1. 1 This is an extended and revised version of an address given at the 1990 Annual Conference of the National Association for the Teaching of drama and subsequently at two DES Invitation conferences. I have included reflections on comments made when I spoke at these conferences, and also in Alberta, and in the light of the current arts debate. I am grateful to those who have been kind enough to offer comments, many of which have contributed to my further thinking.
2. 2 A fuller discussion may be found in BEST, D. (1990) Arts in Schools: a Critical Time. Birmingham Institute of Art and Design/NSEAD.
3. 3 ROBINSON, K. (Ed) (1990) The Arts 5-16: a Curriculum Framework. London, Oliver & Boyd.
4. 4 ROBINSON, K. (1991) ‘One for all and all for one’. Times Educational Supplement, 12 April.
5. 5 To my surprise and sadness some people have implied or assumed that my arguments are designed implicitly to support some art forms at the expense of others. See for example Malcolm Ross in: CROALL, J. (1991) ‘All together now?’ Times Educational Supplement, 11 January. See also HORNBROOK, D. (1991) ‘Balancing act’. Times Educational Supplement, 31 May. Hornbrook ‘quotes’ as my view a statement which appears nowhere in anything I have written, and which is in fact the opposite of what I have been arguing. He refers to ‘the kind of aesthetic hierarchy championed by David Best [in: BEST, D. (1991) ‘The art of the matter’. Times Educational Supplement, 3 March]’. My concern in all I have written on the arts debate is, I emphasise, with artistic, not aesthetic, questions.