Copyright 2010 by the National Art Education Association
Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research
2010, 51(2), 162-175
“Art teachers
must be able to
confront their
cultural biases
and incorporate
the values and
beliefs of students
and surrounding
community
in curricular
decision-making.”
Multicultural Art Education in
an Era of Standardized Testing:
Changes in Knowledge and Skill for
Art Teacher Certification in Texas
Amelia Kraehe
The University of Texas at Austin
This article explores changes in multicultural knowledge and skill
to which beginning art teachers are held accountable through
standardized teacher testing in Texas. Standardized testing of
preservice art teachers’ knowledge and skill has been the basis of
the state’s certification of beginning art teachers and accreditation
of art teacher preparation programs for over 20 years. Using
qualitative and quantitative content analysis, the 1986 and 2007
art content standards were compared and contrasted for their
inclusion of and approaches to multicultural art education. Theories
of multicultural art education and postcolonial theory informed
the analysis of the standards. Implications of the standards for
teaching for diversity, equity, and social justice in the art classroom
are considered.
Correspondence regarding this article may be sent to the author at The
University of Texas at Austin, Sanchez Building, 518F, 1 University Station D
6100, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: [email protected]
This article derives from master’s thesis research conducted under the
guidance of Paul E. Bolin. Findings were presented at the National Art
Education Association Annual Convention, March 2008.
162
Kraehe / Art Teacher Certification in Texas
O
ne of the challenging aspects of
being a successful art teacher is
comprehending and integrating
the many variables that constitute a full
education in the visual arts. The art cur-
riculum is a composite of cultural expressions,
the values and experiences students and
teachers bring with them into the classroom,
and the social context of the learning environment (Ballengee-Morris, Stuhr, & PetrovichMwaniki, 2001; Knight, 2006; McFee & Degge,
1977). Effective art education requires knowledge and skills about education, art, and
sociocultural influences on and within these
fields. Using whatever knowledge and skill
they possess, art teachers make pedagogical
decisions that affect the quality of students’
engagement with art forms, traditions, and
meanings. This is as much the case for art
teachers in the first year of teaching as it is at
any time in their careers.
This article argues that the knowledge and skills
required of newly certified art teachers should
reflect the changing cultural realities of schooling.
As education specialists explicitly charged with
cultivating cultural knowledge in young people,
school art teachers have traditionally presented a
Western art canon that traces its origins through
Western Europe back to classical Greece and
have applied formalism as a universal aesthetic
standard for interpreting and judging visual art
(Collins & Sandell, 1992; Hamblen, 1997). Often the
art classroom is a space in which discriminatory
values from the dominant culture are reinforced by
privileging the artworks and traditions of the economic and political elite (Bersson, 1987; Wasson,
Stuhr, & Petrovich-Mwaniki, 1990). Recognizing
the growing diversity of students across the United
States, it is imperative that today’s beginning art
teachers possess the critical knowledge and skills
to successfully address the educational needs of all
their students.
Texas, one of the most linguistically and ethnically diverse states (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003,
2006), recently revised its art teacher competency
standards. The previous standards and corresponding certification examination for state teacher
licensure had been in use since 1986. After two
decades of the same standards for assessing art
teacher knowledge and skills, the newly revised
competencies represent the latest consensus
among art education leaders regarding art content
and pedagogical content knowledge that will
guide the preparation of art teachers in Texas in the
future. In the current context of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), teacher certification is
accorded greater national significance as a measure
of “highly qualified teachers” (U.S. Department of
Education, 2006). The NCLB mandate for teacher
certification is an intervention meant to address
the persistent inequalities in educational outcomes
linked to factors of race, social class, language, and
disability. Therefore, the knowledge base underlying state-level teacher certification exams should
be scrutinized for its consistency with research on
education for diversity (Banks, 2009). Moreover, the
national influence of this bellwether state suggests
the changes made in Texas’ art teacher standards
may affect the adoption of similar educational
reforms elsewhere (Daun-Barnett & Perorazio,
2006).1
In this article, I present findings from the
content analysis portion of a larger mixed-methods
comparative study of the revisions made to the art
teacher standards that are the basis for teacher
certification in the state of Texas. The initial study
Studies in Art Education / Volume 51, No. 2
163
addressed the changes made in the multicultural
knowledge and skills included in the Texas all-level
art content standards for initial teacher certification. Using theories of multicultural art education
and postcolonial theory, I discuss the study’s implications for art teacher education in Texas and consider the larger political shifts toward discursive
ambiguity that may be more broadly reflective of
school-based art education throughout the United
States.
Multicultural Art Education and
Postcolonial Critiques
Many multicultural education (Gay, 2002;
Ladson-Billings, 1994; Sleeter & Grant, 2007; Villegas
& Lucas, 2002) and art education scholars (Collins
& Sandell, 1992; Stuhr, 1994; Wasson et al., 1990)
have argued that there are particular knowledge
and skills that teachers need in order to deliver
quality and equitable instruction to diverse student
populations. Wasson et al. (1990) posit that, when
studying art, one must consider the cultural location of the makers and the context of the making.
