Reactions and Assessments: Educational Laboratory Theatre Project, 1966-70
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 045 639 24 TE 002 126 AUTHOR floetker, James; And Others TITLE Reactions and Assessments: Educational Laboratory Theatre Project, 1966-70. Final Report. INSTITUTICN Central Midwestern Regional Educational Lab., St. Ann, Mo. SPONS AGENCY Cffice of Education (DREW), Washington, D.C. Bureau of Research. BUREAU NO BR-7-0310 PUB DATE 70 CONTRACT CEC-3-7-070310-1605 NOTE 440p.; Volume 1 AVAILABLE FRCM Verna Smith, CEMREI, Inc., 10646 St. Charles Rock Road, St. Ann, Mo. 63074 ($4.00) EDES PRICE EDRS Price MF-$1.75 HC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS *Community Education, Cultural Enrichment, Curriculum Enrichment, Drama, Dramatics, *Experimental Programs, *Participant Satisfaction, *Secondary Education, Student Feaction, *Theater Arts IDENTIFIERS *Educational Laboratory Theatre Project ABSTRACT The general plan of the 4-year (1966-1970) Educational Laboratory Theatre Project was to have theatre companies in Rhode Island, New Orleans, and Los Angeles give five matinee performances per week for high school students and three evening performances for adults in order to (1)make extensive use of professional theatre as an integral part of school curricula during school hours,(2) provide cultural enrichment to the community at large, and (3) encourage excellence in regional theatre. This first of four volumes et the Project's final report provides a brief history of the Project; information on the reception of the Project in the three sites; reactions of the advisory committee, students, educators, citizens, and theatre companies; summary statements from some of the major figures in the Project; and conclusions and recommendations. (See also TE 002 127-TE 002 129.) (MF) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECES final report SARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF ECU. CATION POSITION OR POLICY educational laboratory theatre project 1966-70 volume 1 reactions and assessments james hoetker alan engelsman man/ Louise barksdale brian hansen richard robb gary siege! phyllis hubbell nancyschanbacher melba eng !ander 01. Sh p The four volumes of the Final Report of the Educational Laboratory Theatre Project are: I - Reactions 6 Assessments II - Studies III - The Coordinator's Report on the ELT Project in Los Angeles IV - Professional Theatres in the Schools Published by the Central Midwestern Regional Educational Laboratory, Inc., a private nonprofit corporation supported in part as a regional educational laboratory by funds from the United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Office of Education, and no official endorsement by the Office of Education should be inferred. Central Midwestern Regional Educational Laboratory, Inc. 10646 St. Charles Rock Road St. Louis, Missouri 63074 314-429-3535 C)CEMREL, Inc., 1970 "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPYR IGHIED MAIEWAL_PY ILE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY taro A TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE U. S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION. FURTHER REPRODUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM REQUIRES PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER." Table of Contents Page Introduction 1 Part One: A Brief History of the Project 9 Part Two: The Reception of the Project in the Three Sites 83 Part Three: Advisory Committee Reactions 143 Part Four: Student Educator and Citizen Reactions Rhode Island 213 New Orleans 245 Los Angeles 275 Part Five: Theatre Company Reactions 359 Part Six: Summary Statements from Some of the Principal Figures in the Project 389 Part Seven: Conclusions and Recommendations 433 Introduction INTRODUCTION The Contents of the CEMREL Report The Final Report on the ELT Project, as it was submitted to the U. S. Office of Education in September, 1970, consists of four volumes, and it is anticipated that several pamphlet-sized supplements, addressed to special audiences, will be forthcoming during the next year.The first volume of the Final Report, the present one,is entitled "Re- actions and Assessments," and it contains summary histories of the three Project sites, the opinions of participants in the Project and observers of it, and, briefly, our conclusions and recommendations. The second volume, entitled "Studies," contains reports of the experi- mental and quasi-experimental investigations we carried out during the course of the Project. The third volume is authored, not by the CEMREL staff, but by the Coordinator of the ELT Project in Los Angeles, Dr. Hans Georg Stern. His report is included because the Los Angeles operation was the most complex, most troubled, the most embroiled in controversy, and, at the same time, through its involvement in racial relations and urban education, sociologically the most significant. The Project Coordinator had sources of information--particularly about the financial, contractual, and