Comparative Education

ISSN: 0305-0068 (Print) 1360-0486 (Online) Journal homepage: https://tandfonline.com/loi/cced20

Craft Education in Lower Secondary Schools in

England and Japan: A comparative study

Rachel Mason , Norihisa Nakase & Toshio Naoe

To cite this article: Rachel Mason , Norihisa Nakase & Toshio Naoe (2000) Craft Education in
Lower Secondary Schools in England and Japan: A comparative study, Comparative Education,
36:4, 397-416, DOI: 10.1080/713656658

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/713656658

Published online: 28 Jun 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 150

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cced20
Comparative Education Volume 36 No. 4 2000 pp. 397– 416

Craft Education in Lower

Secondary Schools in England and
Japan: a comparative study [1]
RACHEL MASON, NORIHISA NAKASE &
TOSHIO NAOE

ABSTRACT This paper compares provision for and the practice of craft education in England and
Wales and Japan. Particular attention is given to craft within the National Curriculum subject of
art in England and Wales and Japan at lower secondary level and to current perceptions of its
educational value. Some of the key dilemmas faced by both English/Welsh and Japanese policy-
makers and practitioners are identiŽ ed, together with cultural factors impacting on the status of craft
and its successful implementation. We conclude by re ecting on the value of comparative studies of
education to the research teams concerned.

Introduction and Rationale

Both England and Japan have strong craft traditions. These traditions are recognised
internationally as living embodiments of their respective cultures and as epitomising the
highest human achievements in the use of materials and craft skills (Allison, 1998). The
decision to research and compare craft education at secondary school level was premised on
this assumption. We deemed it pertinent, therefore, to ask ‘How is the educational enterprise
of developing the next generation’s craft knowledge and ability to recognise, appreciate and
enjoy craft qualities being addressed in the two countries?’ We were concerned also that, in
present day society, the meaning and value of craft are unclear. Whereas some people view
it as essentially backward-looking and opposed to new technologies, for others it represents
a counter-culture (Frayling, 1990). The tendency of more and more craftspersons to adopt
the role model of the designer or artist [2] and prioritise originality and ideas over and above
technical virtuosity re ects a modernist aesthetic stance that devalues tradition and practical
craft skills. Yet whereas ‘making things by hand’ is no longer necessary for human survival,
there has been substantial growth of small crafts businesses and of handcrafts as hobby
activities (Knott, 1994).
Overlapping yet distinctive Japanese/British conceptions of craft provided an additional
impetus. Whereas the Japanese term kogei (which is closest to the British word ‘craft’) may
refer to technical art, industrial art, Ž ne and applied art, craft and design (all of which are
understood to have both aesthetic and functional dimensions), in the West a distinction has
been drawn since the Renaissance between ‘crafts’ catering primarily for the satisfaction of
functional and utilitarian needs (e.g. ceramics, textiles, leather-work and jewellery) and ‘Ž ne
arts’ (painting, drawing and sculpture) which give scope for imaginative self-expression and

Correspondence to: R. Mason, Centre for Art Education and International Research, Froebel College, University of
Surrey Roehampton, Roehampton Lane, London SW15 5PJ, UK. E-mail: R.MasonÓ roehampton.ac.uk

ISSN 0305-0068 print; ISSN 1360-0486 online/00/040397-20 Ó 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd
398 R. Mason et al.

intellectual speculation (Houghton & Mason, 1997). Before the modern period, there was no
distinction between art and craft in Japan, and the terms bijutsu (art) and kogei (craft) are
translations of Western concepts. The Japanese term dento kogei covers living artisanal
traditions of crafts (e.g. textiles, pottery, joinery, etc.) that were virtually wiped out by the
industrial revolution in England. There has been signiŽ cant cross-fertilisation of Japanese and
British craft this century. The British arts and crafts movement [3] was in uential in effecting
the development of a ‘modern’ or ‘contemporary’ craft tradition in Japan, and Japanese
traditional ceramics were the impetus for the ‘studio pottery’ revival in England.
Although craft education in both school systems originated as manual training in
vocational and domestic skills (woodwork for boys and sewing for girls), its present situation
re ects the dichotomies and distinctions above. Broadly speaking, understood as kogei in
Japan, it refers to three-dimensional functional items decorated or designed (and sometimes
made) during art lessons. In England, by contrast, it surfaces informally in discussion and
analysis of practical activities in ‘useful’ and ‘artistic’ craft traditions in design & technology
and art (Houghton & Mason, 1997). However, for the purposes of comparison, this paper
focuses on craft education in art [4].
The National Curriculum for art in both countries speciŽ es productive and responsive
curriculum domains, called ‘making’ and ‘knowledge and understanding’ in England and
‘expression’ and ‘appreciation’ in Japan. Variations in ofŽ cial policy are:
· the Ministry of Education in Japan (Monbusho, 1989a) speciŽ es four study areas for art
with distinctive learning objectives, one of which is kogei, but the English and Welsh
Statutory Orders (1995) make no formal distinction between art, craft and design [5];
· in Japan, the content of school art programmes is heavily in uenced by Ministry approved
textbooks, whereas in the English system it is in uenced by national examinations;
· the productive and responsive curriculum domains are variously interpreted. The emphasis
on ‘presenting diagrams and models to express ideas’, ‘comprehending the properties of
materials and proper use of tools’ and ‘ensuring a sense of balance between aesthetic
sensitivity and utilitarian purposes’ in the Japanese objectives (1989), for example, con-
trasts strongly with ‘experimenting with materials, images and ideas’, and ‘modifying and
reŽ ning their work in the light of their own and other’s evaluations’ in the English Statuary
Orders for Art (DfE, 1995, pp. 9– 10). Likewise, ‘responding to and evaluating art (and
craft), ‘analysing images and artefacts using appropriate art craft and design vocabulary’,
in the English Statutory Orders, contrasts markedly with Japanese requirements for
‘experiencing the pleasure of using design and crafts works’ and ‘deepening concern over
the relation of life to beauty’ (Monbusho, 1983, p. 73); and
· Ž nally, the stance taken on learning about cultural heritage is signiŽ cantly different.
Broadly speaking, both the English and Japanese guidelines make reference to appreciating
works from a variety of cultures, but ‘arousing pupils’ interest in and understanding of
indigenous cultural heritage in design and craft’ (Monbusho, 1983, p. 73) is exclusive to Japan.
These differences notwithstanding, there were cross-national concerns about craft education
at the time the research began. Accurate demographic data on provision and practice for the
14– 16 school age range was needed in both countries. In England this was needed to
determine the effects of the Education Reform Act of 1988, and in Japan it was needed to
ascertain the role and status of craft education at a time of impending cutbacks. Moreover,
there was public concern about the growing attention both governments were affording
technology to the detriment of art, craft and design [6].
The specialist literature on comparative education suggests that it functions as a testing
ground for the universality of research Ž ndings about educational phenomena. According to
 Craft Education in Lower Secondary Schools 399

Crossley & Broadfoot (1992), comparative education provides a frame of reference for
viewing two systems with greater clarity and illuminates the in uences of the cultures
concerned. While we recognised that cross-cultural study could not lead directly to educa-
tional change, we anticipated that it might contribute positively to the current debate about
craft education at a time when such activity is under threat.

Research Method
The comparative research tool was a survey questionnaire targeted at art teachers (plus
design & technology teachers in England). The research had the following stated aims:

· to determine the nature and extent of learning through craft activity;

· to determine the extent to which knowledge and understanding of craft inheritance is
included;
· to establish the degree to which such learning is valued by teachers; and
· to identify the quality and quantity of provision for learning.

