Eisner discusses the structure of art classes in elementary school. He accurately points out that they are usually scheduled during the afternoons and often on Fridays. He compares this with the work week highlighting the notion that you work hard on STEM and English/Social Studies subjects and get rewarded with art subjects on Friday afternoon. Thus, we end up associating art with play. A broader implication of this is that art shouldn’t be taken seriously; if we categorize what should and shouldn’t be taken seriously then we also put positive and negative connotations on them as well (waste of time).
Eisner also uses an excerpt from what Mumford wrote; in it he discusses the pervasiveness of machinery in our society. This notion that regardless of it’s purpose/usefulness we invent, utilize and put power (and resources) towards industrial goods. I thought this was interesting because although we do this with material things (especially machinery/technology), we don’t do the same with different forms of thinking. Because we have emphasized industrialization, anything that does not contribute to it has no purpose and schools with their curriculum are an extension of this ideology.
This reading teaches us the importance of understanding the entirety of the function of school(s). Perhaps we need to start defining curriculum differently, coming up with a new name/description for the subject content that is taught (and in some ways, emphasized). After that, we start to break down all the other implications that we create through traditional school and take the aggregate to form our curriculum – which would be redefined to include the entirety of school. Doing this also allows to go back and change different parts of school to ensure that the curriculum accurately depicts society’s intentions with school.
Although this reading from Eisner is over twenty years old, you can still see some of the same features in the BC secondary graduation requirements today. Math, science and language arts are emphasized (through their separate credit requirements) while arts, applied design and technologies are grouped together. There is however significant improvement with a much more even distribution amongst the different subject areas/disciplines.
You make a great point about how, even though Eisner’s article is over twenty years old, many of the same patterns still exist in the BC secondary graduation requirements. I agree that subjects like math, science, and language arts are still emphasized through separate credit requirements, while arts and applied design are grouped together. However, I also appreciate your observation about the progress made toward a more balanced distribution of subjects. It’s interesting to think about how far we’ve come in broadening the curriculum while still reflecting some of the same educational priorities Eisner critiqued.
ReplyDelete