CONNECTING ART EDUCATION WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION 1

Connecting Art Education with Special Education: Teaching Students With Disabilities

Sharon B. Cole

Department of Art Education, University of Florida

ARE6049: History of Teaching Art

Dr. Elizabeth M. Delacruz

February 26, 2021

CONNECTING ART EDUCATION WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION 2

Abstract

This paper will examine and report the history of approaches (pre-2000) to teaching

students with disabilities through art education. Particular interest will be made into the details

how legislation and policies have impacted how schools provide art education to students with

disabilities, and the school implementation and teacher practices that were developed in response

to legislation and policies. Supporting the governance are art programs and national

organizations initiated by federal and national agencies. Explanations on how these policies and

institutions impacted teaching students with disabilities during the time in which they were

initiated will provide insight as to the enduring impacts to teaching and learning art. Finally,

summary conclusions will be provided on current approaches, impacts, and professional

experiences with children with disabilities. These findings will also connect my contemporary

practice, philosophy and experiences that embody these approaches and policies.
CONNECTING ART EDUCATION WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION 3

Connecting Art Education with Special Education: Teaching Students With Disabilities

Although the history of early childhood education was rooted in the principles of art and

childhood development, special education legislation continues to ignore and incorporate art

education as a viable service to students with special needs. Fundamental philosophies

connecting art and special education were influenced by the progressive ideas of Friedrich

Froebel, Elizabeth Peabody, Mary Dana Hicks, Arthur Wesley Dow, and Viktor Lowenfeld.

They laid the foundation for play, imagination, self-expression, creativity, and aesthetic activity

to become the child-centered curriculum for all learners that we call art education today. It was

not until the late 20th century that legislation and policy impacts regulated educational policy to

provide equal and inclusive education for all children with disabilities. National organizations

and programs such as the VSA and Kennedy Center for Performing Arts have been successful

using community pathways to help bridge gaps in art as a special education service. The gaps

have been apparent at all levels, but especially for early childhood, at-risk children and post-

secondary/transitioning young adults with disabilities. Universities and local schools were less

successful in educating and preparing art teachers about the developmental benefits of art for

special needs, inclusive practice pedagogy, and creating a culture for the advocacy of art special

education policy and legislation.

Historical Roots of Teaching Art to Students with Disabilities

Fundamental Philosophies Connecting Art and Special Educations. In order to understand

the relationship of the arts and special education, it is important to examine the fundamental

philosophies and relationships on which art and special education were founded. The history of

art education in the US was heavily influenced by Friedrich Froebel’s philosophy and creation of

kindergartens. Froebel was a German educator who, during the 17th century, founded German
CONNECTING ART EDUCATION WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION 4

kindergartens on the fundamental principles of sensory learning, design and play (Sienkiewicz,

1985). Froebel aligned these principles with stages of early childhood development which

created a curriculum rich in sensory activities, spontaneous play, and constructive activities.

Kindergartens in the US became the accepted education for young children thanks to

advocates like educator Elizabeth Peabody. Stankiewicz (2001) notes that Peabody opened the

first US English-speaking kindergarten in 1860. Peabody understood the importance of sensory

education and believed that all children deserve and benefit from the kindergarten experience.

Importantly, Peabody advocated that child’s play had all the characteristics of art and no child

would be prepared for higher education art schools without the kindergarten experience

(Sienkiewicz, 1985). Kindergartens and art education had several common principles like

developing creativity, manipulating materials, and invigorating the senses. In 1870, Psychologist

G. Stanley Hall emphasized that children’s drawings should be studied by educators to gain

insight to their imaginations, thoughts, and feelings (Stankiewicz, 2001). Throughout the late

1800s, Mary Dana Hicks connected natural child development with aesthetic principles in their

artwork. She trained art teachers to incorporate the kindergarten principles of fostering

spontaneity and creativity (Stankiewicz, 2001). Hicks also studied children’s color perceptions in

kindergartners across the country and based school art curriculum on her research.

