CAEA Art Education Advocacy in California

National Art Education Association

CAEA Art Education Advocacy in CaliforniaAuthor(s): Dwaine Greer and Kay TolladaySource: Art Education, Vol. 32, No. 8 (Dec., 1979), pp. 24-27Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192369 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 01:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 01:49:08 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192369?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


CAEA Art Education Advocacy in California Dwaine Greer and Kay Tolladay

The State of Art Education in California

The need for a program of advocacy for art education within the state has arisen over the course of the last several years. While it has become fash- ionable to blame the depressed state of art education on Proposition 13, other factors have been operating for some time.

The generally more conservative climate in education and its attendant legislation and rules have been at work removing the "frills" of the arts from California's schools for longer than the time since 13's passage. As the State Legislature and the Federal Government have mandated programs and written criteria for categorical funding, the arts have, in many instances, been systematically excluded. The effect appears to be the virtual disappearance of art specialist teachers from all but a handful of California's elementary schools and a reduction in the numbers of specialists in most junior and senior high schools.

As California witnessed a change in the credentialling structure for teachers, another, and perhaps more subtle, effect has been felt. The requirement for any arts training for general elementary certification became optional. Therefore, while it re- mained a requirement in some college programs, in many it disappeared. The result is that an ever increasing number of teachers are being em- ployed who have had no art education background at all. This means that, even if art were to be required as a subject area for regular instruction instead of having only a general mandate, most regular classroom teachers lack formal preparation to teach it. The effect has been one of less art in-

struction for most elementary pupils. As the pressure to devote more time to mathematics and reading skills has been felt in elementary classrooms, this lack of preparation has served as an additional excuse for neglecting art. Without specialists, without training, and without a specific mandate, it is small wonder that the number of regular classroom teachers who "bother with art" has been decreas- ing.

Recognizing the Need for an Advocacy Program

As California Art Education Associa- tion officers began to recognize the effects of the various factors just de- scribed, questions arose about the causes and sources of the effects seen in the schools. We identified government legislative actions, at various levels, as one of the major causes of change. At the same time we began to look at the role that the Association played in framing and implementing legislation. It became apparent quite quickly that by the time art educators were looking at laws and regulations affecting our practice, they were al- ready written, negotiated, and ready for implementation. For example, school districts in California went through a systematic process of goal setting. As they faced time con- straints, many choose to use prewrit- ten lists, and community representa- tives ranked them as a way of deter- mirning goals and priorities. In many instances the lists did not even include the arts for consideration. While each isolated instance seemed unimportant at the time, we quickly recognized that they added up to a damning con- clusion. The general public appeared to assign the arts little importance in

education. The legislators would re- spond to such indicators, and we realized that the need for art education would have to be presented start- ing from what was apparently an almost total lack of support.

About this same time, inquiries were made of legislators. Perhaps the most revealing finding is exemplified in the remarks of members of the As- sembly Education Committee. When asked about art education, they indi- cated that letters of concern over the past few years had come to them regu- larly in almost every area except for art education. It was obvious that CAEA should begin to advocate art education. We had to begin to build support for our own cause ourselves.

Art Education Advocacy Beginnings

Arts advocacy began in earnest about two years ago with the appointment of Kay Tolladay to the newly formed Government Relations Chair of the California Art Education Association. Our goal was public and legislative recognition of the importance of art to the education process. While we were deciding on strategies to achieve this goal, one thing became apparent: given the national trend of grouping the arts together, visual art would do well to join hands with other arts education associations.

It is always pleasant to find that your current "project" is also of concern to others, and so it was with arts advocacy. The other arts education organizations had also begun to recognize the need for some type of campaign for arts education. With monies furnished by the California Alliance for Arts Education and its affiliate members,

Art Education December 1979

_ __

24



"The Severe Cuts Dealt by Proposition 13 to Arts Programs Both In and Out of Education Have Made the Total Arts Community More Aware of Their Commonalities and Less Interested in Their Differences."

