Uncovering the “Niceties” and “Bare Necessities” in Arts Education in Irish Elementary Schools

• In Event: Aesthetic and Practical Curriculum Subjects in Modern Primary Schooling: Nice or Just Necessary?

Abstract

Arts education curricula at elementary level in Ireland are underpinned by a rationale that claims that “much of what is finest in society is developed through a variety of art forms”, and that the arts provide “sensory, emotional, intellectual and creative enrichment which “contribute to the child’s holistic development” (Government of Ireland, 1999, p. 2). The purpose of this paper is to uncover generalist, elementary teachers’ perspectives on what might be regarded as the “niceties” and the “bare necessities” of arts curricula, notably in music, visual arts and physical education, and to explore these dualties of “nice” or “necessary” in the context of current shifts in education and arts education policy in Ireland.

The theoretical framework draws on theories of child-centered and constructivist curriculum (Bruner, 1996; Dewey, Vygotsky) and theories of teachers as curriculum makers (Schwab, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1983; Shulman, 1986, Clandinin & Connelly, 1992; 2000). Policy perspectives include curriculum development and evaluation, the recent emphasis on literacy and numeracy by the Department of Education and Skills, and the role of artists in education as envisioned by the Arts Council and the Department of Education and Skills.

The mode of inquiry is mixed research synthesis (Harden & Thomas, 2005; Heyvaert, Maes & Onghena (2013) that integrates findings from quantitative and qualitative studies Morse & Niehaus (2009) such as surveys and case studies or narratives of individual teachers at work. Data sources include previously published research (e.g., Irish National Teachers’ Organisation, 2007; 2009; National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2005) and unpublished research (Coulter, 2012; Murphy, 2012) that is synthesized to present an overall picture of the current state of play.

Results indicate that teachers value the arts in education, in particular from the perspective of a child as a learner, and within a holistic curriculum. However, within subject areas, traditional aspects of curriculum making persist for historical, cultural and embodied reasons, that defy the prescribed (written) curriculum frameworks. Teachers conflate what they consider to be “nice” with the “bare necessities” of arts education (e.g., playing games in PE, singing in music, drawing and using color in visual art) whilst eschewing opportunities to engage children in critical thinking within aesthetic areas and across areas of learning. Constraints of time (“curriculum overload”), space (increased class size) and money (austerity budgets) are compounded by more recent national policy imperatives that require greater teacher accountability in concentrating time and efforts on national strategic priorities in literacy and numeracy, rather than attending to the curriculum breadth as autonomous curriculum makers. Co-mingled with this are populist demands for usefulness of arts and artists.

The paper concludes by drawing attention to the fact that the realization of curriculum aims, and opportunities to develop sophisticated understandings and critical thinking in arts education are often missed. Furthermore, such opportunities may resonate with strategic priorities in education more closely than previously identified. Finally, a plea is made for pragmatism in arts curriculum advocacy and for exploring ways in which curriculum potential in arts education can be maximized.

Author

• Regina M. Murphy, DCU Institute of Education