That conceptions of craft in Japanese schooling and society are more stable than in England
was apparent even before the research began from inclusion of the following deŽ nitions in the
English version of the questionnaires only:
craft activity: pupils should be actively involved in the designing and making of
one-off individual artefacts encouraging the development of imaginative and practi-
cal skills, visual sensitivity and a working knowledge of tools and materials
craft inheritance: learning targeted at developing knowledge and understanding of the
historical technological and cultural context in which artefacts have been and are
being made
The questions clustered into six groups. Broadly speaking, they inquired into current
provision for craft education in lower secondary schools together with teachers’ views about
craft theory and practice, the educational value of craft and the impact of the National
Curriculum. The majority of questions were closed so that the data could be analysed
statistically using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). A signiŽ cant number of the
questions offered respondents four value statements to choose from, ranging from ‘a lot’,
‘some’, ‘a little’ or ‘none’. For the purposes of this comparison, the data from the Ž rst two
options were combined to indicate positive responses and from the last two options to present
negative responses.
Lower secondary education was targeted because art is compulsory at this school level
and usually taught by teachers with specialist training. The samples were affected by the
variations in the structure and organisation of schooling in the two systems. First, only Japan
has a national system of junior high schools for pupils between the ages 12– 15. In England,
the majority of pupils attend secondary schools catering for the 11– 16 or 11– 18 age group.
Second, although the majority of schools (99% in the Japanese and 70% in the English
survey) are local education authority (LEA) maintained, there is a wider range of school types
and sizes in England. Third, Japanese pupils study all National Curriculum subjects,
including art, until the age of 15, whereas art is compulsory only up to age 14 in England.
Fourth, there are more art teachers per school for this age group in England than in Japan
(the survey established an average of two to three art teachers per school in England and one
in Japan). Fifth, English art teachers follow specialist training and qualiŽ cations in either Ž ne
art, design or craft, whereas Japanese art teacher training covers all three.
400 R. Mason et al.

There were differences of method pertaining to the questionnaire design and distribution
also. The questions were formulated in England and the Japanese team modiŽ ed them
slightly in translation. It is important to point out that the variations in the questions were
both a strength and weakness of the research design: a weakness in that they rendered
comparison of responses more complex; a strength in that they constituted a second source
of comparative data in their own right. On the other hand, the decision to try to keep the
questions as similar as possible probably reduced the potential scope of the study in Japan.
In England and Wales, the questionnaires were mailed directly to the teachers in charge of
art (and design & technology) in all secondary schools (5625), resulting in 2380 returns, of
which 1168 came from art teachers. To ensure a good response rate the Japanese question-
naires were distributed personally by local education authority inspectors to teachers respon-
sible for art in a sample of 1118 out of a possible 11,289 junior high schools in the 47
prefectures. This resulted in a total of 717 responses from 45 prefectures (64%). The
questionnaires were sent out in October 1994 in England and a Ž nal research report was
published in December 1995 (Iwano & Mason, 1996). The Japanese questionnaires were
distributed in June and July 1995 and the Ž nal report was published in March 1996 (Nakase,
1996).

Analysis of Data
Craft Activity
That there is a wider range of craft activities on offer in art in Japan is apparent from the
questionnaire design. Whereas the British version mentioned four materials only (metal, clay,
textiles and wood), the Japanese one mentioned 11 crafts, including some like tuishu (a
lacquer technique), shippo (a form of enamelling) and tenkoku (stone seal carving) that are
unique either to Asia or Japan. One reason for limiting the range in the English version was
that textiles, clay, metal and wood were widely understood to predominate. The data from
an open-ended question challenged this assumption, however, in that a substantial number
of both art and design & technology respondents claimed to use paper, card, cane, mixed-me-
dia, plastics and plaster quite extensively also. A second reason was confusion about where
pupils accessed these materials (in design & technology or art). The Ž nding here was that clay
is used almost exclusively in art, wood and metal in design & technology and textiles are
common to both subjects (see Table I).
Comparative Ž ndings about wood, metal, clay and textiles in art are that:
· wood is the most popular craft material in Japan as opposed to clay in England (81% of
the Japanese but only 25% of the British art teachers in the survey used wood ‘a lot’).
Conversely, 78% of British and 25% of Japanese art teachers used clay ‘a lot’ (92% of
design & technology teachers in England used wood ‘a lot’, however); and
· metal was not much used in art either in England or Japan (only 21% of British and 23%
of Japanese art teachers responded positively to this question). The responses about textiles
differed dramatically, in that 70% of British and only 5% of Japanese art teachers
mentioned using it.
Reasons why ceramics and textiles feature prominently in art and wood and metal are the
province of design & technology in England are largely historical and re ect the specialist
qualiŽ cations of teachers and the traditional split between ‘useful’ and ‘artistic’ crafts
(Houghton & Mason, 1997). According to Naoe (1993), Japanese people have a strong
afŽ nity with wood and another reason why this material is used extensively is that it is easy
to resource [7]. The same is true for kami (paper craft) and tenkoku (carving stone seals), the
 Craft Education in Lower Secondary Schools 401

TABLE I. Materials and techniques (the Ž gures are the total of positive answers (‘a lot’ or
‘some’))

Britain (%) Japan (%)

Ceramics Hand building 82 Hand building 25

Throwing 36 Glazing 12
Modelling 83 Firing 20
Casting 36
Sculpture 71
Metal Casting 3 Casting 3
Joining 10 Beating 20
Turning 3
Forming 9
Forge work 3
Sculpting 26
Textiles Weaving 48 Textiles 5
Knitting 22
Printing and dyeing 74
Felt making 19
Sewing 50
Sculpting 48
Wood Carving 19 Carving 81
Cutting 27 Cutting 64
Turning 6 Surface Ž nish 79
Laminating 6 Laminating 16
3-D construction 45 3-D construction 32
Sculpting 33
Others Paper 38
Cane and bamboo 9
Tsuishu 7
Tenkoku 45
Shippo 16
Glass 6
Leather 5

other two most popular Japanese crafts. The Japanese research team explained the paucity of
craft work in textiles as re ecting a school culture in which it is associated with ‘home-
making’ in technology and with gender discrimination in society against ‘women’s crafts’. It
is important to point out that craft is gendered in England also. Women dominate the textiles
area and men more often work with wood and stone (Charlton, 1989). Moreover, equal
opportunities policies notwithstanding, very few boys choose to study textiles in schools, once
craft materials become optional at 14.
Comparison of the data on craft skills is complicated by discrepancies in the question-
naire design. Whereas the English version separated questions about materials and tech-
niques, with the exception of wood, the Japanese version treated them as one and the same
thing. Given that craft knowledge is widely understood to be skilled knowledge (Dormer,
1997; Gardner, 1990) and that Western observers routinely extol the technical excellence of
Japanese pupil outcomes in art (Mason, 1994), the English team were surprised at these
alterations. Their colleagues’ response was that, unlike technology, techniques are considered
of secondary importance to aesthetic and expressive concerns in art.
The surveys conŽ rmed that the range of craft skills available to pupils in art in both
countries is limited. For example, the majority of students in England learn how to hand-
build in clay, but not to throw and cast, and there is more printing and dyeing than sewing
402 R. Mason et al.

or knitting. (The data on wood and metalwork in design & technology suggested a more
serious decline in skills-based teaching and learning than in art, however.) In Japan, carving
is afforded more attention than cutting, laminating and 3-D construction because:

· of a tendency towards ‘applied design’ in art and ‘construction’ in technology; and

· wood-carving tools and techniques are useful for a wide range of crafts (and especially for
wood-cut printing which is widely practised in Japanese art education as a ‘Ž ne art’).