By the early 1900’s, the teachings of university educator Arthur Wesley Dow were at the

forefront of art education. His belief was that all art, fine and decorative, was innately designed

or by intuition, and should be valued and measured through a set of parameters. Dow’s insight

was the first to formally classify those parameters (line, dark and light, color) as the elements in

art (Mock-Morgan, 1985). Throughout his career, he trained many preservice art teachers who

went on to incorporate his precise methodologies of art throughout schools well into the 1940s.
CONNECTING ART EDUCATION WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION 5

An evolution in Dow’s philosophies in art education began to take hold in the late 1940s.

This was a new concept that brought back the emphasis on the child and those with special

needs. University art educator Viktor Lowenfeld performed psychological studies of children’s

creative and mental growth during their artmaking in the elementary school years (Mock-

Morgan, 1985). His studies revealed that art provides significant sensory stimulation and creative

growth. He encouraged educators to objectively focus on every child’s curiosities and needs

without presumptions (Delacruz, 1996) and to stimulate their sensory processes early in life

(May, 1976). Lowenfeld’s child studies supported his view that children with disabilities were

often misunderstood and that art unlocked their creative powers. His methodologies became

recognized and central to art education (Mock-Morgan, 1985). Wexler (2016) emphasized that

Lowenfeld was likely one of the first educators to classify children as individuals with

disabilities, namely the handicap did not define the child.

Spanning from the 1940s into the 1970s, various research studies by Lowenfeld and

others were performed on children and adults with disabilities. The findings of those studies

revealed that integrating art into special education provided positive reinforcement, reinforced

perceptual awareness and motor skills, and control over processes and outcomes (Dalke, 1984).

Early on, studies were generally performed on children who were mentally retarded. May (1976)

emphasized that consistent outcomes in sensory growth revealed that those children developed

“alternate ways of experiencing and learning” (p. 17) by responding longer to color and forms,

and sustaining longer interest in projects than normal subjects experiencing the art process. Most

notably, their creative work influenced the ability to better express themselves (May, 1976). By

the 1970s, research confirmed that art supported the need to integrate motor with tactile

perception, and visual with verbal learning (Gair, 1975). However, many art educators still hung
CONNECTING ART EDUCATION WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION 6

onto past teaching methodologies, such as Dow’s, that placed concern on project outcomes and

the accurate use of materials, rather than the process of adapting art unique to the individual

(May, 1976). Art educators were not being trained to teach students with disabilities while

special education teachers often had to teach them arts and crafts with limited training in art

(Allrutz, 1974). Students with disabilities were given limited opportunities to experience the full

benefits of learning the art process.

The Conception of Legislation and Policy. Federal and advocacy agencies in the 1950s and

1960s began developing regulatory guidance and funding to initiate administrative programs and

practice for students with disabilities. This was a significant step forward, as many individuals

with disabilities were housed in restrictive state institutions with no access to education,

assessment, or rehabilitation. Awareness of legislators led to the promulgation of laws such as

the Captioned Films Acts of 1958 and the Training of Professional Personnel Act of 1959

(Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 2007). Many state laws excluded the

education of one in five students with disabilities which led to court decisions advancing

educational opportunities in 1971 and 1972. The courts put responsibility on the states and

localities to educate school children with disabilities under equal protections of the 14th

Amendment.

Finally, art and general public education began to accommodate people ages three to

twenty-one years old with disabilities beginning with Section 504 of the1973 Rehabilitation Act

and the 1975 Public Law 94-142: Education for the Handicapped Act (EHA). The laws provided

all free access to special education services and inclusion into mainstream classrooms of their

communities. However, many schools across the US continued to deny students equal access to

art programs, in part because PL-142 excludes art education as a specialized instruction to meet
CONNECTING ART EDUCATION WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION 7

unique learning needs (Gair, 1978). In 1973 the National Endowment for the Arts and National

Council on the Arts passed a resolution on Accessibility to the Arts for the Handicapped, stating

that “The arts are a right, not a privilege (National Council on the Arts, 1973)” (Allrutz, 1974, p.