managerial aspects of the Project- - that were not completely available to us, and we believe that Dr. Stern's report--the only such document produced by a Project official in any of the sites--is a valuable addition to the CEMREL report.We have not, it should be noted, made any attempt to reconcile Dr. Stern's views with our own in the several cases where we draw different con- clusions from the same evidence. The fourth volume in the report is primarily the work of Mrs. Mary Louise Barksdale, and it consists of two parts.The first is a criti- cal account of alternatives of the ELT Project, which compares the Project with three other programs in which professional theatre has collaborated with an educational system. Each of the programs chosen for comparison--those involving the Minnesota Theatre Company, the Academy Theatre, and the Vanguard Theatre--differs in significant ways from the ELT Project and each has been in operation over a long enough period of time that its success can be judged.The second part of this fourth volume is a directory of professional theatre companies with educational relationships. The number of such school-theatre programs is surprisingly large, and, as we discovered in making our survey, most people actively engaged in school-theatre programs are unaware of the nature and extent of other programs. We hope that this direc- tory can serve not only to inform, but to stimulate the exchange of information and experiences between programs. 1 The supplementary pamphlets mentioned above, which will be issued as they are completed in 1971, will be addressed to special audiences- - educational researchers, theatre personnel, educators--and will be summaries of the lessons learned by us and the managers of the ELT Project during its span of life. The purpose of these pamphlets will be to enable others to profit from the experiences of the people and institutions that were involved in the ELT Project. Introduction to Volume One Aside from the first two chapters and the final one, this volume con- sists of the opinions of participants in the ELT Project.The opinions were obtained in many ways--as explained in the introductory notes to the several sections--and they have been edited with theintention of giving a fair representation of the range of opinions obtained in each of the sites from each category of informants. We have found, through responses to our earlier reports on the Project, that many readers, especially those in English or drama education and the theatre, find more value in reading the actual words of the stu- dents, teachers, and other participants than in all of our percentages, chi squares, and summary tables. "Who cares what you think," seems to be the attitude, "what did the kids say?"To accomodate these readers, we have, in this volume, reprinted large numbers of quotations and paraphrased or summarized many more. The reader will discover in these pages a great many opinions and con- jectures and subjective reports dealing with the effects of the thea- tre experience upon adolescents. But he will find blessed little hard evidence on the matter. It may be good to start out with a considera- tion of why this should be the case. The original objectives of the sponsors of the Project were to help existing regional theatres and to establish new ones, to introduce masses of students to good professional theatre, and to influence the ways that literature and drama were taught in the high schools. But the originators of the Project were also motivated by the assumption that the theatre experience would somehow change people in desirable ways, that teachers and students would, in ways not easy to specify, be better off forhaving seen good theatre. Some of those involved in planning and managing the Project spoke of the theatre experience as one that could "humanize" both people and institutions; or they talked about the vapidity of a life without art in it; or they talked of richness of experience and empathy and in- sight and appreciation and creativity; or they talked of the sociolo- gical imperative to find constructive options to self-destructive uses of our ever-increasing amounts of leisure time. These people hoped that CEMREL would find waysto demonstrate that changes in these areas 2 indeed came about as a result of the Educational Laboratory Theatre Project. We have not, of course, been able to do any such thing.With the rest of the human race, lettered and unlettered, we share the inability to operationalize or objectify such elusive and internal phenomena.What scientific understandings of the phenomenon of response to theatre that we were able to gather are to be found in the second volume of this re- port. But these will inevitably be disappointing to those who hoped, at the beginning of the Project, that a well-endowed research compo- nent could, in three years or so, get us further along the road to understanding the mysteries of aesthetic response then Aristotle and Hume and Kant and Croce have been able to do.