Art teachers must be able to confront their cultural
biases and incorporate the values and beliefs of
students and surrounding community in curricular decision-making. According to Wasson et al.,
multicultural art teachers adopt anthropological
methods to understand the ways in which cultural
groups’ values and beliefs enter into the creation of
aesthetic forms. They also assert that multicultural
art teachers should be able and willing to create
culturally responsive classroom environments that
foster critical consciousness by assisting historically
disempowered groups in reclaiming their “voices.”
Multiculturalism has been critiqued by many
within the fields of art education (Desai, 2000,
2003), cultural studies in education (McCarthy,
1993, 2004), literary criticism (Said, 1993), and communications (Shohat & Stam, 1994). These authors
often draw from postcolonial theories to complicate assimilationist, pluralist, and transformative
perspectives held by many proponents of multiculturalism by highlighting the discursive production
164
Kraehe / Art Teacher Certification in Texas
of essentialist cultural representations within disciplinary knowledge.
In schools, multicultural education most often
has meant adding benign content about marginalized groups to a Eurocentric curriculum that
assumes a single, fixed Euro-American identity at
its core (McCarthy, Giardina, Harewood, & Park,
2003). Despite prolonged efforts by radical progressive educators, increasing globalization of art
markets, migratory lifestyles of artists, and slippage
between popular culture and conventional fine
arts (Desai, 2005), Eurocentrism continues to function via the Western constructions of “objective”
knowledge about the non-West that, over time,
create fairly stabilized discourses of the Other (Said,
1978). In promoting a Western fine art canon for a
linguistically and socioculturally heterogeneous
population of students in Texas, schools institutionalize dominant Eurocentric discourses via curricula,
practices, and teacher and student evaluations.
Shohat and Stam (1994) suggest that, because
of its legacy of racism and colonial ambitions,
Europe—and by implication the entire “West”—has
written Africa and Asia out of its history by refusing to acknowledge the synthesis of non-European
cultures within the West. They argue that systems
of oppression within the (re)production of the West
allow racism to articulate with classism, sexism,
and heterosexism in support of a hegemonic
Eurocentric view of the world. Said (1993) calls for
a reintegration of marginalized groups into the
center of American knowledge, not as a gesture of
displacement of Europe but rather to reconstitute
what was always at the center of Americanness. As
a strategy for recentering the lost America, Shohat
and Stam (1994) propose a polycentric multiculturalism that privileges the double consciousness of
those on society’s margins. They argue that peripheral positions often are spaces from which more
complete knowledge is formed.
Desai (2000) speaks to the importance of
teacher positionality in curricular decision-making. Especially when teaching a multicultural curriculum, art teachers ought to recognize their “own
social position within matrices of domination and
subordination in relation to the culture [they]
intend to represent … [Here] domination is not
understood as a single axis. Rather, domination is
multiple, contradictory and always situational” (p.
127). Drawing attention to the incommensurability of knowing another culture, Desai suggests that
epistemic violence stemming from supposedly
“authentic” and “accurate” representations of different groups can be reduced in multicultural art education. She urges art teachers to acknowledge how
their understandings of other cultures are, necessarily, products of their own subject positions, and
thus, limited.
Methodology
In order to understand (a) the changes in the
content and structure of the codified knowledge
of art in Texas and (b) the underlying assumptions
about teaching, learning, knowledge, and cultural
identity that shape the Texas approach to multicultural art education, the 1986 Texas art certification
standards were compared to the newly revised
2007 standards using content analysis (Neuendorf,
2002).2 First, the content of the standards documents were unitized so that each standard constituted one unit to be coded for the presence
of multicultural art education variables. Second,
apriori variables were formulated from close readings of the standards documents and the existing
literature on multicultural art education. One set of
variables addressed multiculturalists’ concerns with
sociocultural factors, inequitable distribution of
power and allocation of resources in society, intergroup relations, and situated learning. Another set
of variables constituted three broad art education
categories: (a) the nature of a teacher’s work with
children; (b) concepts and processes that are used
for producing and understanding art objects and
other cultural artifacts; and (c) artists, artworks,
and artifacts studied in art education. A sample of
the content was then coded in order to check for
consistency and to verify that the variables were
independent, mutually exclusive, and exhaustive
(Weber, 1985). Rates of frequency for each vari-
able were calculated for quantitative comparisons
across the 1986 and 2007 standards. Finally, the frequency measures of the document contents were
“qualitized” (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998, p. 129)
and reanalyzed using Miles and Huberman’s (1994)
inductive process of identifying, coding, and verifying themes.
