Art in Primary Education: Aspects of Generalist Art

Teaching DAVID HOLT

Abstract This paper considers the practice of generalist teaching in primary schools, but with specific regard to the teaching of art. It argues that, despite recent criticism of such methods, there is very little reason to suppose that primary schools will move to a

pattern of wholesale specialist delivery of the curriculum within the foreseeable future. As a result, it suggests that the phenomenon of generalist art teaching is

likely to remain a widespread aspect of primary education, and that art educators would therefore do well to consider whether the approach might not have

something positive to offer the teaching of the subject. Accordingly, the paper provides an account of three significant advantages which it believes this method of teaching can offer to the teaching of art within the primary

school. These are set against a range of evidence which both identifies the problematical nature of much past practice, but which also demonstrates the

possibility of achieving quality in generalist art teaching. Finally, the relationship between previous problems in this area and the structure of teacher education is explored, and it is suggested that recent new requirements for such courses may

offer the prospect of liberating the potential that has been identified.

Background to the paper In the atmosphere of almost continuous change and debate which has characterised the English state education system over much of the past decade, a great deal of attention has quite prop- erly being given to examining the nature, pur- poses and effectiveness of primary education. One highly significant aspect of this process has been the emergence of new and more critical attitudes towards certain methods of curriculum organisation and delivery which have hitherto been regarded as being central to the notion of good primary education.

One such practice is strongly challenged by the Alexander Report, which presents a critique of traditional methods of curriculum organis- ation and delivery within the primary school [ll. Within this document, the wide-spread use of generalist teachers to deliver the whole of the

curriculum is identified as being potentially problematical. In many cases, it suggests, such teaching is likely to work against the achieve- ment of high standards within individual subject areas. Indeed, the Report is quite clear as to the difficulties that are inherent within such an approach, particularly given the extensive demands of the National Curriculum at Key Stages 1 and 2. In particular, it focuses upon the notion of ‘curricular expertise’, and asserts the vital importance of subject knowledge within this idea, and the manner in which this neces- sarily has to be integrated with other, and equ- ally important, professional qualities - such as ‘understanding how children learn, and the skills needed to teach subjects successfully’, if effective teaching is to take place.

Opinion is divided about the relative import- ance of the teacher’s subject knowledge . . . Our

ONSEAD, 1995

~~ ~

250 DAVID HOLT Art in Primary Education: Aspects of Generalist Art Teaching

own view is that subject knowledge is a critical factor at eve y point in the teaching process: in planning, assessing and diagnosing, task set- ting, questioning, explaining and giving feed- back. The key question to be answered is whether the class teacher system makes imposs- ible demands on the subject knowledge of the generalist primaly teacher. We believe that it does. As a result of the perceived weaknesses of this traditional approach to curriculum delivery, the Report advocates consideration of a greater deployment of subject specialists within the pri- mary school, particularly at the upper end of the age phase.

Given contemporary political and edu- cational concerns with regard to the raising of standards and the delivery of what is effectively a subject-based secondary-style curriculum at primary level, the Alexander Report is likely to be influential in determining the shape of future developments within the overall field of primary education. Indeed, there are already some indications that this could indeed be the case. Certainly, much of the Report’s value appears to be reflected in currently emerging developments concerned with the content, structure and outcomes of teacher training courses, where an increasing emphasis is being placed upon the development of students’ abili- ties to function in a specialist capacity [a]. Simi- larly, it may also be apparent in comments made during a recent lecture by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools, criticising what is described as the ‘unhelpful influence’ of ‘pro- gressive’ methods [31.

Approach of the paper Whilst the findings of the Alexander Report are clearly concerned with primary education as a whole, the purpose of this paper will be rather more specific. In accordance with my own pro- fessional concerns and research interests, it will seek to examine the significance of what the Report has to say with particular regard to the practice of generalist art teaching in primary schools.

