Excellence and Equity Issues in Art Education: Can We Be Excellent and Equal Too?

Arts Education Policy Review

Volumn 98, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 20-26

  Zimmerman, Enid ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85032780430     PISSN: 10632913     EISSN: 19404395     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10632913.1997.9936391     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. J. Gardner, Excellence: Can We Be Excellent and Equal Too? (New York Haper & Row, 1961).
2. R. A. Smith. Excellence in Art Education: Ideas and Initiatives (Reston. Va.: National Art Education Association, 1986)
3. R.A. Smith, Excellence 11: The Continuing Quest in Art Education (Reston, Va.: National M Education Association, 1995).
4. P. L. Smith and R. Traver, “Classical Living and Classical Learning: The Search for Equity and Excellence” in Proceedings of the Annual Midwest Philosophy of Education Society, ed. M.C. Smith (Chicago: Midwest Philosophy of Education Society, 1983): 79-92.
5. K. M. Evans and J. A. King, “Out-come-based Gifted Education Can We Assume Continued Support?“ Roeper Review 16. no. 4 (1994): 260-64.
6. M. Stevens, “School Reform and Restructuring : Relationship to Gifted Education” in Challenges in Gifted Education: Developing Potential and Investing Knowledge for the 21st Century (Columbus. Ohio: Ohio Department of Education, 1992): 49-55.
7. R. Ulich, Education and the Idea of Mankind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1954).
8. G. B. Garraway. ‘‘The Equity/Excellence Dialectic: Pluralism and the Impact of Educational Reform,” Equity and Excellence in Education 28. no. 3 (1995): 65-72.
9. J. Conant, The American High School Today (New York McGraw-Hill. 1959).
10. A. D. Efland, “Curriculum Antecedents of Discipline- Based Art Education,” The Journal of Aesthetic Education 21, no. 2 (1987): 57-94.
11. F. G. Chalmers, Celebrating Pluralism: Art, Education. and Cultural Diversity (Los Angles: Getty Institute for the Arts, 1966)
12. M. R. Berube, American School Reform: Progressive, Equity, and Excellence Movements, 1883-1993 (Westport. COM.: Praeger. 1994).
13. M. R. Berube, American School Reform: Progressive, Equity, and Excellence Movements, 1883-1993 (Westport. COM.: Praeger. 1994).
14. W. J. Bennett, “‘Address to the Getty Center Conference on Art Education” in Discipline-Based Art Education: What Forms Will It Take? (Los Angeles: Getty Center for Education on the Arts, 1987): 30-41.
15. V. A. H. Daniel, “Womanist Influences On Curricular Ecology” in Gender Issues in Art Education: Content, Contexts, and Strategies. eds. G. Collins and R. Sandell (Reston, Va.: National Art Education Association, 1996): 79-88.
16. J. K. McFee, ‘‘Art and Society” in Issues in Discipline-bused Art Education: Strengthening the Stance, Extending the Horizons (Los Angeles: Getty Center for Education on the Arts, 1988): 104-12.
17. R. C. Bersson. ‘’ Why Art Education Lacks Social Relevance: A Contextual Analysis,” Art Education 39, no.4 (1986): 4145.
18. J. J. Gallagher. “Comments on McDaniel’s Education of the Gifted and Excellence/Equity Debate” in Critical Issues in Gifted Education: Programs for the Gifted in Regular Classrooms, ed. C. J. Maker (Austin, Tex.: Pro-ed, 1993): 19-21.
19. J. A. Kulik, An Analysis of the Research on Ability Grouping: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (Storrs. Conn.: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, 1992).
20. J. A. Kulik and C. L. Kulik. “Meta- Analytic Findings on Grouping Programs,” Gifted Child Quarterly 36. no. 2 (1992): 73-77.
21. G. A. Clark and E. Zimmerman, Programming Opportunities for Students Gifted and Talented in the Visual Arts (Storrs, Conn.: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, 1994).