Discussion of Findings
Movement toward Cultural Inclusion
(Mis)understanding culture. Multicultural is a
term that unequivocally would address multicultural concerns in the standards revision process.
Though there was no statement in the 1986 or 2007
standards containing any variation of multicultural,
culture(s)/cultural increased from 3.1% frequency in
the 1986 standards to 15.1% in 2007 (see Table 1).
Not only was there strong growth in the use of these
terms, but culture went from being narrowly featured in only one of the five categories of standards
in 1986—“Art, Culture, and Heritage”—to being
used in four of the five categories in 2007—artistic perception, media production, art criticism and
aesthetics, and art history.
In the 2007 revisions, culture(s)/cultural was particularly prominent in the category devoted to “art
histories and diverse cultures” (Texas State Board
for Educator Certification [TSBEC], 2004, p. 1). It
is crucial here to note the use of the plural forms
histories and cultures. This subtle shift in language,
combined with the vast increase in the frequency
of culture(s)/cultural, implies a greater awareness
and appreciation of multiple perspectives and traditions in the visual arts, if not a deliberate rejection
of a Western meta-narrative of art history.
Culture(s)/cultural was used in various ways in
the revised standards. Culture was often equated
with social groups and static notions of customs
as opposed to an ever-changing sociohistorical
process of adaptation, knowledge production, and
transmission. One such standard stated, “different
cultures use art elements and principles to create
art and convey meaning in different ways” (TSBEC,
2004, p. 6). This example showed how cultures were
Studies in Art Education / Volume 51, No. 2
165
Table 1. Rate of Frequency of Multicultural Education Variables
in 1986 and 2007 Art Standards
Not Present in 1986 nor 2007
(0%)
1986
(in order of importance
as determined by rate of
frequency)
2007
(in order of importance
as determined by rate of
frequency)
Multicultural
Personal/Individual/Self (7.7%)
Culture(s)/Cultural (15.1%)
Cultural similarities
Social/Societal/Society (4.6%)
Different/Difference(s) (11.8%)
Tolerance
Culture(s)/Cultural (3.1%)
Personal/Individual/Self (8.4%)
Pluralism
Different/Difference(s) (1.5%)
Social/Societal/Society (5.9%)
Cultural awareness
Diverse/Diversity (1.5%)
Diverse/Diversity (5.0%)
Justice/Injustice
Community (1.5%)
Cultural context (2.5%)
Equity
Home (1.5%)
Special needs (1.7%)
Equality/Inequality
Ethnicity/Race/Racism/Racist
(1.5%)
Value(s) (1.7%)
Equal opportunity
Community (1.7%)
Empowerment
Beliefs/Believe (0.8%)
Stereotype/Stereotyping
Power (0.8%)
Disability
Prejudice/Discrimination/Bias
(0.8%)
Gender/Sex/Sexism/Sexist
Universal (0.8%)
Bilingual
Local (0.8%)
Class/Poverty/Poor/Elite
often discussed within a universalizing framework
of traditional Western schemes that valorize art elements, design principles, classifiable stylistic conventions, and decontextualized readings of main
ideas and themes.
Not every instance of culture(s)/cultural was
ethnocentric in this way. Almost as frequently,
culture(s)/cultural communicated complex conceptions of culture as being integral to the development of ideas and artistic expression. Cultural was
grouped with the terms political and economic in
order to emphasize the influence of contextual
factors on art content and processes. In other
166
Kraehe / Art Teacher Certification in Texas
instances, the revised standards highlighted sociocultural functions of art, such as storytelling, documentation, personal expression, decoration, basic
utility, inspiration, and social change.
Pluralism: Explicit yet ambiguous. From 1986 to
2007, different/difference(s) increased from 1.5%
to 11.8%, appearing nearly eight times more frequently in 2007. In 1986, there was a single formalist reference to the difference(s) between tactile and
visual texture. For the most part, in 2007 different/
difference(s) referred to a variety of something. One
standard utilized different three times: “ideas have
been expressed using different media in different
cultures and at different times” (TSBEC, 2004, p. 5).
In all five sections of the 2007 standards, different
described variation among cultures, perceptions,
practices, experiences, eras, media, and careers.
The combined increases in culture(s)/cultural and
different/difference(s) in the new art teacher standards suggest a concerted effort to acknowledge
and promote tolerance of variation among groups.
In the new standards, different was preferred
to difference(s). This was a subtle but important
distinction. By using the term different to describe
multiple or dissimilar art, practices, and worldviews,
cultural pluralism in art was advocated. However,
difference was not understood as a construct that is
produced and reproduced by institutions and individuals in ways that disparately affect people’s lives.