To some extent, the criticisms of traditional

primary teaching methods identified above are inevitable consequences of the imposition of a subject-based National Curriculum which makes little concession to the very real edu- cational, developmental and logistical impera- tives which necessarily dominate the work of primary schools. However, whilst the notion of a wholesale change to subject-based teaching delivered by specialists within the primary school may or may not be an appropriate objec- tive for educationists to consider, there appears very little reason to suppose that it represents one that is at all achievable. Indeed, it seems highly improbable that any government would be prepared to take the very real risks that would inevitably be associated with the implementation of such a policy.

Such risks would operate at several levels. They would be political, in that a move of this kind would inevitably require the closing down or amalgamation of substantial numbers of smaller schools, many of which would undoubtedly be situated in politically sensitive rural areas; economic, in that the costs of initiat- ing such a profound change would clearly be substantial and continuing; and professional, in that (as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector has also recently made clear) support for both generalist and integrated approaches remains extremely high amongst primary teachers. Accordingly, any attempt to impose what would undouht- edly be viewed by a majority of primary teach- ers as an inappropriate system would certainly run the risk of provoking a substantial reaction.

If a general move to specialist teaching within the primary school is unlikely, then a more piecemeal approach would seem to be equally problematical, at least where art is concerned. If such a partial shift were to be attempted - say through the use of peripatetic teachers - it would seem unlikely to be applied to a subject like art, which has already been somewhat mar- ginalised, not only by traditional public (and thus political) perceptions of the subject, but also by its current location outside the core, and by its removal from the mandatory post - 14 curriculum. Even if such a peripatetic system were to be instituted, it is only necessary to look at the troubled history of similar approaches to

0 NSEAD, I995

DAVID HOLT Art in Primarv Education: AsDects of Generalist Art Teachina 25 1

the teaching of music within the primary sector, in order to see what a fragile and vulnerable solution this would represent, particularly in troubled economic times.

Given that there is little reason to suppose that generalist teaching will cease to be any- thing other than a widespread feature of pri- mary education within the foreseeable future, the paper will suggest that rather deeper con- sideration therefore needs to be given to the approach as it impacts upon the teaching of art at this level. In general, the argument will func- tion as a defence of this way of working, although it will not be blind to the problems which its use can create. Nevertheless, the approach will be generally positive. It w-ill sug- gest that, although the importance of subject knowledge at primary level is undeniable, the significance of this is currently overstated. It will then seek to argue that the generalist approach offers at least three quite specific advantages to the teaching of art, which educators in this area of the curriculum would be unwise either to ignore or minimise. Finally, some attempt will be made to look at the weaknesses of generalist art teaching as they have been perceived over the years, and consideration will be given to the possibility of the potential advantages identified within the paper actually being realised in prac- tice.

The significance of subject knowledge The Alexander Report rightly identifies the important role played by subject knowledge within effective teaching. However, it is most important that the undoubted significance of this should not be exaggerated. Clearly, it is impossible for teachers to teach anything unless they know enough about the subject in ques- tion. However, it is equally apparent that, beyond a certain necessary and quite irreduc- ible minimum - clearly related to the level at which the teaching is undertaken - the pos- session of subject knowledge is no guarantee of pedagogical excellence. At all levels of edu- cation, it is possible to encounter teachers who, although highly knowledgeable and competent

in their subjects, are nevertheless quite unable, either to teach these coherently, or to motivate their pupils to learn. This is by no means an unusual experience, and most educated per- sons will have their own memories of such unfortunate encounters.

Accordingly, it s e e m far too simplistic to sug- gest that a wholesale switch to specialist teach- ing in the primary school would automatically lead to a raising of standards. In some cases it might; equally, in others, it might not. However, where things did improve, it would be likely to be the quality of the teaching - as opposed to the quality of the subject knowledge (which would presumably be approximately equal in the case of most specialists) - which would make the difference. Thus, to suppose that there is always a direct, proportionate relation- ship between the level of a teacher’s subject knowledge, and the excellence of their teach- ing, is a highly misleading assumption.