California Art Education Association (CAEA)

California Dance Educators Associa- tion (CDEA)

California Educational Theatre Asso- ciation (CETA)

California Music Educators Associa- tion (CMEA),

an informational brochure was developed to acquaint the public with the goals of arts education.

"Artstart" a First Advocacy Publication

"Artstart, a game of awareness" de- signed by Phyllis Johnson, Kay Tolla- day, and Kay Wagner of CAEA, and Marilyn Miller of CETA, uses a game board format to show how education without the arts can make "children feel they can't do anything. They become spectators in their own education and in life." This is the loser's path in the game. But, upon taking a different path by way of "Super Schools" which offers active learning through the visual and performing arts, children can become "Win- ners." At the several stops along this path, details of what each arts discipline offers children are listed. The game ends with the statement "All the Arts for All the Children is the game that makes your child the WINNER." Surrounding the illustration of "super kid" is this list: motivation, responsi- bility, creativity, communication skills, body/mind interaction, aesthe- tic sensitivity, positive self-image, self confidence, time management, critical thinking, visual literacy, discipline, historical and cultural understanding, plus a final "bonus"-"Arts programs promote the basic skills."

A second part of this brochure gives

specific details on how to make effective changes by contacting legislators and local officials. The final page suggests local people to contact in order to develop group power through "concerned citizens for the arts." Artstart was widely distributed in California this part year and had some national distribution through contacts made at the Rockefeller Conference in Los Angeles.

CAEA Government Relations Committee

In addition to developing "Artstart," energy was spent in developing a statewide network of arts advocates from CAEA. A 30-page packet of materials was developed to mail to each volunteer, which included sections on developing community and legislative support, reasons to give when urging support of the arts, information on the implications of recent legislation, economic impact of the arts, a list of state legislators and their committee assignments, and a bibliography.

This original mailing was followed by updates on new bills in the legislature or other information which might affect the arts. Each month the "Painted Monkey," the CAEA news- letter, carried an article on arts advocacy and asked, pleaded, demanded, entreated, implored people to join. The anticipated flood of responses never materialized. Instead, a mere trickle of people, 35 in all after two years of publicity, are members of the Government Relations Committee. These people are distributed through- out California and hopefully are start- ing arts advocacy campaigns in their areas. The word "hopefully" is used here because the Government Rela- tions Commission is a committee

where information only flows from the chairman to the members and not the other way around. This, of course, is the major weakness in the organiza- tion of the advocacy campaign.

Though committee members are urged to write, return stamped post- cards, or call collect, it just isn't hap- pening. The chairman sends out all the information and strategies but never learns what is actually being implemented.

It would seem obvious, then, that new organizational strategies are needed if there is ever to be an effective arts advocacy network. We are in the process of developing new methods which will give us a better idea of our effectiveness. For instance: we most certainly will rely more on personal contact by telephone rather than written materials. This will mean setting up a telephone network similar to what "Common Cause" has done. In other words, when information needs to be distributed, the chairperson will phone five people in various areas of the state.

TS

R:: -T/

Art Education December 1979 25

iis a



ADVANCE TO

To learn how to effectively support

arts education

fou may not have a butler, cook or chauffeur, but

you do have lots of public servants.

PEOPLE POWER

1. The League of Decency got Sears to withdraw support of "Charlie's Ang- els." How? They picketed Sears.

2. Two Los Angeles housewives started a national boycott of meat buying and were given credit for lowering meat prices.

BUT You don't have to join a group

to be effective.

LETTER POWER If you write to a legis- lator, every letter is counted as 100 based on the theory that there are 99 people who feel the same but did not write.

TELEPHONE POWER You can

call your legis- lator's local office

and talk to an aide. Your elected official !

will hearabout it .\ and you will

get a response.

PI4

l

L



They will in turn phone five each, who will then phone five more, and so on. In addition, the operation needs to depend less on one person and more on a group of people who can gather and disseminate information as needed.