In other words, difference was eclipsed by a simplistic and celebratory use of different that resists
any appearance of political interests. The revised
standards presented a seemingly neutral, matterof-fact stance toward the differences existing in
society which obscured structural power relations
that maintain and reproduce unequal access to
resources (Shohat & Stam, 1994). Indeed, each
individual is different, and from a human relations
perspective (Sleeter & Grant, 2007), individual differences warrant tolerance. Yet, transformative multicultural art education critically examines the very
concept of difference as a social construct of which
differential forms (race, class, gender, sexuality,
and others) are imbued with meaning, legitimacy,
and value according to shifting relations of power
(Desai, 2003; McCarthy, 1993, 2004). Because of the
role they play in the schooling of diverse student
populations, certified art teachers are in a position
to teach their students equitably and to cultivate
critical consciousness among them. This would
require that teachers understand how school art
classrooms reinscribe unequal power relations
through celebrations of “different cultures” that
stop short of questioning the origins and meanings
of such differences.
Other variables paralleled the growing uses of
culture(s)/cultural and different/difference(s) in 2007.
The variable artists, artworks, and artifacts from
outside the “Western canon” and Western art movements increased from 7.7% in 1986 to 11.7% in 2007.
This vast, marginalized segment of the art world
became more prominent, yet remained slightly
below the status of the Western tradition of fine art
(see Table 2). Closer inspection revealed substantial
changes in how these artists and artworks were discussed in the old and new standards.
In the early version of the standards, “primitive,
ethnic, and regional art” was divorced from “the
evolution of American art” and “major artists, architects, and works of art” (Texas Education Agency
[TEA], 2006, p. 16). Operating in an “othering” discourse similar to Orientalism (Said, 1978), the segregation and labeling of art as primitive, ethnic, and
regional devalued the artists as well as the subject
matter and traditions characteristic of those artworks. This discursive practice of associating the
West with the rational mind and the non-West with
unrefined materials is based on “an idealized notion
of the West [that] organizes knowledge in ways
flattering to the Eurocentric imaginary” (Shohat &
Stam, 1994, p. 14). Critical of such binaries, Shohat
and Stam argue that the “‘West’ and the non-West
cannot, in sum, be posited as antonyms, for in fact
the two worlds interpenetrate in an unstable space
of creolization and syncretism” (p. 15). The implication for the “primitive, ethnic and regional” artists
is that they were not a part of what the standards
defined as the canon of American art, artists, and
architects. Built on the “myth of Westernness and
the role of Europe in the elaboration of American
institutions and culture” (McCarthy, 1993, p. 294),
the category of “primitive, ethnic and regional”
obscures the African, indigenous, and Asian historical, intellectual, and cultural roots of the US.
Further denigration was evident in the peculiar
blending of these vastly different artistic traditions
into one standard, particularly when juxtaposed
with the numerous standards that were devoted
to elaborating European art (e.g., Rococo, Baroque,
Middle Ages, and Renaissance). The disciplinary
efforts to aggrandize European art movements
Studies in Art Education / Volume 51, No. 2
167
Table 2. Changes in Prominence of Art Education Variables in 1986 and 2007 Standards
Art Content Variables
1986 (N=65)
2007 (N=119)
% Change
How Teachers Work with Children
Art Education Theories and Methods
15.4
38.6
+150.6
4.6
3.3
-28.3
0
1.7
—
3.1
3.4
+9.7
0
11
—
3.1
2.5
-19.4
0
2.5
—
Art Production Techniques and
Materials
37
17.7
-52.2
Social, Political and Cultural
Functions and Content
6.1
16.8
+175.4
0
0
0
6.1
5.9
-3.3
21.5
10.1
-53
Visual Culture
1.5
3.4
+126.7
Knowledge of Art Outside of
“Western Canon”
7.7
11.7
+51.9
10.7
12.6
+17.8
9.2
0
-100
Child Development
Relationship of Student/Community
Culture to Art Education
Art Concepts and Processes
Institutions of Art
Interpretation of Art Meaning
Diverse Aesthetic Theories
Use of Coding Devices
Artist’s Group Identity
Historical Context
Art Elements and Design Principles
Art, Artists, and Artifacts Studied
Knowledge of “Western Canon”
Identification of Artist or Artwork
in the original art standards seemed to be the
discursive residue of colonialism (Shohat & Stam,
1994) that professes objectivity of knowledge as
a shroud for racial, cultural, and inevitably, gender
biases. Unlike the 1986 version, the 2007 standards named no specific geographic region, social
group, or art movement in 12 of the 14 standards
that referred to artists, artworks, and artifacts from
outside the “Western canon” and Western art move-
168
Kraehe / Art Teacher Certification in Texas
ments. For instance, one standard stipulated that
students be exposed to the art of “cultures different from their own” (TSBEC, 2004, p. 6).