Of course, where primary teachers are con- cerned, there is a clear need for many of them to develop rather more adequate levels of knowledge and understanding about art, and the possibility of achieving this will be returned to later in this paper. However, providing that they can be helped to acquire the required adequacy referred to above, then the generalist approach is capable of offering a number of sig- nificant advantages to the teaching of art, and these will now be considered.

Three possible advantages of the generalist approach to the teaching of art Supporting the learner One of the objectives of a primary art education must surely be to help children to work confi- dently within this area of the curriculum, and to achieve a growing technical competence in the use of materials and processes. However, on an emotional level, it is quite clear that the experience of making art within school is, at particular times, likely to be deeply problematic for many, and perhaps for most, individuals. This is because, when properly undertaken, the

0 NSEAD. 1995

252 DAVID HOLT Art in Primary Education: AsDects of Generalist Art Teachina

activity of art necessarily involves both the mak- ing of visual statements of a deeply personal and expressive nature, as well as the sub- sequent exposure of these products within the highly public social context that is the class- room. As a result, it is entirely unsurprising that the experience always carries with it the possi- bility of individuals experiencing feelings of iso- lation, vulnerability and inadequacy as a result of their engagement with the process.

Of course, when pupils first enter the primary school, there is not likely to be much of a prob- lem in this respect. As a number of researchers in this field have made very clear [4], children who are still in the early stages of their social and intellectual development typically adopt a very robust and egocentric attitude to their art work, which very largely protects them from the difficulties outlined above. However, this per- iod of self-sufficiency does not last long. As chil- dren pass from infancy into childhood, they experience what one writer has referred to as a ‘second shock to the development of mind, and it i s this that finally removes them from that earl- ier egocentric state which has hitherto protected them from the more threatening aspects of the practice of art. With the development of this wider awareness and the increasing socialis- ation which attends it, the child becomes increasingly aware of viewpoints, standards and opinions that exist beyond itself, and of the gulf that exists between these phenomena and its own work. As a result, the child’s response to image making is thrown into crisis:

Seven is often referred to as the age of self awareness. It is the age where there is a curi- osity about eqrience, about things, people, events andplaces. mis leads the child to realise that the way he sees the world and how it actu- ally is are two dfferent things [51.

Whilst the emergence of such a crisis marks a critical point in the child’s development, it also just as clearly represents a key challenge to the teaching of art within the primary school. Cer- tainly, if wrongly handled, it can lead on to the phenomenon which Barnes has characterised as the ‘shrinking artist’ [61. This is characterised by a growing frustration with and loss of inter-

est in the subject on the part of the child, and culminates in their effective withdrawal from the activity. Barnes also makes the point that this process is often actively supported by par- ents, who, aware of their children’s difficulties, actively encourage the tendency, in order to concentrate their work upon what are seen as more ‘important’ activities such as reading and writing. This problem of a growing and disas- trous loss of confidence with regard to art has also been noted by a number of other writers in the field. Clement, for example, identifies the probability of such unsupported children suffer- ing a terminal loss of confidence at this stage:

It is all too easy at this stage for children to lose their confidence in their ability and to decide that ‘I‘m no good at art’ or ‘I can’t draw’ [7l.

Similarly, Morgan refers to the danger of the child growing ‘disillusioned’ with earlier art work, and points up the need for sensitive and informed teaching in order to support children during this difficult time [8]. In much the same way, other writers point to the need for learners caught within this problematical developmental situation to be helped towards the awareness that, in art, there are always a number of ‘right’ solutions to each visual problem 191.