28). For the first time, federal and state agencies were advocating alongside families and

educators for the arts in the lives of people with disabilities.

During the early 1980s, educators focused on placing students with disabilities in the

least restrictive environment. Students who were ready to transition from special education

classrooms were included into general education classrooms. By 1990, the EHA was renamed

the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and was amended again in 1997 to

support children from birth, high schoolers transitioning into adult living, and notably includes

initiatives for training teachers in special education. (Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services, 2007). This amendment ensures services for early childhood learners

and assisting graduated high schoolers with disabilities in gainful employment, and adequate

living conditions through placement with local agencies. Likewise, National agencies such as the

VSA: The International Organization on Arts and Disability, aim to support students with

disabilities on both national and international levels and bring the arts to local communities.

The Roots of The VSA: The International Organization on Arts and Disability. As a result

of national interest for adding arts into the education of mentally retarded children, the National

Committee‒Arts for the Handicapped (NCAH) was formed by Ambassador Jean Kennedy Smith

in 1974. This committee connected special education and art education groups through its

members (Gair, 1978). Those members represented entities such as national arts organizations,

general educators, private foundations, and groups representing citizens with disabilities. Since

the arts had become accessible only to school children, the NCAH’s mission was to provide arts
CONNECTING ART EDUCATION WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION 8

opportunities to all handicap people in the general public. Committee goals were formulated to

secure funding, provide arts curricula and research, promote successful programs, and

substantially increase the number of handicapped students served. According to Allrutz (1974),

as students from special education classrooms were increasingly placed into mainstream public-

school classrooms, art educators needed more professional development and training on how to

teach those students. The NCAH and other organizations became important resources for art

educators to expand their practice and fulfill the needs of all students.

The NCAH began nationwide pilot programs in 1976 called the Very Special Arts

Festivals. The festivals brought about much needed public awareness through workshops,

exhibitions, performances and other experiences in the visual arts, creative writing, music, dance,

and drama to people with disabilities (Anderson, 1991). The success of the program led to 27

festivals the following year, and by 1989, it had grown internationally with more than 650 Very

Special Arts Festivals around the world. During those years educators cautiously advised that

organizations such as the NCAH should be inclusive of the abilities of all people, as not all

public schools had art programs. Gair (1978) warned that the core historical philosophies of

educators must uphold that “We in art education must not step blindly in the path of special

interest groups and deny the truly ‘main-stream’ phenomenon of the arts” (p. 14). She

emphasized that “the arts are an essential component of the total development of ALL human

beings.” (Gair, 1978, p. 14).

In 1985, the NCAH was renamed to the Very Special Arts and revised its program goals

to include the following: include people with all abilities; advance collaboration other

organizations under the development of arts programs, services and opportunities; provide

training to those organizations or individuals; and create public awareness of the need for arts
CONNECTING ART EDUCATION WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION 9

programs for people with disabilities. According to Freuh et al. (1997), advocacy of talented

artists with disabilities in exhibitions at the Very Special Art Gallery in Washington, DC led to

the expansion of a second gallery in Los Angeles. The efficacy and caliber of those arts

programs was evaluated and published in 1986 by art therapist, educator and scholar Frances

Anderson. It was the first nationwide arts study of its kind with the inclusion of solid data that

supported subjective information (Anderson, 1991). The data consisted of evaluative criteria,

baseline data, verbal and visual documentation, and field questionnaires for teachers, staff,

parents, and volunteers. Shortly after Anderson’s study, over one million people with special

needs of all ages and nationalities had benefited from the Very Special Arts programs.