The survey inquired into provision for computer-aided design and manufacture (CAD/
CAM) which is increasingly being used by professional craft workers. The Ž ndings were that
80% of English art teachers did not use it (whereas 50% of design & technology teachers did)
compared to 97% of Japanese art teachers. The Japanese research team explained this lack
as a consequence of the deep-seated belief in Japanese art education that handling materials
and understanding their properties is fundamental to children’s learning in general. They
contrasted this belief with the perceived emphasis in English art education on the role model
of the professional artist and designer.

Specialist Accommodation, StafŽ ng and Equipment

The data about resources for craft activities are virtually impossible to compare because of
variations in custom and practice. For example, accommodation is standardised throughout
Japanese junior high schools and all arts and crafts activities take place in the same room,
whereas secondary schools in England sometimes have purpose-built facilities for ceramics,
textiles, metal and wood. Detailed questions about accommodation, equipment and tools
were considered very important by the English research team because the Education Reform
Act (1988) had given some schools control of their own Ž nances and this was thought to be
effecting signiŽ cant variations in provision. The Japanese questionnaire did not ask about
teacher qualiŽ cations and included only one question about the adequacy of facilities and
tools for metal, textiles, clay and wood. It included additional questions about time alloca-
tions for kogei and the extent to which parents subsidised materials and equipment. (Regard-
ing the latter, the Ž nding was that parents pay an average of 819 yen for art materials per year,
of which approximately 784 yen was used speciŽ cally for craft materials [8]. Funding for art
and craft materials, tools and equipment in English schools was very variable, with an average
of £2.37 per pupil being spent by art departments on both art and craft materials in the year
the survey was carried out.)
The English survey found more satisfaction with present standards of accommodation,
tools and equipment than anticipated. Approximately 80% of art teachers reported having
purpose-built accommodation for ceramics and 72% described tools and equipment as
‘excellent’ or ‘adequate’. Likewise, 80% of design & technology teachers had purpose-built
facilities for wood and metal and 86% and 67% (respectively), were satisŽ ed with tools and
equipment. The position in textiles was less satisfactory in that 15– 20% of all respondents
had no specialist accommodation and only 47% of art and 58% of design & technology
teachers were satisŽ ed with their tools and equipment. In Japan, there was less satisfaction
over all and, of the four areas investigated, only wood was reported to be well or adequately
resourced (66%). That resource factors are an issue in kogei is evident from research by Naoe
(1993) which established that although ceramics is popular with students, it is often not
taught owing to the lack of appropriate accommodation and equipment. The same point
surfaced also in responses to a later question about factors impacting on successful delivery
of craft.
 Craft Education in Lower Secondary Schools 403

TABLE II. Craft traditions (the Ž gures are the total of positive answers (‘a lot’
or ‘some’))

Britain (%) Japan (%)

Contemporary 54 Contemporary 45
Other times 52 Other times 32
Ethnic/global 44 Ethnic/global 15
Ethnic/Brit. 33 Ethnic/Japan 38
Trade 14 Traditional crafts in local area 24
Women’s 18
Rural 15

Craft Inheritance
The questions about the access pupils have to different craft traditions were not identical. For
example, the categories ‘trade crafts’ (manual crafts associated with vocational occupations
such as building, plumbing, carpentry and car mechanics), ‘women’s crafts’ (crafts tradition-
ally practised by women in the home, such as embroidery and  ower arranging) and ‘rural
crafts’ (country crafts such as hedging, thatching and ditching) included in the English survey
were omitted in Japan; and the category ‘local crafts’ was exclusive to the Japanese version
(see Table II).
Analysis of the responses elicited the following comparisons:

· pupils in both countries study ‘contemporary crafts’ the most (54% of British and 45% of
Japanese respondents answered ‘a lot’ or ‘some’ to this question). Although it is probable
that this category was interpreted somewhat differently in England and Japan, it neverthe-
less suggests that students have greater access to modern artist and designer crafts than to
pre-modern traditions in both countries. Having said this,
· ‘crafts of other times’ were afforded ‘some’, or ‘a lot of’ attention in 52% of English and
32% of Japanese programmes;
· craft knowledge appears to be more multicultural in England in that global (i.e. non-West-
ern) crafts were studied ‘a lot’ or ‘some’ in about 44% of cases, but were the least studied
category in Japan (15%);
· on the other hand, ‘ethnic (indigenous/Japanese) crafts’ and ‘crafts in the local region’ were
studied ‘a lot’ or ‘some’ in 38% of cases in Japan; and
· Ž nally, there are living craft traditions to which students cannot gain access. ‘Trade crafts’,
‘women’s crafts’ and ‘rural crafts’ were studied very little in both art and design &
technology and were considered irrelevant in Japan.

Questions about primary resources for learning about craft inheritance varied (see Table
III). For example, the category ‘natural and built environment’, which received the most
positive response in England (75%), was not included in the Japanese survey. Likewise, the
question about ‘local traditional crafts’ in the Japanese version, which received a 16% positive
response, differed from the question about ‘local collections’ in the English questionnaire.
The latter referred to any sort of collection housed in a gallery near the school, whereas the
former referred to living traditions of regional artisan crafts which have been the subject of
an increased attention in recent educational policy (Monbusho, 1989b; Art Education
Association, 1994; Hasegawa, 1995).
Comparison of the data revealed that 39% of pupils in England and 22% in Japan are
shown artefacts made by professional crafts people during art lessons, but that opportunities
404 R. Mason et al.

TABLE III. Primary resources (the Ž gures are the total of positive answers (‘a lot’ or ‘some’))

Britain (%) Japan (%)

Artefacts made by craftspeople 39 Artefacts made by craftspeople 22

Resident craftspeople 20 Craftspeople 6
Handling sessions 21
Major museum & gallery collections 48 Museums and galleries 18
Local collections 42 Local traditional crafts 16
Museum & gallery education facilities 48
The natural environment 77
The built environment 75
Visits to workshops/studios 17
Visits to industrial sites 9

to meet and talk with them are few and far between (a 20% positive response in England and
only 6% in Japan). Over all, there is less use of primary source materials in Japan and pupils
go outside school to study craft less often. The Ž nding that pupils in England are much more
like likely to participate in school visits to study craft in galleries and museums (48% in
England and 18% in Japan) probably re ects the larger numbers of such institutions and the
fact that museum and gallery education is a relatively new concept in Japan.
Books (and magazines) were the predominant secondary resource for craft education in
both countries, the major difference being the extensive use of three different kinds of
government approved art textbooks in Japan (see Table IV). Not surprisingly, given their
copious illustrations, a greater range and diversity of visual resources is used for transmitting
craft knowledge and understanding in England than in Japan. Comparison of the data
revealed that 72% of English and 23% of Japanese respondents used posters and wall charts
‘a lot’ or ‘some’, and 50% of English and 35% of Japanese teachers used moving images
(video and Ž lm). The Ž nding that 3% of Japanese as opposed to 30% of English art teachers
used multimedia and CD-ROM probably re ects not only the textbooks, but also cultural
differences regarding the use of visual stimuli for teaching and learning. This point will be
elaborated later on.