While artists, artworks, and artifacts from the
“Western canon” and Western art movements
increased slightly in 2007 from 10.7% to 12.6%,
much of it was couched in the language of difference. The shift to inclusive language insinuates a
plurality of artistic traditions by making any and
all art forms possible for classroom content, for
example, artwork of “various periods” (TSBEC, 2004,
p. 5) and “different eras and cultures” (TSBEC, 2004,
p. 4, 8). Due to the increased emphasis on variety
among cultures and time periods, the revision of the
art teacher standards seemed to equate differences
experienced by diverse groups. This semblance of
equality among artistic traditions was wrought with
ambiguity and color-blindness that conceivably
reflects the normalization of Eurocentric assumptions about art over time. Previously explicit binaries of West/non-West may have become implicit in
the new standards, and therefore, unnecessary to
explicate.
Contextualism Supplements Formalism
The revised art standards showed attempts to
break from past loyalties to formalism by incorporating language indicative of contextualism.
Formalist aesthetics values art as an entity independent of any social significance (Neperud, 1995),
the stylistic and material qualities of which are of
greatest consequence (Anderson, 1990). In contextualism the interplay between art, culture, place,
and time is emphasized. A comparison of the documents suggested changes in the way art should be
valued in schools by infusing contextually based
understandings of artists and objects into the
revised standards.
The focus on art elements and design principles
in over a fifth of the units in 1986, coupled with
the absence of the variable interpretation of an artwork’s meaning, indicated a preference for formalism to the exclusion of any other aesthetic theory
or interpretive framework. When viewing artwork
in 1986, the standards set art elements and design
principles as the object of interpretation. One such
standard stated that the beginning art teacher
must, “understand the characteristics of line…
types and qualities of line, and the identification
and interpretation of line in various works of art”
(TEA, 2006, p. 9).
In 2007, art elements and design principles
declined from 21.5% (2nd place) in 1986 to 10.1%
(5th place). Although this demotion was strik-
ing, the universal application of art elements and
design principles to all art forms demonstrated
continued influence of formalism in art education.
When teachers are asked to “demonstrate how the
elements and principles of art are used to convey
perceptions in the art of different cultures” (TSBEC,
2004, p. 2), irrespective of the historical and cultural
contexts of the production of the art object, the full
meaning of the artwork is lost. What often remains
is an inappropriate and superficial analysis of materials and form.
In 1986, there were no units that spoke directly of
the variable interpretation of an artwork’s meaning,
whereas in 2007, 11% of units addressed aspects of
interpretation, including description, identification,
discrimination, analysis, critique, drawing conclusions, evaluation, and judgment. The rigor that is
implied by these acts of interpretation was stymied,
however, by the literal and simplistic objects of
interpretation: “formal properties” (TSBEC, 2004, p.
9), “visual qualities” (p. 2), “visual relationships” (p. 2),
subject matter (p. 2), and “main idea” (p. 5). Only one
unit relied on “cultural context … history, tradition,
societal issues” (p. 6) in interpreting the meaning of
an artwork. Even in the attempts to deepen understanding of artworks through interpretive behaviors, formalism still held sway over contextualism as
the foundation of art criticism.
Art production techniques and materials were
present in 37% of the units, making it the most
important art education content in 1986. This frequency reflected the primacy of studio practice in
art education at that time. Great value was placed
on art teachers’ knowledge and skills with the
materials, equipment, and technical aspects of artmaking. Falling by more than half to 17.7% in 2007,
this variable still represented the second most
significant art education content and was trailed
closely by social, political, and cultural functions and
content. These shifts suggest a reformulation of
art education practices away from the dominance
of studio productions toward more historical and
social inquiry and contextualized art criticism.
Studies in Art Education / Volume 51, No. 2
169
The 2007 standards reflected a more balanced
approach between formalism and contextualism.
Whereas social, political, and cultural functions and
content of artworks and objects was present in 6.1%
of units in 1986, this variable almost tripled in the
revision process (16.8%) and ascended in rank from
7th to 3rd place. In the previous standards, beginning art teachers needed to understand the general
functions and roles of art. In the revised standards,
artworks were related to individual perception, life
experiences, politics, social issues, the local community, customs, and histories. For example, “the
beginning teacher knows and understands the
effects that political, economic, and cultural conditions may have on a society’s art” (TSBEC, 2004,
p. 6). This example demonstrates the contextualist
stance asserted in the 2007 standards in which the
artist’s intent and economic, cultural, and political
context were incorporated into the analyses of artworks and the formation of conclusions about the
meaning of artworks.
Transformative Omissions
While acknowledging that the presence of multiple cultural and artistic traditions is an important
part of multicultural art education, the standards
contained pervasive omissions of critical perspectives wherein the goal is to develop students’
abilities to recognize and act against oppression in
society (Sleeter & Grant, 2007). Here, the discussion
explores those variables whose frequencies were
low or altogether absent from the 1986 and 2007
standards so that the silences structured by the
standards may be heard.