The significance of this to the practice of gen- eralist teaching is very plain. Given that all chil- dren moving up through the primary school will, at some time, be passing through this prob- lematical stage in their development, there is a clear need for them to be supported. At one level, the need is clearly educational, in the sense that, if what might perhaps be called quality subject support is not forthcoming, then the child’s artistic development - and thus their art education - is unlikely to progress very much further. However, where primary chil- dren are concerned, it should be clearly under- stood that there is also likely to be a profoundly emotional dimension to this situation as well. Given that the crisis is inevitably caught up with substantial issues of personal confidence and self esteem, such children will also need to receive emotional support from someone whom they both know and trust, and who also knows them extremely well. Generalist teachers

0 NSVID, I905

DAVID HOLT Art in Primarv Education AsDects of Generalist Art Teachina 253

are likely to have the closest of relationships with their pupils, which will have been built up over comparatively long periods of time. As a result, they are clearly best placed to provide the kind of support that will help children through and beyond this difficult period in their art education.

Understanding the nature and purposes of art A second objective of primary art education must surely be to develop children’s under- standing of art in a way that is appropriate to their age and stage of development. An important aspect of this kind of learning is com- ing to know something about the reasons that artists typically have for the things that they do. At least one writer has pointed to the distinctive origins of expressive activity of all kinds in terms of a response to experience that is in some way personally significant [lo]. In edu- cational terms, this would seem to be a parti- cularly important consideration. It is clearly sometimes very hard to comprehend the activity of art, without also having some understanding as to the kinds of reasons and intentions which necessarily underpin such activity. Certainly, the bemused and sometimes openly hostile adult response to art which is so often observ- able would seem to indicate the past failures of art education in this regard.

Of course, in the largely activity and explo- ration based generalist approaches to primary art education which flourished during the nine- teen sixties and seventies, children’s under- standing of the nature and purposes of art as a cultural phenomenon was not really an issue. In those days, the focus of most art education within the primary school was radically differ- ent, although apparently no less problematical for teachers. The Plowden Report of 1967 was apparently largely content with the situation with regard to primary school art, declaring that, at its best, it was ‘very good indeed’ [lll. However, in time, the situation clearly deterio- rated. Writing some nine years later, Dixon, identifies the difficulty and superficiality of much generalist art teaching of the time: . . . the teachers tended to find great difficulty in presenting new things for their children to

do. mere was a man called H e n y Pluckrose who seemed to think up lots of things for them to t y and a monthly Art and Craft magazine which supposedly contained lots of good ideas D21.

Nor was this apparently exclusively a British problem; for example, Eisner identifies a similar superficiality in American approaches at this time, which he associates with an over empha- sis on providing children with an over-large var- iety of materials and processes on the grounds that such an experience is necessarily stimulat- ing [131. Similarly, Barkan, writing about the dif- ficulties experienced by teachers with regard to the teaching of art, makes the conceptual con- fusion that was endemic during this period very clear indeed:

. . . teachers judge the effectiveness of their teaching in terms of the number of different media they include. T%e more media theypro- vide, the better they think they are teaching; the more varieties of media their children experi- ence, the better they assume the learning to be . . . .Most of them are on aperpetual hunt not only for more media but also for new ones D41. Whilst the understanding of art - as opposed to the superficial understanding of materials and processes - was apparently not a general edu- cational objective during this period, the same is clearly not true today. Within the current requirements of the National Curriculum for art, there is an expectation that children will begin to develop not only their technical grasp of materials and processes, but also their ability to make use of such skills for the distinctive pur- poses of art; that is, in order to respond to, and make sense of, significant personal experience. For example, within the Programmes of Study for Attainment Target 1 (Investigating and Making) at Key Stage 1, there is the requirement that pupils should ‘record what has been experienced, observed and imagined’. This is further refined at Key Stage 2 (Knowledge and Understanding), and also expanded to include the ability to use such material more selectively for individual purposes. Similarly, the Pro- grammes of Study for Attainment Target 2 at Key Stages 1 and 2 both require that pupils

0 NSEAD. I995

254 DAVID HOLT Art in Primary Education. Amects of Generalist Art Teachina

should respond to ‘the ideas, methods or approaches used in different styles and tra- ditions’ of art, but at a progressively more soph- isticated level.

