Finland+review+(Betz)

“Craft “separated from “visual art” || ** 1. Rigor ** - maintains rigorous goals without being too specific- an art specialist would need to interpret these overarching goals to the lay person.
 * ** Big ideas ** || ** Similarities with Finland ** || ** Differences with Finland ** ||
 * SKILLS, TECHNIQUES, AND PROCESSES || Generalities about knowing and taking care of art tools, learning processes like artists do || Specific skills not mentioned. Neither are elements/principals other than vague “form” references..
 * STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION || ** Planning alone and with others: observe others to learn art’s underpinnings ** || ** Problem solving is a key word ** ||
 * ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT || ? || ** Words used often: interact, engage, visual expression ** ||
 * ** COGNITION AND COMMUNICATION ** || ** Art is a visual communicator, a language in of itself ** || No specific mention of cognitive processes other than ethereal, interpretable phrases. ||
 * HISTORICAL, GLOBAL, AND FUTURE CONNECTIONS || Trying to connect with the world but we don’t have the terms to do it yet: foreign to us? || National pride in specific art forms, terms ||
 * AESTHETIC AND CRITICAL REFLECTION || Aesthetics as a subject/discipline that is cross-curricular and intersects often with life || ** None, the Finland document has strong comments about this: wording they used would be good for FL. ** ||
 * ARTS AND THE ECONOMY || Current technologies named as possible intersections of art and economics || No distinct connection between the two. ||
 * RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS ACADEMIC CONTENT AREAS || Not mentioned in Finland document ||   ||
 * SEE **BOLD** for important ideas concerning our writing team ||  ||   ||

** 2. Coherence ** - Hard to follow- more like a wish list than an outline.

** 3. **** Focus ** -the focus is to have a rich, diverse, deep, meaningful art experience, measured subjectively by eighth grade. It’s to create like an artist does- but no blueprint of how to get there from “here”.

** 4. **** Specificity- ** The Finland document is the opposite of specific, even though art teachers might like the rich quality and diversity available to them.

** 5. **** Clarity/Accessibility - ** The standards as written by Finland are accessible in terms of length, but the terminology could really only be understood by a highly trained art specialist. As such, those outside of the discipline might have difficulty discerning if the tasks are complete or not.

** 6. **** Measurability- ** Finland does have 4th and 8th grade qualitative indicators for visual arts, which use rich language to describe worthy goals. They are highly subjective compared to American positivist/ empirical standards, For example, how would “be capable of independent work” ( p.238) be measured? Who would decide what level is appropriate for 8th graders?

** Final Comments: ** Important parts taken away from this study:
 * Comprehensive ideas mentioned, not watered down.
 * Someone would need a lot of “words” to prove that these outlines or criteria were really met by the end of 8th grade.
 * Art teachers would love these in the US because they are deep and narrow: pointing to this document as a guideline that must be met would force schools/principals to have great support (time, instruction, facilities, funding) for an art program to be able to meet these goals! JB 5.2010