Value of Craft
Possible reasons for valuing craft in general education were extracted mainly from the ofŽ cial
policy documents for art and design & technology in England. Although the checklist was
modiŽ ed slightly in the Japanese version to make it more consistent with policy for kogei [9] ,
the rationales in the two versions overlapped. With hindsight, it became apparent that relying
on ofŽ cial literature as source material for checklists and combining the data from the
categories ‘some’ and ‘a lot’ to signify a positive response limited these Ž ndings.
Taking this into account, art teachers in both countries considered ‘developing pupils’
imaginative and expressive abilities’ a very important justiŽ cation for craft (a 95.8% positive
response in England and 85% in Japan) (see Table V). Another very important justiŽ cation
was that it helps pupils to ‘develop a sense of pride and achievement’ (England 97.5% and
Japan 95%).
· Both sets of respondents viewed ‘Ž rst-hand knowledge of tools and materials’ as important
also (97.% in Japan and 85.2% in England).
· There was a marked difference between Japanese and English art teachers’ attitudes
towards craft appreciation and cultural inheritance. Appreciating excellence and under-
 Craft Education in Lower Secondary Schools 405

TABLE IV. Secondary resources (the Ž gures are the total of positive answers (‘a lot’ or ‘some’))

Britain (%) Japan (%)

Slides & photos 79 Slides & photos 39

Exhibition catalogues 55 Books & exhibition catalogues 29
Archive materials 31
Video & audio tapes 50 Video 35
Magazines & books 92
Postcards 88
Posters & wall charts 72 Posters & wall charts 23
CD ROM/multimedia 30 CD ROM & computers 3
Technical reference materials 26 Technical reference materials 46
Text books 81
Supplementary text books for art appreciation 82

TABLE V. Value afforded craft (the Ž gures are the total of positive answers (‘a lot’ or ‘some’))

Britain (%) Japan (%)

Builds self conŽ dence 95

Gives a sense of pride and achievement 98 Gives a positive attitude and sense of achievement 95
Develops understanding of the made world 90
Gives Ž rst hand knowledge of tools and materials 95 Gives Ž rst hand knowledge of tools and materials 97
Develops imaginative and expressive skills 96 Develops imaginative and expressive skills 85
Develops understanding of historical, technical Develops understanding of cultural heritage 83
and cultural inheritance 78
Helps to determine future career choices 57 Helps to determine future career choices 27
Provides for leisure time pursuits 62 Provides for leisure time pursuits 68
Fosters practical skills for adult life in the home 70 Prepares pupils for adult life in the home 58
Fosters practical skills for adult life in the Prepares pupils for adult life in the workplace 33
workplace 69
Fosters visual sensitivity for adult life in the home 89
Fosters visual sensitivity for adult life in the
workplace 83
Fosters problem solving skills for adult life in the
home 87
Fosters problem solving skills for adult life in the
workplace 85
Helps pupils to appreciate excellence and aesthetic
value in crafts 92
Develops understanding of relationships between
crafts and life 92

standing the relationship of crafts to life, both of which were rated very highly in Japan
(92% each), were not even included in the English checklist. Moreover, whereas 78.8% of
English as opposed to 83% of Japanese art teachers valued its role in understanding
cultural heritage, only 30.8% of them answered ‘a lot’.
· Not surprisingly, Japanese art teachers attached more signiŽ cance to the contribution of
craft education to leisure pursuits (68% versus 37.7%) and the home (58% versus 28%).
The tendency to reject the idea that craft is useful vocationally was marked in both
countries (33% in Japan and 57% in England, where only 12.6% of teachers answered ‘a
lot’).
Another way of determining what teachers value about craft is to ask them how they assess
406 R. Mason et al.

TABLE VI. Assessment criteria (the Ž gures are the total of positive answers (‘a lot’ or ‘some’))

Britain (%) Japan (%)

Use of visual research and reference materials to

generate ideas 97
Exploration of the potential of materials, tools Exploration of the potential of materials, tools
and techniques 96 and techniques 96
Understanding of speciŽ c craft processes 92
Manual dexterity 94
Technical competence 94 Technical competence 61
Surface Ž nish 84 Surface Ž nish 65
Ability to communicate personal response 97 Ability to express individuality 95
Expressive use of knowledge and techniques 97
Development of imagination 98 Imagination based in purposes and materials 95
Problem solving skills 94
Design capability 92
Ability to communicate 3-D ideas 93
Ability to talk about artefacts 78
Working according to plan 93
Appreciation of excellence and the aesthetic
value of craft 84
Understanding of the role of craft in everyday
life 77
Understanding features of craft as cultural
heritage 65
Motivation and interest in studying craft 92

it. The lists of possible criteria included in the checklists for this question were drawn from
National Examination documents for both art and design & technology in England and The
Record of Instruction (a mandatory national system of for recording pupils’ achievement) in
Japan.
Comparison of the questions and responses revealed important variations in theory and
practice (see Table VI). First, the Japanese research team judged it appropriate to include
skills-based criteria such as technical competence and surface Ž nish in their checklist which
are exclusive to design & technology in England whilst omitting design-based criteria (such
as problem-solving skills, design capability and ability to communicate ideas). Second, only
the Japanese survey included the criteria ‘appreciation of crafts’ (past and present) and
‘understanding cultural heritage’. Third, only the English checklist included the criterion
‘researching own ideas from visual resources’ and only the Japanese questionnaire mentioned
motivation, ‘interpretation of ideas in visual form’ and ‘working according to plan’.
Because these criteria are ‘ofŽ cial’ and the data were combined, response rates in all
categories were high. The data from the English survey conŽ rmed the traditional split
between the utilitarian and artistic strands of craft education. Broadly speaking, art teachers
afforded more importance to artistic/expressive aspects of craft activity (such as ‘development
of imagination’, ‘ability to communicate personal response’) and design & technology
teachers afforded problem-solving and design skills more signiŽ cance. A surprising Ž nding,
however, was that ‘technical competence’ was rated much more important by English than
Japanese art teachers (93.% and 61%). Other comparative Ž ndings were that:

· ‘exploration of potential of materials and tools’ (which received a 95.9% positive response
in both Japan and England) and ‘ability to communicate personal response’ (95% in Japan
and 96.9% in England) were considered to be important in both systems;
 Craft Education in Lower Secondary Schools 407

TABLE VII. Factors impacting on successful delivery (Britain) and the current situation (Japan) (the Ž gures
are the total of positive answers (‘very important’ or ‘important’ in Britain and ‘excellent’ or ‘adequate’ in
Japan))

Britain (%) Japan (%)

Specialist staff 95 Teachers with knowledge of craft 35

Specialist accommodation 92
Specialist tools and equipment 97 Specialist tools and equipment 28
Studio/workshop time 97
Flexible timetabling 83 SufŽ cient lesson time 31
Budget for consumable materials 98
Storage for 3-D work 95 Storage for 3-D work 21
Funding to bring in craftspeople 78
Links with national and regional craft agencies 64
Funding for professional development 84
Good staff/pupil ratios 99 Good staff/pupil ratios 34
In service education 31
Links with museums 3

· knowledge or appreciation of craft was less important (this was deduced from the 84%
positive response to category appreciation in the Japanese checklist and the 78.4% positive
response to ‘ability to talk about artefacts’ in the English checklist, of which only 27.0%
scored the category ‘a lot’);
· the broad category of appreciation was afforded more importance per se than ‘learning
about cultural heritage’ (65%) and ‘understanding craft in daily life’ (77%); and
· Ž nally, ‘surface Ž nish’ was afforded the lowest priority in both countries (65% in Japan and
84% in England).