Thus, the overall aim of art education in the primary school may be seen as having shifted from the essentially random experiencing of technical processes earlier described. Instead, it is now directed towards the development of a rather deeper understanding. This includes not only the achievement of technical competence in certain defined areas (since the Dearing Review, identified as drawing, painting, printmaking, collage and sculpture), but also the development of some understanding of the nature and purposes of art within the context of human experience.

If primary children are indeed to come to understand that art is concerned with individual response to personal experience, then there are implications for classroom practice. Above all, it would seem important that, whenever poss- ible, art work should be based upon direct experience that has in some way moved the children. It is important to note that this term is used here in a quite specific way. In everyday usage, it is of course employed to signify a dee- ply emotional and perhaps even upsetting sen- sation. However, in this context, the meaning is rather more general. Quite simply, it is intended to signify any significant emotional response that may be generated in children by experi- ence. It will therefore include considerations such as interest, excitement, curiosity, affection, wonder, and so on. In other words, experience that ‘moves’ children is anything that makes a significant emotional impression upon them, and which therefore provides an opportunity for them to make an expressive response through the use of materials. In this way, it becomes possible for children to begin to have the experience of working like artists, and thus come to a deeper understanding of the nature of the activity.

Accordingly, it becomes vitally necessary for the primary teacher of art to have a clear view of exactly where children’s interests and excite- ments lie at any given moment, for it is in such areas that the best opportunities for meaningful

art work will be found. Clearly, generalists are in a position of considerable advantage in this respect. At any given time, they will have a clear understanding of the state and nature of their children’s enthusiasms. This is so, not only as a result of their close and continuing engagement with the class, but also because they will almost certainly have generated many of these interests themselves through the agency of their own teaching in other areas of the curriculum. Additionally, the close personal knowledge which generalists inevitably develop about their pupils will also mean that they are often in a position to identify individual interests which might form the basis for meaningful art work.

Effective management of curriculum time There is clearly a close relationship between the practice of art and the achievement of quality. Given that art necessarily involves the shaping of expressive materials in order to make sense of ideas and feelings, it inevitably involves a thinking, as well as a practical, process. One of the objectives of primary art education must therefore be to help children understand this aspect of the activity.

The nature of art as an essentially reflexive process is recognised within the National Cur- riculum, where there is a clear expectation that children will begin to develop some familiarity with the process of dialogue that necessarily exists, both within and between individual pieces of art work. For example, in the Pro- gramme of Study for Attainment Target 1 (Investigating and Making) at Key Stage 1, pupils are expected to be able to ‘review what they have done and describe what they might change in future work’. This is developed further at Key Stage 2 , where the requirement is much more precisely focused upon the ability to ‘reflect on and adapt their work in the light of what they intended and consider what they might develop in future work’. All this clearly signals an entirely justifiable concern with qual- ity. This is so, not only in terms of the use of materials, but also with regard to the nature of the thinking process which necessarily under- lies work in art.

The major consequence of this concern for

0 NSEAD. I995

DAVID HOLT Art in Primarv Education: AsDects of Generalist Art Teachina 255

quality lies in the importance of time. By defi- nition, art work cannot be hurried if it is to achi- eve its educational purposes, and there is thus a need for children to have sufficient time to develop their ability to work thoughtfully and with care. As a result, the generalist teacher is once again quite clearly in an advantageous position. Because of the nature of generalist teaching, it is possible for such teachers to man- age the total time available within the curricu- lum in such a way as to provide sufficient for children to be able to develop the quality of response that is identified above. At this point, it is most important to register that this is not an attempt to claim more time for art at the expense of other subjects. Indeed, in a curricu- lum which, despite the recent reforms, still appears to be somewhat overloaded, this would clearly be unrealistic, as well as unprofessional. However, what can be achieved so easily by the generalist is the thoughtful manipulation of curriculum time in such a way that it is offered to children in a more concentrated form. This, of course, means the abandonment of the tra- ditional primary view of art as a weekly entitlement. However, the educational benefits of fewer, but necessarily more intense, engage- ments with the subject might well be worthy of such a sacrifice.