We are also seeing the need of working more closely with all arts organizations, not just with those who support arts education. These include symphony leagues, theatre groups, community arts councils, museums, service clubs, etc. The severe cuts to arts programs both in and out of education dealt by Proposition 13 have made the total arts community more aware of their commonalities and less interested in their differences. And none too soon. For it is becoming in- creasingly obvious that in numerical strength lies power, and without power, the arts in education may very well perish.

Our other major commitment will be to work more closely with arts re- lated businesses. We have made some effort in this direction thanks to Jim Ward of Hunt Manufacturing. Jim has spoken to several firms around the state to help them see that supporting arts education makes good economic sense. We have put each of these firms in contact with someone in the community who can help form a nu- cleus of support.

CAEA Advocacy, Arts Education, and the Future of Art Education in California

CAEA has recognized the value of an advocacy program and has joined its efforts with those of other arts groups. Materials that can be used to present the value of arts education are available. Still we are somewhat uneasy about the future.

One of the emerging approaches to arts education that is receiving a great deal of attention in California is the use of the arts as "tools" for learning. The way this is implemented as curriculum in the classroom is what gives rise to problems. It is reasonable to include the arts as a part of studies of culture and as lively adjuncts to other areas of the curriculum. The question that remains is what are children learning about any particular art discipline? Where "arts as tools" programs are put into operation, we must

examine them to determine if they are based on a regular program of instruction in the arts. The effect often appears to be a lively program that in- cludes art, but there is little instruction in art itself.

A second approach to arts education, and often a basis for its advocacy, that is receiving notice goes under the general banner of "comprehensive arts." Within California, efforts have been made to keep this slogan at a level of abstraction that allows it to remain as a political rallying point. Arts educators, arts patrons, and public supportors of the arts in education are to work together to provide a "space" in education for the arts. As a position that masks many differences and allows for "coming together," this stance will likely continue to receive support from CAEA. Its effect will be seen as the "space" for arts increases, and the nature of programs that can develop with this kind of support emerges. What remains for art educators to determine is the role or space the visual arts will have in any new arts programs.

Both where arts education programs have continued and where new starts have begun, we can see exam- ples of each of the approaches just mentioned. In addition, there are a few classroom art specialist programs left and some artists in schools efforts that are visible to the public. This is all evidence that art education, while down, is not quite out. Yet, there are still some uneasy feelings.

We would suggest that our unease is caused by the still rather tenuous support most programs appear to have. The deep commitment to art as a basic requirement in education is not obvious in the school system of the state. Where support has been evident and programs continue, they often appear to be supported on the basis of the way the arts can enliven schooling. The special events of the arts and op- portunities for children's self- expression are the reasons given for their inclusion in the curriculum. The arts are seen as special programs, often supported by special funding, that are added on to the basic program of a school or district. When the special funding is withdrawn, the programs end.

To change this special add-on "frill" status of arts education, we would suggest two ideas as the basis

for advocacy in the future. First, we would suggest that the focus of art education, as presented for advocacy, be that of sequential instruction in the basic concepts and skills of art. This would provide children with a basic understanding of art which would serve as the foundation for using art as a tool for learning and participating in special programs such as artists in schools. Secondly, whenever there are comprehensive arts programs, we should insist that the outcomes be discipline-based. That is, where the visual arts are a part of comprehensive arts programs, we must insist that the visual arts be evaluated in terms of how they contribute to children's understanding of art. With these ideas as an anchor, advocacy can build a solid base of support for programs that will do more than recreate the frills that have been eliminated.

Dwaine Greer is president, California Art Education Association, and coor- dinator, Center for the Study of In- struction in the Arts, SWRL Educa- tional Research and Development, Los Alamitos.

Kay Tolladay is government relations chair, California Art Education Asso- ciation, and supervisor, Secondary Fine Arts, Fresno Unified School Dis- trict, Fresno, California.

Art Education December 1979 27



Documents

CAEA Art Education Advocacy in California