Factors Impacting on Successful Delivery

Both questionnaires asked about the way in which a range of resource-based factors impacted
on provision for craft, such as specialist teaching qualiŽ cations, accommodation, tools and
equipment, timetabling, staff– student ratios, links with museums and national and regional
craft agencies.
The two factors rated most important by English art teachers were ‘good staff– pupil
ratios’ (87.6%) and ‘an adequate budget for consumable materials’ (83.2%) (see Table VII).
However, the data were not comparable because the provision and practice of art and craft
education is more standardised in Japan and there are signiŽ cant differences in the way they
are funded. For example, parents pay for consumable materials and sometimes even for tools
in Japan. Instead, the Japanese version questioned teachers about present attitudes towards
aspects of craft education such as use the of computers, and pupils’ motivation and ability
(see Table VIII). The last two questions were included to test out a previous research Ž nding
(Naoe, 1993) that art teachers in Japan are very concerned at present about declining
standards of classroom discipline and motivation.
Three open questions were included at the end of the English questionnaire that enabled
respondents to comment freely on the following issues:

· the impact of the National Curriculum;

· future development of craft; and
· the deŽ nitions used in the survey.
408 R. Mason et al.

TABLE VIII. Current situation (Japan only) (the Ž gures are the total of positive answers (‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’))

Pupils (%) Teachers (%)

Can think individually 58 Choose activities that motivate pupils 93

Are highly motivated 90 Keep the same step in the making process 77
Are more enthusiastic about craft than drawing 81 Craft is more suitable for step by step
instruction than drawing 72
Make works of high quality 50 Want more information from overseas 45
Have good manners 82 Want to use computers for craft 31

From an overall response rate of approximately 60%, 78% of English art teachers took the
view that the National Curriculum had actually had a positive effect on craft (understood as
other than drawing and painting) or had not made a lot of difference. This contrasted
strongly with the responses from design & technology teachers which were predominantly
negative (45%), to the effect that it had lowered standards in craft. Art teachers were not
optimistic about the future of three-dimensional work (craft), however, which was under-
stood to depend on improved resourcing (37%) and clarifying its role and location in the
curriculum (30%). A majority judged the deŽ nition of craft activity in research as ‘too
narrow’ in terms of content or materials, or too ‘traditional’.

Discussion
In the previous section we presented comparative Ž ndings from two national surveys of craft
education in England and Japan. The next section summarises and explicates the Ž ndings in
the light of cultural differences and re ects on their implications for the future of craft in
National Curriculum art. We begin by summarising the similarities and differences.

Similarities
Overall, the data suggest that craft education is declining. Although it has more ofŽ cial
support in Japan, art teachers in both countries perceive there are insufŽ cient resources and
time to implement it and are pessimistic about its future. The specialist materials and
equipment that craft activity requires are expensive and signiŽ cant numbers of art teachers
are not trained to deliver craft knowledge and skills.
The situation is more serious in England, where the concept of craft education is in
disarray. Not so long ago, Clement (1989) reported craft activities as  ourishing under three
subject headings, ‘art and design’, ‘craft design & technology’ and ‘home economics’. It is a
measure of its declining status that the original statutory orders for art and design &
technology eliminated all references to the term ‘craft’ and this survey has revealed a crisis of
conŽ dence and identity in craft. It is also important to note that national examinations in art
discriminate against craft in that drawing and painting are mandatory, whereas ceramics and
textiles are optional. In design & technology, on the other hand, pupils’ practical work using
both resistant and non-resistant materials is examined.
For different reasons, Japanese and English art teachers often ignore distinctions between
art and craft. They afford painting and drawing the most signiŽ cance and the way they teach
craft re ects contemporary ‘Ž ne art’ values. In the English survey, for example, teachers used
‘craft’ to distinguish three-dimensional activities from drawing and painting (including
sculpture which is traditionally associated with Western ‘Ž ne art’). While cultural factors
 Craft Education in Lower Secondary Schools 409

ensure that skills and techniques continue to receive attention in Japan, both Japanese and
English art teachers prioritise creativity over teaching skills and techniques. They are more
concerned with contemporary than traditional crafts. Paradoxically, however, craft education
means making by hand, and there is very little experimentation with new technologies.
The research suggests that art teachers value craft mainly for psychological reasons
(because it gives individual pupils pride and conŽ dence in their own achievements, and
develops imaginative powers and expressive skills). Japanese teachers regard craft-based
curriculum objectives like ‘understanding design and craft in everyday life’ as less signiŽ cant
than art-based objectives like expression and creativity and, in England, the former are largely
ignored. Overall, this re ects a dominance of expression theories of art and humanistic or
liberal art education ideals in both countries [10]. Nevertheless, there are more differences
than similarities in the way craft education is conceptualised, valued, provided for and taught
in the two countries.

Differences
Japanese pupils experience a wider variety of craft materials, techniques and types than their
English equivalents and distinctions between them are more rigidly maintained. There is
more mixed-media work in England, and ‘proper procedures’ for speciŽ c craft activities are
emphasised more in Japan. Perhaps the most striking difference in the productive domain is
that everything pupils design and/or make in kogei is utilitarian, whereas in England art and
craft outcomes are virtually synonymous. Textiles are not included as a craft medium in art
education in Japan [11].
Craft knowledge appears to be more multicultural or global in England, whereas national
heritage and learning about local craft traditions are afforded much more importance in
Japan. On the other hand, the textbooks reveal that the Japanese curriculum is bicultural
rather than monocultural and affords equal attention to Western and Japanese art. That the
curriculum for the responsive domain is underpinned by alternative theories of criticism and
response was conŽ rmed by the Japanese teachers’ concern with developing affective as
opposed to cognitive responses to art and craft in their pupils. This correlates with National
Curriculum policy guidelines which urge them to concentrate on increasing pupils’ enjoy-
ment of artefacts, and to avoid teaching art history (Monbusho, 1989b).
The survey revealed signiŽ cant differences in the way craft activity is taught, resourced
and assessed. Teaching and learning modes are more  exible in England, in that teachers use
a greater variety of visual resources, for example, and pupils have more opportunities to study
artefacts made by professional crafts people both inside and outside school. Specialist
accommodation, stafŽ ng and equipment are considered very important in England and,
where these are lacking, there is a consensus of opinion that the quality of craft teaching and
learning will decline. In Japan, on the other hand, specialisation is actively discouraged
(Monbusho, 1989b) and pupils are expected to explore and develop craft skills with the help
of secondary rather than primary source material.
Assessment of pupils’ craft work in Japan and England is strikingly different. The former
addresses psychological and emotional states, like motivation and effort, whereas the latter
addresses the quality of learning outcomes and is product- and process-based. The differ-
ences of attitude to skills-based criteria in the survey are intriguing in that technical
competence, which is recognised internationally as an outstanding characteristic of Japanese
pupils’ art and craft work, is afforded more importance by English than Japanese art teachers.
Regarding the educational value of craft, the Japanese National Curriculum for art is
more openly supportive than its English counterpart of so-called liberal or humanistic
410 R. Mason et al.

educational aims. That the English art curriculum is quasi-vocational is implied by the
emphasis on specialist provision for speciŽ c arts and crafts and on the role models of the
professional artist, craftsperson and designer. Finally, the survey responses conŽ rmed there
is signiŽ cantly more emphasis on craft as an instrument for the transmission of cultural
identity and heritage in the Japanese than in the English system.

