IF the Government's recently published plans come into effect, History of Art will for the first time be a compulsory part of the art syllabus in English state schools.1 At first blush, this might seem a matter for rejoicing. But a closer look at the detailed proposals gives cause for disquiet.

The National Curriculum was introduced as a result of the Conservative Government's Education Reform Act of 1988. Art is one of the ten foundation subjects, the teaching of which is obligatory to the age of 14. A working party, chaired by the archaeologist Colin Renfrew, drew up a report last year recommending programmes of study and 'attainment targets' for the key ages of 7, 11 and 14 at which pupils are to be assessed.2 It is not easy to subsume the vast potential for visual creativity in schools under the bleak categories of management newspeak employed by the bureaucrats. Nonetheless, the Working Party's proposals were liberal and imaginative. They distinguished three strands of activity to be classed as 'attainment targets' - 'understanding', 'making' and 'investigating' - while stressing that art should remain a unified subject. The statements of the levels pupils should have reached at the three key stages were further articulated in 'programmes of study', which would, if accepted, have had statutory force.

In the Working Party's report the creative and practical elements of art and design ('investigating' leading to 'making') are seen as paramount, but the third strand - 'understanding' - reflects a concern that insufficient atten- tion is paid in many schools to critical awareness of art and the acquisition of 'visual literacy'. In most cases, however, the study and analysis of works of art is seen as feeding into and off the processes of investigation and creation.

When sending the Working Party's report to be vetted by the National Curriculum Council, the Secretary of State asked the Council to consider whether the detailed structure might usefully be made clearer and simpler and the attainment targets be reduced to two rather than three. The same instructions were issued in relation to the Music Working Party's report, which had arrived at a similar tripartite arrangement ('performing', 'composing' and 'appraising'). The Council in both cases consulted a wide range of educational and artistic bodies (which over- whelmingly supported the tripartite targets), and produced its own reports in mid-January.3 Not only were the targets in both cases reduced to two (for art: 'making and in- vestigating' and 'knowledge and understanding'), but the programmes of study were entirely revised and rewritten, placing a much greater emphasis on the historical and chronological study of art and music. The rationale was explained as 'curriculum coherence and manageability' and the development of an appraisable core of knowledge.

The National Curriculum Council's reports have been widely perceived in the press as 'overthrowing' the Working Party's reports. Musicians and music teachers have been particularly vociferous about the apparent downgrading of musical performance and composition in favour of com- pulsory study of a predictable range of western classical composers. So far the reaction to the art proposals has been less orchestrated.

The draft Orders as published at the end ofJanuary are almost identical word-for-word with the National Curriculum  Council's recommendations. However, the Secretary of State has responded to public criticism with a fudged solution. He proposes that in teaching and assessment twice as much weight should be given to the practical strand - thereby in effect reinstating the Working Party's tripartite division. The musicians have won a further victory in that the second attainment target is now called 'listening and appraising', rather than 'knowledge and understanding'.

Those invited to comment on the draft Orders by 5th March include all institutions of higher education in England.4 It is unlikely that university and polytechnic departments will wish to endorse the narrowly conceived programmes of study in art history. The emphasis is entirely on periods, styles and critical terminology: 8-10 year olds are to be required by statute to 'recognise the characteristics of art from different periods, styles and genres, including classical, renaissance, impressionism, pop art, and identify the work of influential artists who exemplify these'. Four years later they must have mastered 'the distinctive charac- teristics of art from the following periods - medieval, baroque, classical, romantic, post impressionism, expres- sionism, cubism, surrealism, abstract expressionism - recognising the broad relationships, between them'. This mindless ticking-off of 'periods' betrays both a primitive conception of art history and a misapprehension of the interests and aptitudes of the average school child. Perhaps most depressing is the lack of reference to close study of individual works at first hand. All references to museum visits have been eliminated (no doubt because the money to fund these would not be forthcoming). In his article in this issue (p. 165) Herbert Lank refers to the 'indifferent, not to say hostile, educational establish- ments - the public schools and universities in which future British politicians have seldom been encouraged to appreci- ate the visual arts'. While it is cheering that the Secretary of State wishes to raise the level of awareness of art in state education (The National Curriculum is not obligatory in the private-sector 'public' schools), he, or his successors, should be urged to go about it in a less Gradgrindish man- ner. These ill-drafted, offputting and often bewildering programmes ofstudy are not worthy of the artistic achieve- ments they seek to address.