Perceptions of qeneralist art teach-in g

-

Notwithstanding the potential strengths of the generalist approach, it is clear that, in the past, there have been significant problems associated with this form of art teaching as it has actually manifested itself within the schools. Indeed, in the period between the publication of the larg- ely optimistic Plowden Report and the rather more cautionary account of arts education pro- vided by Gulbenkian [151, it is possible to trace a pattern of deepening concern about the qual- ity of such work. This is exemplified in the increasingly negative assessments made by a succession of official investigations [16] which touch on the quality of primary art education. These documents consistently identify difficult- ies associated with lack of achievement at the

upper end of the primary age range, poor stan- dards of teaching, and lack of confidence amongst generalist teachers. Similarly, work by others identifies the confusion that is apparent amongst many generalists operating within this subject area [171. The crisis is perhaps brought most sharply into focus by the view of the 1978 Schools Council Bulletin, which asserts that:

nere is a genuine belief amongst art educators that the last decade has seen something of a decline in the quality and purpose of work in art in the 7-11 age range 1181. However, whilst there undoubtedly is a sub- stantial amount of evidence available within the literature to support this largely negative impression, it is important to realise that there is also an alternative perspective. Fortunately, there is a smaller but nevertheless highly per- suasive body of material which tells a rather dif- ferent story. For example, any examination of the accounts by Marshall [191 and Armstrong [201 of practice within specific individual pri- mary schools and classrooms, cannot but regis- ter the very high quality of the art work pro- duced within these situations. Similarly, at least one official publication [211 celebrates the qual- ity of art work within junior education, and more recently, a substantial account of such excellence has been provided by Clement and Tarr [221, who trace the art teaching of a single primary school throughout an entire academic year. Additionally, a number of accounts of good practice in primary art education have been published in the period around the intro- duction of the National Curriculum [23]. Without exception, these also provide documentary evi- dence to support the view that good generalist art teaching is not only possible within the con- text of the primary school, but is actually occur- ring in a growing number of such situations.

Conclusion This paper has argued that the generalist approach provides certain distinct opportunities to the practice of art education within the pri- mary school which are capable of leading to high standards within this area of the curricu-

0 NSEAD. 1995

256 DAVID HOLT Art in Primarv Education: AsDects of Generalist Art Teachina

lum. These advantages are to be found in the extent to which such teachers are able to offer genuine emotional support to children passing through challenging developmental transitions, in the way in which it is necessarily easier for them to render art work more properly reflec- tive of the nature of the activity by locating it firmly within the context of children’s current interests, and the relative ease with which they can deploy curriculum time in order to maxi- mise the chances of pupils achieving the quality of response which good art education demands.

That such quality of teaching is achievable within the primary sector is entirely clear. Even from the limited evidence that has been con- sidered within this paper, there are reasonable grounds for supposing that recent practice in schools is much improved. This judgement is certainly supported to some extent by a recent official publication concerned with standards in the teaching of art [241, which describes 68 per- cent of art lessons at Key Stage 1 as being satis- factory or better. At Key Stage 2, the figure is rather lower at 58 percent. The majority of tea- chers involved are characterised as ‘working hard’, but their limited experience with materials and lack of knowledge of the subject are identified as being problematical.