Alternative Cultural Conceptions of Curricula, Pedagogy and Art

The comparative education literature offers cultural explanations for the above. The lack of
primary source material and of external resources for craft education in Japan is linked to an
ancient Confucian ideology that affords aestheticism, character training through self-
discipline and hardship (gambaru) a high priority in education and asserts that all children are
innately motivated to learn (Rohlen, 1983; White, 1990). The English expectation (evi-
denced in OfŽ ce for Standards in Education reports) that the quality of art and craft
programmes can be assessed through scrutiny of visual exemplars on classroom walls
exempliŽ es an alternative cultural belief that learning is the outcome of interaction between
the innate qualities of individuals and their exposure to cultural exemplars; and that a wide
range of the latter is needed to cater for their differing academic abilities and developmental
levels (Holmes & McLean, 1988).
The contrasting stances on specialist provision and educational justiŽ cations for craft can
be explained at least in part by alternative cultural models of worthwhile knowledge and
curriculum. More speciŽ cally, the emphasis on specialist provision in the English survey is
the outcome of a traditional essentialist curriculum that proposes that worthwhile knowledge
arises from in-depth study of a small range of school subjects and encourages choice at age
14. The Japanese model, which Holmes & Mclean (1988) describe as a combination of
European encyclopaedism, American pragmatism and indigenous moral values, on the other
hand, promotes a broad range of subjects, including the arts and crafts, that are similar for
all children up to the age of 18. Differences in the value Japanese and English teachers afford
craft education can also be explained by these alternative constructions of knowledge and
curriculum. A problem for English art teachers is that their subject sits awkwardly within an
essentialist curriculum that discriminates against all forms of artistic, technical and vocational
learning (especially those from manual activities associated with craft occupations). Recent
government attempts to ground these forms of learning in a vocational educational rationale
are equally problematic, though less so for craft in design & technology than in art. In the
Japanese encyclopaedic model, with its broad Ž eld approach to human knowledge and strong
emphasis on acquisition of moral ideas, craft education appears to have found a more
charitable host.
Possibly the most signiŽ cant cultural variation is the stance taken on individualism and
character training, or the education of the whole personality. Regarding the former, it is well
known that schooling is more standardised in Japan and that the English system, which seeks
to cater for children of different abilities and aptitudes, offers more individual choice. Shido,
the Japanese word for teaching, embraces much more than English educational concepts like
‘academic guidance’ and ‘instruction’ and the responsibilities of Japanese teachers with
regard to pastoral care involve associating with pupils, both mentally and physically, to
encourage their future character development (Shimuzu, 1992) with a view to integration
into the group. Likewise, the acquisition of knowledge and the cultivation of personality are
understood to go hand-in-hand with ‘humanising’ a child in the sense of their being able to
have harmonious relationships with others.
Such differences are exempliŽ ed in the way craft work is evaluated in line with art and
 Craft Education in Lower Secondary Schools 411

craft examination criteria in England and the National Record of Instruction in Japan. Typi-
cally, English pupils tend to be given open-ended practical assignments, or briefs (sometimes
consisting of only one word), and are expected to carry out recognisable stages in a ‘research
and development process’ that takes place over several weeks. Each stage is taken into account
in the assessment of the Ž nal outcome and individual inquiry, development of imaginative
ideas and cognitive problem-solving skills are afforded a high priority. In Japan, on the other
hand, materials, processes and products for the majority of craft projects are standardised and
pupils’ interest, motivation and attitude, ability to formulate ideas and plan activities, creative
abilities and appreciation of craft are taken into account. Their progress is evaluated
continuously throughout the academic year on the basis of accumulated scores from work-
sheet checklists and tests. Pupils are not typically involved in Ž nal project assessments in
Japan, whereas in England they are expected to defend and explain their achievements. The
fact that English examination results are made public in school ‘league’ (or rank order) tables,
but are strictly conŽ dential in Japan, re ects a more open English culture of schooling.
Although Japanese craft education aspires to Western aesthetic concepts like ‘creativity’
and ‘free expression’, an alternative cultural aesthetic is evident in the tension between
creativity and teaching techniques. Western modernist art theory holds that teaching tech-
niques detracts from creativity, but it is a re ection of the ‘dualism’ of modern Japanese life
that technical excellence remains a noticeable feature of pupils’ learning outcomes. One
possible explanation, given the lower standards of specialist provision in comparison, is the
high value traditional Japanese culture places on ‘spirit in technique’. In this tradition, a
pre-modern apprenticeship model of training is associated with spiritual and moral develop-
ment and stresses self-discipline, and technical competence as the key to a ‘good way of life’
and to establishing ‘original’ craft work. The nomination by government of master craftsper-
sons as ‘National Living Treasures’ is evidence that this alternative aesthetic still exists.
The English National Curriculum for art contains no equivalent to the Japanese
objective of ‘arousing pupils’ interest in and understanding of indigenous cultural heritage in
design and craft’ (Monbusho, 1989a). According to the Japanese research team, national
cultural identity has always been emphasised in secondary education in Japan, and there is
general agreement that it is an important educational aim, although practical factors militate
against its realisation [12]. Admittedly the vigorous and bitter struggles to deŽ ne and control
the notion of national culture and identity that were a feature of English National Curriculum
planning in England pose the question: who should deŽ ne desirable qualities and traditions?
But Beck (1996) claims that ‘a functioning national culture, including the maintenance of
social stability and a non-precarious sense of nationality’ (p. 175) is entirely compatible with
a signiŽ cant degree of pluralism at the level of both beliefs and values in society; and ‘with
a considerable diversity of self-identiŽ cation (in terms of religious, sexual, ethnic and other
identities) on the part of individuals and groups’ (p. 175). It would arguably be better to
clarify the hidden values surrounding such matters in England than to let the curriculum
continue to re ect inequalities of gender, class and race. By promoting craft in everyday life
and its functional and aesthetic attributes, the Japanese National Curriculum has the
potential to inculcate traditional artisanal craft values alongside the more modernist princi-
ples associated with 20th century artist and designer crafts. Likewise, mention of crafts as
conveyors of national and local heritage in government policy allows for continuity of past
and present craft traditions in a way that the English curriculum does not.
That the two National Curricula promote different conceptual models of art criticism
and response was noted in the introduction. There are a number of points to be made in this
regard. First, appreciating something and knowing about it and understanding it are not one
and the same thing, in that the former emphasises a subjective, emotional response arising
412 R. Mason et al.

from experiencing something in common with an artwork or natural phenomenon, whereas

the latter implies objective judgement and some form of empiricism (Sparshott, 1967).
Second, whereas the concepts nature, beauty, morality and art have long been interrelated in
Japanese aesthetics, Western modernist art theory dispensed with the notion of the beautiful
as a symbol of the moral and good and distanced art from everyday concerns. Third, the
emphasis on critical reasoning is a characteristic of the English system only. According to
Scruton (1987, p. 132; in Beck, 1996, p. 193), the principle of internal criticism and training
in critical reasoning (especially in relation to ‘high culture’) lies at the very heart of the
English liberal tradition of education. In Japan, on the other hand, pupils are not routinely
taught to express personal opinions and judgements and the system as a whole does not
contain the principle of internal criticism to the same degree [13].

