The social habitus of drama: the Ontario drama curriculum in theory and practice

ABSTRACT

In this article, the author considers the place of drama in the formal curriculum in Ontario, Canada by considering its position in relation to curriculum theory and the texts that formally articulate it as a discipline to be taught in schools. The drama curriculum in Ontario aims to engage young people in activities and experiences that invite them to contemplate the diverse world in which they live and learn, to examine and question perspectives, and to consider issues of power and exclusion. These aspirations sit interestingly alongside considerations of the drama curriculum as exalted and rebuked by teachers, instructional leaders, and arts coordinators in a large school board in Toronto, Canada.

KEYWORDS:

• Elementary/secondary drama curriculum
• social agenda of arts education
• Ontario
• Canada

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the excellent work of two research assistants, Kelsey Jacobson and Rachel Rhoades, whose textual analysis and lively curriculum conversations have made this exploration possible.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Kathleen Gallagher is a Distinguished Professor at the University of Toronto. She has published many books and articles, and offered many practitioner workshops on theatre, youth, pedagogy, and gender. Her research interests include the relationship between theatre-making and youth civic engagement in global contexts.

Notes

1. Students in Ontario in Grades 1–8 are usually 6–12 years old.

2. Students in Ontario in Grades 9 and 10 are usually 14–16 years old.

3. Students in Ontario in Grades 11 and 12 are usually 16–18 years old.

4. Mark (pseudonym) is a black, gay, secondary teacher and parent. At his school, he is also the assistant curriculum leader (ACL) for the Arts.

5. Sandra (pseudoym) is a white, straight, elementary teacher and parent. Sandra is also the current president of the province-wide and very active professional organization for drama teachers called the Council for Ontario Drama and Dance Educators (CODE).

6. Sandra also spoke of CODE creating bridges between research and practice, a professional space for teachers that is abreast of research happening in drama education and communicates it in an accessible way to practicing drama teachers.

7. My gratitude to a blind peer reviewer of this article who invited me to explain how it is possible that such well-produced curriculum documents, which demonstrate a clear ‘articulation of the progression of learning in drama’ still leave administrators and drama educators ‘troubled’. As I pondered this point, I was led to conclude that drama educators will always be troubled by documents that may clearly articulate progress in drama learning, but may also fail to articulate all that cannot be calibrated and measured in drama. If we imagine these as the intangibles, the un-measurables, the serendipitous even, the improvised of drama learning, but nonetheless deeply cherished moments of drama teaching for many educators, we will continue to confound any school administrators who fail to see the value of learning that cannot be standardized or quantified or mandated.