The IDEA in 1990 placed the individual before their disability (Office of Special

Education and Rehabilitative Services (ED), 2007) and helped to broaden Very Special Art’s

mission to serve early learners, veterans, senior citizens and young visual and performing artists

with disabilities worldwide. The programs of Very Special Arts continued throughout the 1990s

before culminating with a name change to VSA Arts in 1999. By 2011, they merged with the

Office on Accessibility at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Since then, it has been

known as the VSA: The International Organization on Arts and Disability where they continue to

bridge the gaps between art education and children with disabilities. (See https://www.kennedy-

center.org/education/vsa/)

Contemporary Challenges of Teaching Students With Disabilities in Art Education.

Bridging the connections between art and special education has progressed leaps and bounds

since the late 19th century. Child and adolescent development have become the standard for how

art curricula build progressively as children grow into adults (Duncum, 2002), but art educators

now have to consider more than just a child’s development. Art projects need to provide choices,
CONNECTING ART EDUCATION WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION 10

connect to their everyday lives, and inspire them to create and build upon their experiences.

Delacruz (1996) asserted that children need a healthy “balance of intellectual and emotional

growth” (p.75) as they grow into the world. These concepts should be no different for children

with disabilities. Contemporary educators from multiple disciplines, except art, now collaborate

in IEP teams to help meet the needs of all children with disabilities. Unfortunately, IDEA policy

maintains the original exclusions of art education in these key areas of special education: related

services, cultural facilities, specific plans for art education responsibilities, arts education in

Individual Education Plan (IEP) planning, and in-service art educators (Gair, 1978). According

to Dalke (1984), case studies suggest that both art and special educators can effectively

collaborate to create multi-faceted and effective accommodations for children with disabilities.

More recent school reform legislation in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 requires

standardized testing of core subjects which threatens to downgrade arts programs in core

curriculums (Hourigan, 2014). It would seem that the child studies of scholars like Lowenfeld,

Hicks and Anderson, which indicate that measure of knowledge is not the sole measure of the

student, have been forgotten with NCLB. Today art teachers must reach out to special education

teachers to better understand the needs of learners with disabilities that come into the inclusive

art classroom.

These modes of collaboration between art and special education should be nurtured in

university teaching programs. However, from my art education teacher training experiences, it is

observed that there is a lack of focused training that art teachers need in practicing adaptive art

methods to effectively accommodate students with disabilities in the classroom. The special

education principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) develops flexible learning

environments and spaces that accommodate all learners. UDL speaks to the concepts of choice-
CONNECTING ART EDUCATION WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION 11

based art practices in the child’s classroom and in university settings as modeling for teaching

(Collier and Wix, 2017). Wexler (2016) states that university art programs must include special

education practices in order for art teachers to better understand how to move beyond a child’s

label and towards promoting spontaneity and articulation in artmaking. Collier and Wix (2017)

suggested that teacher candidates receive longer time to absorb information and longer field

experience teaching art to students with disabilities, effectually giving them the confidence

needed to implement their own approaches in the classroom.

Art teachers today reach out to collaborate with special education colleagues and through

sources like the VSA at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to improve their students

with disabilities growth into lifelong learners through art. From its inception in 1974, the VSA

continues 47 years of work with community organizations to provide quality arts-based

educational experiences. In 2006, a first-of-its-kind pilot project in arts and special education

started through VSA Tennessee and the Tennessee Department of Education (Ponder &

Kissinger, 2009). Conclusive findings from the project confirmed a need for cross-curricular

training between art and special educators, and for working with children with disabilities. Most

importantly, pilot program created “a sense of urgency about finding ways for these students to

work with art specialists regularly” (p.45) because most children in self-contained special

education classrooms did not have regular access to art educators.