The reason for such deficiencies is not hard to find. Without doubt, it is related to the man- ner in which primary teachers have traditionally been trained. Here, it is important to remember that, for many years, teacher education has either chosen - or been obliged - to operate systems in which students have devoted the

major part of their degree course to the study of a single subject. Even before the 1988 Edu- cation Reform Act, there was something faintly awkward about such an arrangement for intending primary teachers, but since the emergence of the National Curriculum, the practice has become somewhat grotesque. Of course, this is emphatically not to argue against the need for primary practitioners to develop an area of the curriculum in which they have a particular strength and interest, for this is clearly important in both personal and professional terms. Instead, it is simply to assert that the requirement to use so much of the total training time available in the study of a single subject area has, for many years, worked against the proper preparation of generalists, who have usually received only a minimal preparation for the teaching of their non specialist subjects like art [251. Given such an imbalance, it is hardly surprising that so many investigators have reported difficulties associated with primary teachers’ lack of knowledge and understanding in this area of the curriculum. Fortunately, with the recent emergence of new criteria for teacher education in DFE Circular 14/93, the require- ment to devote half of a student’s total training to a single area has disappeared. Consequently, it may at last prove possible to prepare primary teachers in a more rational manner, and thus maximise the chances of liberdting the potential of the generalist system. Where the study of art at primary level is concerned, there may be much to gain.

David Holt

References

1 Alexander, R., Rose, J. and Woodhead, C. (1992) Curriculum Organisation and Classroom Practice. HMSO

2 Department for Education (1993) m e Initial Training of Prima y School Teachers. Circular 14‘93 England), HMSO

3 Hackett, G. (1995) ‘Woodhead castigates

progressives’. Times Educational Supplement, Friday, 27th January, 1995

4 Steveni, M. (1963) Art and Education. Batsford 5 Gentle, K. (1985) Children and Art Teaching.

Croom Helm 6 Barnes, R. (1989) Teaching Art to Young

Children 49. Allen and Unwin 7 Clement, R. (1990) A Framework for Art, Craft

0 NSMD. I995

DAVID HOLT Art in Primarv Education: Aspects of Generalist Art Teachina 257

and Design in the Primary School. Devon Education

8 Morgan, M. (1988) Art 4-11, Basil Blackwell 9 Rubens, M. & Newland, M. (1989) A Tool for

Learning. Direct Experience 10 Witkin, R. (1974) 7%e Intelligence of Feeling.

Heinemann 11 Central Advisory Committee on Education.

(1967) Children and their Primary Schools. HMSO

12 Dixon, P. (1976) ‘Art and Craft - Point and Purpose’, Education 3-13. October, pp. 75-80

13 Eisner, E. (1972) Educating Artistic Vision. Macmillan

14 Barkan, M. (1962) ‘Transition in Art Education’, Art Education. Vol. 15, no. 7 pp. 12-18

15 Gulbenkian Foundation. (1982) B e Arts in Schools. Gulbenkian Foundation

16 DES (1971) Education Suntey Number 11: Art in Schools. HMSO; DES (1978) Primary Education in England. HMSO; and DES (1982) Education 5-9. HMSO

17 Holt, D. (1989) ‘Grasping the nettle: the arts in

18

19

20

21 22

23

24

25

primary education’, in: Ross, M. (Ed.) m e Claims of Feeling. Falmer Schools Council (1978) Art Committee Occasional Bulletin. Art 7-1 1. Schools Council Marshall, S . (1963) A n Experiment in Education. Cambridge University Press Armstrong, M. (1980) Closely Observed Children. Writers and Readers DES (1978) Art in Junior Education. HMSO Clement, R. and Tam, E. (1992) A Year in the Art of a Primary School. NSEAD Clement, R. & Page, S. (1992) Principles and Practice in Art. Oliver & Boyd; Clement, R. & Page, S. (1992) Investigating and Making in Art, Oliver & Boyd; Clement, R. & Page, S. (1992) Knowledge and Understanding in Art. Oliver & Boyd; Barnes (1989) Op. cit. and Morgan (1988) Op. cit Office for Standards in Education (1993) Art Key Stages I , 2 and 3, First Year 1992-93: m e implementation of the curricular requirements of the Education Reform Act. HMSO DES (1982) B e New Teacher in School. HMSO

ONSEAD, 1995