The multicultural education movement is based
on the premise that disproportionately low educational achievement among historically marginalized groups is due to inequalities that permeate
all social, economic, and political institutions of
society. Schools are not immune from the inequitable effects of unequal distribution of resources
and power in society (Kozol, 1991) and may reproduce oppressive power relations. Teachers, therefore, need to know how race, ethnicity, social class,
gender, language, ability, beliefs, and values of stu-
170
Kraehe / Art Teacher Certification in Texas
dents and the surrounding community influence
art and education. In addition, they need to be able
to account for these sociocultural factors in their
teaching. The 1986 standards did not contain any
statements about a relationship between home,
community and the classroom, and the revised art
standards presented a decontextualized image of
students and teachers through an abstract, universally applied curriculum.
Earlier disregard for the relationship of students’
and the local community’s cultures to the content of
art instruction remained practically unaffected by
the revision of art standards. In 2007, 1.7% of units
articulated this concept. Likewise, cultural context
was present in only 2.5% of the revised standards
and was limited to art history and criticism. The
cultural context of students’ lives do not remain
outside the walls of the classroom, but rather, shape
students’ perceptions, interests, and interpretations
of artworks. The practices of art history and art
criticism are fluid processes that involve individuals negotiating their own culturally based subjectivities while simultaneously constructing meaning
about an object of study (Mayer, 1999). Critical multicultural art education, therefore, acknowledges
the impact of cultural beliefs and practices of the
particular community contexts in which learning
and teaching take place. Instead, the revised standards ignored the community and the home as
sources of knowledge (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti,
2005) or inspiration for the art classroom.
In order to provide equal access to educational
opportunities for all students, multicultural art education advocates that teachers understand the link
between language and learning as well as complementary practices for supporting English language
learners in the art classroom. However, the old and
new iterations of the standards neglected the needs
of the 14% of Texas students who are in Bilingual/ESL
Education (Texas Education Agency [TEA], 2004), as
none of the standards referenced the knowledge
and skills needed to serve these students in the
art classroom. Twelve percent of Texas students
are in special education programs (TEA, 2004), and,
like English language learners, usually receive art
instruction from art specialists. In 2007, only 1.7%
of the standards addressed special needs, compared
to 0% in 1986. While NCLB has turned a national
spotlight on these two underserved groups when
it comes to academic achievement on standardized
tests, similar urgency has been left behind when
mandating that art teachers have the knowledge
and skill to serve students in ESL, bilingual, and
special education programs. Until these groups are
represented more substantially in the standards for
competent beginning art teachers, their needs may
continue to go unmet and their strengths unrealized in the art classroom.
Just as students’ special needs, cultural knowledge, and language skills need to be acknowledged and accounted for, the cultural identities of
artists and the sociohistorical context that informs
those identities are also integral to helping students construct high level understandings of art
as a site of cultural struggle for meaning (Desai,
2000). Artworks are products of particular social
and cultural points of view. Visual forms are, thus,
communicative modes that may reproduce, transform, or resist racial, gendered, or classed worldviews. By exploring artists’ positionality, students
may understand their artwork (and other material culture) as rooted in a particular standpoint
and representing a socially constructed way of
knowing. Transformative multicultural art education necessitates directly addressing artists’ group
identities because doing so may embolden art
teachers to acknowledge “how our social position
and the location from which we speak are connected to the way we choose to represent a culture
within structures of domination and subordination” (Desai, 2000, p. 128), and second, to engage
students in critical dialogue.
Beyond the allusions to race embedded in its
use of the terms “ethnic” and “primitive,” the 1986
standards did not refer to artists’ group identities. Although there was general awareness of the
diversity of cultures and contexts of artmaking in
2007, 0% of standards noted artists’ group identities
related to gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation,
class, religion, nationality, place of origin, language,
or exceptionality. The ongoing silence in the art
standards about collective or social identity is characteristic of a color-blind ideology that often manifests as “colormuteness” (Schofield, 2004, p. 807)
in schools. This finding is supported by the lack of
anti-discriminatory content in the old and new art
standards, especially with respect to the excluded
or low-scoring variables: multicultural (0%), tolerance (0%), pluralism (0%), justice/injustice (0%),
equity (0%), equality/inequality (0%), equal opportunity (0%), empowerment (0%), stereotype/stereotyping (0%), disability (0%), gender/sex/sexism/sexist
(0%), bilingual (0%), class/poverty/poor/elite (0%),
ethnicity/race/racism/racist (1.5%), power (0.8%), and
prejudice/discrimination/bias (0.8%).
Although attention to social group differences
and oppressive conditions may be seen as hostile
to the unity and tolerance invoked by a human relations approach to diversity (Sleeter & Grant, 2007),
critical perspectives cannot be fostered through
the study of ethnically, socially, linguistically, and
sexually anonymous artists. There is some disagreement regarding the best way to conceptualize
group identities. McCarthy et al. (2003) distinguish
between cultural monologists who “believe the
integrity of these groups is best preserved by curricular recognition of group distinctiveness and specificity” and postcolonial theorists who “argue for the
interminable process of cultural integration and coarticulation of majority and minority cultures” (pp.