In 2012, the VSA and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts held a national forum

on “Examining the Intersection of Arts Education and Special Education” (Malley and

Silverstein, 2014, p.40). This forum brought together educators, administrators, and policy

makers from multiple disciplines in art and special education. Their collaboration endorsed a

new national agenda to identify current needs in providing students with disabilities full
CONNECTING ART EDUCATION WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION 12

inclusion in arts and art education. One of the outcomes created as a result of the new national

agenda was The Handbook of Arts Education and Special Education (2018) by Sharon M.

Malley and Jean B. Crockett. (See https://vsainternational.wordpress.com/2018/08/02/five-

emerging-trends-and-future-directions-in-arts-education-and-special-education/)

My thinking and practice as a new art educator, is informed through the current unique

opportunity as an instructional assistant in our public preschool district. I collaborate with special

education teachers, specialists, and parents in a blended preschool classroom (two-thirds special

education and one-third general education students). It is through these experiences that the

shortcomings of legislative policy and art teacher training are obvious. Students and special

education colleagues have taught me more about the dynamics of early childhood, art, and

disabilities than in all of my academic training. Working with students and teaching them

process and sensory art has offered me a new insight into understanding how students with

diverse learning needs grasp and respond to their art experiences and how they grow with that

knowledge moving forward. Through art and special education, the innovative abilities of many

educators continue to shape art education’s current posture on child-centered, self-expressive

approach to learning for children with all abilities.

CONNECTING ART EDUCATION WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION 13

References

Allrutz, C. C. (1974). A rationale for teacher education for art education: special education. Art

Education, 27(8), 26–29.

Anderson, F. E. (1991). Evaluating the very special arts festival programs nationwide: an attempt

to combining subjective and quantitative approaches. Evaluation and Program Planning,

14(3), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(91)90044-H

Collier, M., & Wix, L. (2017). Collaboration and care in an art and special education course. Art

Education, 70(5), 34–42.

Dalke, C. (1984). There are no cows here: art and special education together at last. Art

Education, 37(6), 6–9.

Delacruz, E. M., & Dunn, P. C. (1996). The evolution of discipline-based art education. Journal

of Aesthetic Education, 3(3), 67-82.

Duncum, P. (2002). Children never were what they were: perspectives on childhood. In Y.

Gaudelius & P. Spiers (Eds.) Contemporary issues in art education (pp. 97-107). Upper

Saddle Prentice Hall.

Frueh, E. R., And Others, & Very Special Arts, W. D. (1997). Very special arts program

prospectus, 1997.

Gair, S. B. (1975). An art-based remediation program for children with learning disabilities.

Studies in Art Education, 17(1), 55-67.

Malley, S., & Silverstein, L. (2014). Examining the intersection of arts education and special

education. Arts Education Policy Review, 115(2), 39–43.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2014.883894
CONNECTING ART EDUCATION WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION 14

May, Deborah C. (1976). Integration of art education into special education programs. Art

Education, 29(4), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/3192160

Mock-Morgan, M. (1985). The influence of Arthur Wesley Dow on art education. In B. Wilson

& H. Hoffa (Eds.), The history of art education: Proceedings from the Penn State

conference (pp. 234-237). National Art Education Association.

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (ED). (2007). History: twenty-five years

of progress in educating children with disabilities through IDEA. Archived. In Office of

Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, US Department of Education. Office of

Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, US Department of Education.

Ponder, C., & Kissinger, L. (2009). Shaken and stirred: a pilot project in arts and special

education. Teaching Artist Journal, 7(1), 40–46.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15411790802454360

Sienkiewicz, C. (1985). The Froebelian kindergarten as an art academy. In B. Wilson & H. Hoffa

(Eds.). The history of art education: Proceedings from the Penn State conference, 125-

137. National Art Education Association.

Stankiewicz, M. A. (2001). Roots of art education practice. Davis Publications. Worcester, MA:

Davis Publications.

Wexler, A. J. (2016). Re-imagining inclusion/exclusion: unpacking assumptions and

contradictions in arts and special education from a critical disability studies perspective.

Journal of Social Theory in Art Education, 36, 32–42.