zeal she extrapolates from the literature to con tend that DBAE advocates would re quire [art], make heavily cognitive, sequence it, test the daylights out of it (p. 161). Noddings then returns to the theme that THE place for art in the cur riculum is to serve those young people who for years have found the art room the only place in school worth attending (p. 161) ? one aspect of what DBAE was designed to change. In addition to provid ing talented future artists with programs they can get their teeth into, DBAE was designed to provide understanding and appreciation of art for all young people. Noddings clearly believes that the unique contribution of the art program is to serve artistically-talented students, and equally clear that these are studio tal ents. The major concern that emerges is that students who are really talented in art will be disenchanted by the standard cognitive approaches (p. 161). Noddings is sure that DBAE clearly places itself in the liberal arts tradition, for which she proposes to offer a prefer able alternative. Unfortunately for her argument, she chooses to ignore the Broudy writings and instead sets up Mor timer Adler as her straw man. In reac tion to what she sees as the static nature of knowledge and the ideal of a classless society (as though we are a classless so ciety) Noddings suggests she is offering an alternative that will work in the reali ty of contemporary society and school ing. It is worth noting that Broudy (1972b) wrote a response to alterna tives of this sort in his book, Real World of the Public Schools. Pogrow myth about reforming ed ucation that applies to Noddings' writing is that, you can develop learning

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.