461-462). These positions would agree, however,
that open dialogue about artists’ complex and fluctuating identities, as well as the impact of those
identities on the artists’ work and reception by the
public, is essential for exploring inequities in society
and in the arts. Critical multicultural art education,
therefore, enables students to construct their own
notions of and actions toward social justice for all
groups. Many of the neglected variables constitute
major aspects of art and multicultural education
today that need to be viewed critically by teachers
and, ultimately, their students.
Studies in Art Education / Volume 51, No. 2
171
Conclusion
Comparison of the contents of the 1986 and
2007 beginning art teacher standards in Texas indicated that, as a result of the revision process, there
were increased instances of multicultural inclusion.
Changes in the standards suggest the state’s art
education policies have shifted toward an ambiguous form of cultural pluralism without disrupting the long-held Discipline-Based Art Education
(DBAE) structure (Anderson, 1996). The meanings
of artworks were more likely to be based on an
understanding of their social, economic, political,
and historical contexts than had been the case in
the past. Formalism did not disappear as a universal framework for understanding and valuing art,
but its relative decline in importance was notable.
The revised standards stopped short of achieving a basic tenet of critical multicultural art education by remaining silent about artists’ social
positions. Obscuration of differences among artists
gave the revised standards an appearance of tolerance that is likely to hide rather than repair the
divisions among social groups. Likewise, both iterations of the standards espoused culturally based
art pedagogies under the guise of acultural teaching practices (Cochran-Smith, 2004).
Professional standards have become an important vehicle used by many groups of specialists
to defend or enhance their status and exert influence within the larger community. The objectivity implied by the term standards promises equal
opportunity to the profession’s inductees, while, to
the non-specialist, standards represent high expectations for quality of service. An agenda that seeks
to establish the standards for art teachers risks
“Critical multicultural art education,
therefore, enables students to construct
their own notions of and actions toward
social justice for all groups.”
172
Kraehe / Art Teacher Certification in Texas
silencing the polyphony of discourses (Bakhtin,
1981) that makes up the field of art education
(Tavin & Carpenter, 2009) and oversimplifying the
process of becoming an art teacher. The discourse
of standards—whether multicultural, monocultural
or otherwise—works to limit how we think about
what it means to be an art teacher. As a disciplinary technique (Foucault, 1977), art content standards undoubtedly influence the ways in which
beginning art teachers implement multicultural
art education in K-12 classrooms in Texas. Further
research is needed to understand how art teacher
education programs respond to shifting emphases
in state standards as well as how novices negotiate
such discursive structures across the contexts of art
teacher education programs and public schools.
While standards do not reflect or constitute the
totality of art teacher education in Texas, they do
help structure the “reality” in which art teachers
must work.
Certainly standards do not reflect or constitute
the totality of art teacher education in Texas, but
they do help structure the “reality” in which art
teachers must work. Given the current regulatory
environment of U.S. public education, the revisions
to Texas’ art teacher standards signal an incremental
achievement for the multicultural education movement (Gay, 2000). Yet, the challenges of educating and retaining new art teachers are not related
foremost to their frustrations over art materials and
elements and principles of design. New art teachers need knowledge and skills that equip them to
meaningfully engage students of various social and
cultural backgrounds, especially students unlike
themselves. In order for art content standards and
the attendant accountability measures to be useful
for the field of art education—and perceived as
more than bureaucratic obstacles for prospective art teachers—they must move beyond vague
notions of inclusivity and become intimately related
to the concrete experiences of beginning teachers.
R e f erences
Anderson, R. (1990). Calliope’s sisters: A comparative study of philosophies of art. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Anderson, T. (1996). The national standards for arts education: A (multi)cultural assessment. Studies in Art
Education, 38(1), 55-60.
Apple, M. W. (1986). Teachers and texts: A political economy of class and gender relations in education. New York:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Ballengee-Morris, C., Stuhr, P., & Petrovich-Mwaniki, L. (2001). Multicultural art and visual culture education in a
changing world. Art Education, 54(4), 6-13.
Banks, J. A. (2009). Multicultural education: Dimensions and paradigms. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), The Routledge
international companion to multicultural education (pp. 9-32). New York: Routledge.
Bersson, R. (1987). Why art education is neither socially relevant nor culturally democratic: A contextual analysis.
In D. Blandy, & K. Congdon (Eds.), Art in a democracy (pp. 78-90). New York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Collins, G., & Sandell, R. (1992). The politics of multicultural art education. Art Education, 45(6), 8-13.
Currey, V. (1988). The politics of textbook adoption. PS: Political Science and Politics, 21(1), 25-30.
Daun-Barnett, N., & Perorazio, T. E. (2006, November). Infusion of innovation: Catalyzing policy change through
research. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA.