Lessons from Comparison

Crossley & Broadfoot (1992) claim that cross-cultural comparison assists the solution of
educational dilemmas. So what are the implications of this research for future policy and
practice in craft? The single most signiŽ cant Ž nding is that craft education as a component
of art is extremely vulnerable and needs much stronger advocacy if it is to survive. Major
weaknesses include the absence of an acknowledged recorded history of the broad span of
modern or contemporary craft developments which has led craft theorists to adopt the values,
language and theories of the Ž ne arts. According to Lewers (1991), the exclusion of ‘applied
and decorative arts and crafts’ from the discipline of art history is particularly damaging to
craft education, as are post-modern developments in Ž ne art practice. In the 1960s and
1970s, when the latter was predominantly conceptual, performance and video-oriented, the
concept of craft Ž lled a gap. Now that post-modern artists are returning to more ‘traditional’
skills-based forms of representation, like drawing and painting, craft is being crowded out.
Likewise, the current trend to equate Ž ne art exclusively with intellectual activity and/or
‘research’ makes craft, which relies heavily on the transfer of skills, extremely vulnerable.
Because the modern artist crafts movement in the West is dependent on formal education
systems rather than on apprenticeship modes of training, any loss of interest in these crafts
in secondary schools could ultimately lead to their demise.
Lewers (1991) argues for strong intervention on behalf of artistic crafts on the grounds
that they develop sensitivity to materials and processes and bring a human dimension and
subtlety to the more industrially oriented design disciplines (such as technology, architectural
spaces and surfaces and industrial production). She proposes that they are complementary to,
not displaced by, the new technologies which governments tend to promote on economic
grounds. Where economic arguments for art, craft and design education prevail, there will be
a tendency to let the marketplace decide. Her case for intervention on behalf of artist crafts
rests on the argument that the notion of a level playing Ž eld is a fallacy in the face of
longstanding Western hierarchies of arts and crafts and the demise of apprenticeship.
Schools are not vocational training centres, so cannot be expected to develop high levels
of craft skills. What we should expect, however, is that they provide pupils with educational
experiences that develop a real love of artefacts and an understanding of materials and the
ways they can be fashioned; that schools should provide opportunities to experience the joy
and satisfaction that comes from producing artefacts of enduring quality. Indeed, this is vital
‘if the long-standing traditions of making that continue to underpin aspects of contemporary
society in both England and Japan are to be nurtured and encounters with exceptional human
achievements in material culture are to continue to be enjoyed’ (Allison, 1998, p. 9).
Follow-up research in England (Houghton & Mason, 1997) has revealed that lower
 Craft Education in Lower Secondary Schools 413

secondary school pupils enjoy craft activities very much, provided they have opportunities to
learn the necessary skills and techniques that develop craftspersonship and enable them to
make things well. Unfortunately, the National Curriculum is moving further and further away
from providing an adequate conceptual framework for understanding craft education as a
form of knowing the world, which is valuable in its own right. This despite Howard Gardner’s
in uential theory of multiple intelligence (1990), all of which, he argues, need to be
addressed in formal education, and his assertion that sensory kinaesthetic intelligence is
uniquely developed through craft.
In the Japanese National Curriculum, which operates on the premise that the content of
education should include all human knowledge and assigns the task of inculcating moral
values to teachers, craft education is more stable. The skills-based learning at its core is
understood to inculcate desirable Japanese behaviour traits, such as self-denial, hard work,
diligence, mastery of detail and persistence in the pursuit of goals. It is possible to argue that
the emphasis in the Japanese system on developing basic living habits (kihonteki senkatsu
shukan) and deployment of routine classroom activities for the purposes of personality
training and efŽ ciency (Tsuneyoshi, 1994) particularly favours a traditional artisanal model
of craft education linked with apprenticeship.
A second important educational justiŽ cation for craft concerns its capacity to reinforce
core social values and its potential to transmit cultural heritage and identity. Whereas the
English essentialist curriculum is notorious for its lack of attention to social values, Japanese
educational policy clearly states that, in an increasingly global society, core cultural traditions
must be transmitted and preserved. The argument that this is incompatible with multicultur-
alism does not hold water, according to Gellner (1992; in Beck, 1996, p. 175). Moreover,
legislating for the conscious transmission of values, beliefs and practices from one generation
to the next is vital in the face of the worldwide progress of market economies that are
everywhere deeply subversive of tradition.
Concepts like craft are dynamic not static. The problem with the deŽ nition of craft
activity in the English survey is that it links craft too closely to a modernist aesthetic of Ž ne
art (and design). The concept of kogei, on the other hand, does not allow for non-functional
crafts. In anthropological terms, art and design & technology (or technology in Japan) initiate
children into productive and artistic technologies, both of which are essential to human
survival (Dissanayake, 1992; Gell, 1992). In the current educational climate, the beneŽ ts of
retaining the concept of craft in these two National Curriculum subjects are that it focuses
attention on their technical, as opposed to their intellectual core, and their unique role in
developing skilled knowledge for social purposes. Productive technologies provide for subsist-
ence and other goods and artistic technologies provide artworks which operate as channels for
social relations, according to Gell (1992). Where craft is understood to contribute to lifelong
learning, the apprenticeship mode of training with which it is traditionally associated has
much to offer in terms of understanding cultural inheritance and inculcating core skills and
behaviours that are fundamental to human development and useful in adult life.
Concern about examination results is one of the most conspicuous features of Japanese
and English secondary school life. It is interesting to note that whereas both national
education systems are competitive in the sense that they use examinations for selection
purposes, craft is excluded only in Japan (other than those for special vocational courses).
Given that the 211,543 successful candidates for GCSE art in 1997 had all opted to pursue
this subject in school aged 14 (NSEAD, 1997), insisting that craft has a prominent role in
English art exams and advocating inclusion of both art and craft in the Japanese system might
raise its identity and status in both countries.
It was a weakness of the research that this comparison of craft education was
414 R. Mason et al.

restricted to art. Comparing design & technology would have established a fuller understand-
ing of provision and practice. In conclusion, we regard the cross-cultural exchanges of
researchers and views as the most valuable aspect of the study and we have learned a great
deal from the process of designing the questionnaires, as well as from the results. In the
discussion of Ž ndings, we deemed it important not to ‘exoticise’ the Other (overemphasise
differences) or make value judgements about which system is better or worse. Most impor-
tantly, the act of comparison has forced us to re ect on our respective national systems and
question them in ways other types of research have not (because it has necessitated our
describing and explaining to each other theories and practices not previously questioned). It
is in this sense that comparison has proved most valuable.

