Description of an Educational Event in an Ecclesial Context

EDUCATION

I recently attended an orientation session for an arts workshop that focuses on teaching basic principles and theory of arts and its usefulness to children aged 10-15. The workshop was part of an on-going Art campaign that aims at the revival of art education in schools. The workshop was held at a local art school and during the orientation session, students were familiarized with basic principles of art education. The workshop was conducted by a group of local artists who blamed the school structures for keeping arts out of curriculum and thus diminishing the value of this important branch of education. The artists who participated in this workshop were very critical of traditional school system in the United States and felt that art education was not receiving its due share of attention and patronage by local state governments. They felt that art education should be an integral part of school curriculum since it helps in more balanced development of a child.

This workshop was heavily attended by young enthusiasts who had someone gained appreciation for arts and were eager to learn more but most of these children agreed that traditional school structure was not conducive to teaching of arts. One young man of 14, Robert Matthews, felt that his school treated all forms of arts except drama as something useless. He cited an incident which highlighted the degradation of arts in traditional school structure. Robert was an extremely intelligent student and his teachers had high expectations. But when he explained that he wanted to become an sculptor and later pursue a career in art education, his teachers tried to dissuade him and some openly discouraged him too as they felt he was meant for 'better things'. Robert was of the view that this kind of attitude needed to change if arts are to survive and grow in today's competitive capitalistic world.

Similarly other participants had similar complaints against school curriculum and this reminded me of Eisner's theory of explicit, implicit and null curricula. Art education was certainly a part of null curricula because it had been deliberately ignored and school structure favored teaching of subjects that could lead to 'better' careers and 'better things' such as mathematics, science and computers. Eisner felt that by excluding some subjects and keeping others, we were sending a wrong message to children about these subjects. He maintained that the things we don't teach might have same profound impact on a child's development as the subjects we explicitly or implicitly teach. "The major point I have been trying to make thus far is that schools have consequences not only by virtue of what they do not teach, but also by virtue of what they neglect to teach. What students cannot consider, what they don't processes they are unable to use, have consequences for the kinds of lives they lead." 103

Eisner (1985, 1994) explained that school programs have important functions to perform and one of those functions is opening new roads and providing children with options. By not teaching things that may prove to be extremely important, we are closing the doors to alternatives. We cannot expect every child to become a doctor, engineer or computer professional. Some children simply lack aptitude for these fields and without the presence of alternatives; they might feel lost and useless. It is therefore critical to guide them to new doors of opportunities and show them that there exist other paths as well.

'There is something of a paradox involved in writing about a curriculum that does not exist. Yet, if we are concerned with the consequences of school programs and the role of curriculum in shaping those consequences, then it seems to me that we are well advised to consider not only the explicit and implicit curricula of schools but also what schools do not teach. It is my thesis that what schools do not teach may be as important as what they do teach. I argue this position because ignorance is not simply a neutral void; it has important effects on the kinds of options one is able to consider, the alternatives that one can examine, and the perspectives from which one can view a situation or problems."

During the course of the session, one young girl from a private school opined that school structures are not as unfavorable to the teaching of arts as they had been made out to be. Sarah, 13, felt that in her school, art education was part of the curricula and children from grade 6 were required to attend art classes held thrice a week. She explained that her school was giving more attention to art education since people were beginning to shown greater interest in the field. However one artist protested against this claim and tried hard to convince the people that holding few art classes a week was not the properly way of teaching arts. It was more important to allow students to choose one branch of art and excel in it instead of learning about various different things sporadically. This reminded of Eisner's view on the same lines. Eisner explained that:

'Learning is seldom significant when it is limited to a one-time affair. The teacher who gives students clay one week, water-colors the next, wire sculpture the third week, and linoleum printmaking the next, all in the name of providing a rich art curriculum, does those students no favor. What are needed are sequential opportunities to work on problems with one material, time to get a feel for that material, and time to learn how to cope with problems engendered by the material so that mastery is secured." (p. 96)