Desai, D. (2000). Imaging difference: The politics of representation in multicultural art education. Studies in Art
Education, 41(2), 114-129.
Desai, D. (2003). Multicultural art education and the heterosexual imagination: A question of culture. Studies in
Art Education, 44(2), 147-161.
Desai, D. (2005). Places to go: Challenges to multicultural art education in a global economy. Studies in Art
Education, 46(4), 293-308.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Pantheon.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York:Teachers College Press.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106-116.
González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households,
communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hamblen, K. (1997). Second generation DBAE. Visual Arts Research, 23(2), 98-106.
Knight, W. B. (2006). Using contemporary art to challenge cultural values, beliefs, and assumptions. Art Education,
59(4), 39-45.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Crown Publishers.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Mayer, M. (1999). Precious minds and precious objects: Implications of the new histories for art education.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
McCarthy, C. (1993). After the canon: Knowledge and ideological representation in the multicultural discourse
on curriculum reform. In C. McCarthy & W. Crichlow (Eds.), Race, identity, and representation in education (pp.
289-305). New York: Routledge.
Studies in Art Education / Volume 51, No. 2
173
McCarthy, C. (2004). Rethinking liberal and radical perspectives on racial inequality in schooling: Making the
case for nonsynchrony. In R. Gaztambide-Fernández, H. A. Harding & T. Sordé-Martí (Eds.), Cultural studies
and education: Perspectives on theory, methodology and practice (pp. 213-226). Cambridge, MA: President and
Fellows of Harvard College.
McCarthy, C., Giardina, M. D., Harewood, S. J., & Park, J. K. (2003). Contesting culture: Identity and curriculum
dilemmas in the age of globalization, postcolonialism, and multiplicity. Harvard Educational Review, 73(3),
449-465.
McFee, J. K., & Degge, R. M. (1977). Art, culture and environment: A catalyst for teaching. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Neperud, R. W. (1995). Transitions in art education: A search for meaning. In R. Neperud (Ed.), Context, content,
and community in art education: Beyond postmodernism (pp.1-22). New York: Teachers College Press.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
Said, E. (1993). The politics of knowledge. In C. McCarthy & W. Crichlow (Eds.), Race, identity, and representation in
education (pp. 306-314). New York: Routledge.
Schofield, J. W. (2004). Fostering positive intergroup relations in schools. In J. A. Banks, & C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.),
Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.) (pp. 799-812). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shohat, E., & Stam, R. (1994). Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the media. New York: Routledge.
Sleeter, C., & Grant, C. (2007). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class, and gender
(6th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Stuhr, P. (1994). Multicultural art education and social reconstruction. Studies in Art Education, 35(3), 171-178.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tavin, K., & Carpenter, B. S. (2009, April). (Beyond) the reconceptualization of art education. Paper presented at the
Annual Convention of the National Art Education Association, Minneapolis, MN.
Texas Education Agency. (2004). Snapshot 2004 summary tables: State totals. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from http://
www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/snapshot/2004/state.html
Texas Education Agency. (2006). ExCET preparation manual. Austin, TX: Author.
Texas State Board for Educator Certification (TSBEC). (2004). TExES art standards. Retrieved April 9, 2006, from
http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECOnline/standtest/standards/allart.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). American community survey: Ranking table. Retrieved March 28, 2006, from http://
www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/ index.htm2003
U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). State and county quickfacts. Retrieved March 28, 2006, from http://quickfacts.census.
gov/qfd/states/48000.html
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2006). The secretary’s fifth annual report on
teacher quality: A highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Washington, DC: Author.
Valenzuela, A. (2004). Leaving children behind: How “Texas-style” accountability fails Latino youth. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of
Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32.
Wasson, R., Stuhr, P., & Petrovich-Mwaniki, L. (1990). Teaching art in the multicultural classroom: Six position
statements. Studies in Art Education, 31(4), 234-246.
Weber, R. P. (1985). Basic content analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
174
Kraehe / Art Teacher Certification in Texas
E n d notes
1 Texas is considered a “bellwether” for educational reform due to the recent precedents in which the state’s
policies have had national influence. For instance, NCLB and its testing practices are based on “Texas-style
accountability” (Valenzuela, 2004, p. 1) policies. Also, as a large market for textbook adoption, the state of
Texas (as well as California and Florida) is able to shape editorial agendas of textbook publishers (Currey, 1988).
This results in other states and districts often being forced to choose among products befitting Texas’s policies
but not necessarily suited to their own needs (Apple, 1986).
2 Texas standards documents analyzed in this study have publication dates that differ from their implementation dates. The standards enacted in 1986 are in a 2006 Texas Education Agency publication. The revised standards instituted in 2007 were published on the Texas State Board for Educator Certification website in 2004.
Studies in Art Education / Volume 51, No. 2
175