NOTES

[1] The study arose out of inter-institutional collaboration between British and Japanese universities effected
through the International Society for Education Through Art (INSEA).
[2] In a student Guide to Courses and Careers in Art, Craft and Design, Charlton (1989) distinguishes artists, designers
and craft workers as follows: (i) artist: one who practices any creative art, especially painting and drawing (for
many people it is synonymous with the Ž ne arts of painting and sculpture); (ii) designer: one whose work is
creating or laying out designs or reproducing designs made for others, for products of mechanical, industrial or
practical art or for architectural structure; and (iii) craft worker: someone who, having developed a design, sets
out by applying skill in a largely manual operation to produce a Ž nished object for which they alone are mainly
responsible.
[3] For further information, see Paul Greenhalgh’s chapter, ‘The history of craft’, in Dormer (1997) According to
Frayling (1990), the 20th century has spawned ‘designer crafts’, ‘arts and crafts’ and ‘artist crafts’ traditions in
England in uenced by the arts and crafts movement which denounced the social impoverishment caused by
allowing industrial technologies to displace traditional craft skills.
[4] It is important to point out that whereas the National Curriculum for England and Wales for art overlap, they
are not identical, and that Wales has three ‘attainment targets’ as opposed to two. Strictly speaking, therefore,
this paper compares three, not two, National Curricula.
[5] The Japanese National Curriculum reforms of 1988, divided the content of Ž ne art in lower secondary education
into to expression (making) and appreciation. Expression has four study areas: namely, drawing and painting,
sculpture, design (mainly 2-D) and kogei (handicraft) (mainly 3-D).
[6] In England, the word ‘craft’ was removed from ofŽ cial documentation for both art and design & technology in
the new National Curriculum. As a result, of a strong public lobby, it was reinstated in the revised orders for art
only in 1995. In the National Curriculum reforms to be implemented in Japan in the near future, the 6 day
school week will be decreased to 5, which is likely to have a signiŽ cant impact on timetabling for art. The
increasing emphasis afforded the subject of technology by policy-makers in both countries threatens reduction
in timetabling and resources for craft. (In this regard, it is important to note that, in Japan, technology has been
protected by law since 1958 and, in England, The Education Reform Act of 1988 made it compulsory for all pupils
up to the age of 16.)
[7] The Japanese team learned that wood cutting (64%) and surface Ž nish (78%) are typically dealt with together
in wood-carving projects in art where it is common practice for pupils to make functional objects such as wooden
frames, wall ornaments, coasters for cups, and boxes, etc. The lower response rates for laminating (16%) and
3-D construction (32%) indicates that carving on the surface of wooden products is more popular than cutting
or construction. Two possible explanations are: (i) that this distinguishes kogei from woodwork in technology;
and (ii) the extensive use in Japanese schools of readymade kits purchased directly from materials suppliers.
[8] In August 1999 the exchange rate was 185 yen to £1 sterling.
[9] The Japanese research team did not understand the difference between ‘builds self-conŽ dence and ‘gives a sense
of pride’, which were combined into ‘developing a positive attitude and sense of achievement’. The term
‘made-world’ was omitted. ‘National heritage’ was substituted for ‘Historical, technical and cultural inheritance’
because the former was unfamiliar. The items concerning ‘practical’ and ‘problem-solving skills’ were deemed
too complicated in terms of data analysis and combined; and the wording was slightly altered to re ect more
closely the terminology and aims of the Japanese National Curriculum.
[10] Ever since World War I, Japanese art education has been in uenced by European and American art educators
with liberal humanistic ideals and, in particular, by Franz Cizek, Victor Lowenfeld and Herbert Read. The
National Curriculum of 1988 continues to re ect this.
 Craft Education in Lower Secondary Schools 415

[11] One conclusion the Japanese research team members arrived at through comparison was that there is potential
to develop textiles for expressive purposes in kogei in a way that emphasises interrelationships between function
and form.
[12] One reason is insufŽ cient time allocation for art lessons in junior high schools. A second is the lack of appropriate
resources. A third is the tendency of art teacher training courses to emphasise picture-making and sculpture over
and above craft. For all these reasons, the majority of art teachers Ž nd it difŽ cult to teach pupils about cultural
heritage or traditional crafts.
[13] According to Ernest Gellner (quoted in Beck, 1996, p. 194), children ‘brought up in the British tradition are
encouraged to question and criticise, seek fair play and be impartial. There are no privileged knowers, nor
organisations allowed to claim cognitive monopoly, there are no privileged events or objects. Logical cogency and
evidence are king’ (Gellner, 1992, p. 146). If Scruton and Gellner are correct and it is critical reasoning that is
understood to distinguish education from training in the British system, the fact that craft education relies heavily
on transfer of skills and a body of knowledge from acknowledged experts, without undue questioning of received
wisdom, undoubtedly contributes to its low status.

REFERENCES

ALLISON , B. (1998) Craft is more than helping in t’shed, Times Educational Supplement, 3 April, p. 20.
ART EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (1994) Proceedings of 9th Symposium on Multicultural Approaches to Art Education from
Diverse Regions (Hakodatae, Hokkaido University of Education).
BECK , J. (1996) Nation, curriculum and identity in conservative cultural analysis: a critical commentary, Cambridge
Journal of Education, 26 (2), pp. 171– 198.
CHARLTON , T. (1989) Guide to Courses and Careers in Art, Craft and Design 1989/1990 (Corsham, National Society for
Education in Art & Design.
CLEMENT , R. (1989) The Art Teacher’s Handbook (London, Hutchinson).
CROSSLEY , M. & BROADFOOT , P. (1992) Comparative and international research in education: scope, problems and
potential, British Educational Research Journal, 18 (2), pp. 99– 112.
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (DFE) (1995) Art in the National Curriculum (London, HMSO).
DISSANAYAKE , E. (1992) The pleasure and meaning of craft, American Crafts, 52 (2), pp. 40– 45.
DORMER , P. (Ed.) (1997) The Culture of Craft (Manchester, Manchester University Press).
FRAYLING , C. (1990) The crafts in the 1990s, Journal of Art and Design Education, 9 (I), pp. 91– 100.
GARDNER, H. (1990) Art Education and Human Development (Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Trust).
GELL , A. (1992) The technology of enchantment and enchantment of technology, in: J. COOTE & A. SHELTON (Eds)
Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics (Oxford Clarendon Press).
GELLNER, E. (1992) Reason and Culture: the historic role of rationality and rationalism (Oxford, Blackwell).
GREENHALGH , P. (1997) The history of craft, in: P. DORMER (Ed.) The Culture of Craft (Manchester, Manchester
University Press)
HASEGAWA , S. (Ed.) (1995) Local Culture and Art Education (Hakodate, Nagato Shuppansha)
HOLMES, B. & MCLEAN , M. (1988) The Curriculum: a comparative perspective (London, Unwin & Hyman).
HOUGHTON, N. & MASON , R. (1997) Pupils as Makers: their motivation for and perceptions of craft education at Key Stages
3 and 4 (London, Roehampton Institute & Crafts Council).
IWANO, M. & MASON, R. (1996) National Survey of Craft in Art and Design & Technology Curricula and Courses at Key
Stages 3 and 4 in England and Wales (London, Roehampton Institute and Crafts Council).
KNOTT C.A. (1994) Crafts in the 1990s (London, Crafts Council).
LEWERS, D. (1991) The Crafts in Crisis, Occasional Paper (Victoria, Australia, Ministry of Education).
MASON , R. (1994) Artistic achievement in Japanese Junior high schools, Art Education, 4 (1), pp. 8– 19.
MONBUSHO (1983) Course of Study for Lower Secondary Schools in Japan (Tokyo, Ministry of Finance).
MONBUSHO (1989a) Course of Study for Lower Secondary Schools (Tokyo, Ministry of Finance Press).
MONBUSHO (1989b) Guidelines for Lower Secondary Schools for Art (Tokyo, Nihon Bunkyo Shuppan).
NAKASE , N. (1996) Art, Hope of Children and Teachers (Tokyo, Nihon Bunkyan Shuppan).
NAOE , T. (1993) Design education in the classroom: reality in survey results, in: O. MIYAWAKI (Ed.) Design Education
for Today: dynamism in a post-modern time, pp. 130– 164 (Tokyo, Kenpakusha)
NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION IN ART AND DESIGN (NSEAD) NEWSLETTER (1997) No. 2.
ROHLEN , T. (1983) Japan’s High Schools (Berkeley, University of California Press).
SCRUTON, R. (1987) The myth of cultural relativism, in: E. PALMER (Ed.) Anti-Racism: the assault on education and
values (London, Harper Collins).
SHIMIZU , K. (1992) Shido: education and selection in a Japanese middle school, Comparative Education, 28 (2),
pp. 109– 129.
416 R. Mason et al.

SHIMIZU , K. (1995) A Data Book of Educational Statistics (Tokyo, Jiji Tsushinsha).

SPARSHOTT , F. (1967) The Concept of Criticism (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
TSUNEYOSHI , R. (1994) Small groups in Japanese elementary school classrooms: comparison with the US, Comparative
Education, 30 (2), pp. 114– 129.
WHITE, M. 1990) The Japanese Educational Challenge: a commitment to children, 3rd edn (Tokyo, Kodansha).