From Dancing Girls to Elder Statesmen

Previously published in Volume 84, Issue 2

Abstract
This article traces the historical development of the Dance Section of the Canadian Association of Health, Physical Educational and Recreation (CAHPER) from 1965 until 1985. From its inception, members of the Dance Section faced a number of philosophical and organizational challenges. They were concerned about the status of dance within physical education, and worked to develop a framework for funding, research and communication that would enable educational dance to thrive in Canada. Discussions also included gender inclusivity, the difference between dance in education and dance as an art form, and the belief that their view reflected a uniquely “Canadian” perspective on dance education. Despite the gendered professional context of the period, these female educators were successful in their vision to include dance as a viable movement form and equal partner to health, physical education and recreation in the nation’s professional association. During the course of this work, they also found friendship and forged a loyal network of dance education colleagues. Embodiment is the defining feature that distinguishes physical education from all other school subjects. The examination of what it means to be physically educated within a particular time and cultural location provides a unique perspective on the moving body and its intersection with gender, race, class, sexuality and other social manifestations of power.[1] Following World War II, the emergence of physical education as an academic discipline in Britain and the United States began to impact colleges and universities in Canada. A wave of emigrants from Britain arrived in Canada and took positions as teachers and academic leaders, and with their Canadian and American colleagues, began to carve out a space for physical education in schooling, higher education and their professional associations. A major transatlantic influence that impacted this development came in the form of modern dance. As Vertinsky observed, the rise of modern dance as a viable movement form and as a subject of study entered the British and North American stage, “not through the front door, back or side door, but by the gym door.”[2] The arrival of modern dance, however, subsequently elicited decades of debate between physical education professionals who believed that the aesthetic values of dance would compliment traditional forms of physical education – and those who did not. For many male physical educators, dance was considered to be incompatible with the utilitarian and fitness-specific goals of physical education. The struggle between these two views were complex, turbulent and gendered.[3] This paper examines one aspect of this complex educational history in Canada. Between 1965 and 1985, a small group of female physical educators lobbied for the inclusion of Dance in the title of Canada’s national professional physical education association. The authors of this paper were colleagues to many of these women, and shared a part of this history through their professional affiliations and friendship networks.

On May 14 1981, at the Annual General Meeting of the Dance Committee of the Canadian Association of Health, Physical Education and Recreation (CAHPER), Joyce Boorman, Jean Cunningham and Sonia van Neikerk submitted the first draft of a report that proposed a change in the title of their professional association. In order to recognize dance as both a distinctive movement form and a performing art within the educational curriculum, Boorman and her colleagues proposed the addition of a “D” for “Dance” in the Association’s title. Although it would take an additional thirteen years to be ultimately adopted, the pioneering efforts of the members of the CAHPER dance committee and their various provincial affilates ultimately secured recognition for the discipline of dance in the Association’s title. As Boorman noted in their report, “We grew to be one of the strongest standing committees in CAHPER and moved from the frustrating era of the ‘dancing girls’ to become a respected and viable professional group within the Association.”[4] In 1994, Mo MacKendrick, the first President of the newly minted CAHPERD Association observed:

The inclusion of ‘D’ for Dance in the name of our professional association will encourage physical education curricula writers and educators to include dance in their program. The name change reflected our belief that dance is both an integral part of the physical education program in all Canadian schools, and as an alternative performance area in the fine arts. As an Association, CAHPERD’s vision is all Canadians living actively. If indeed regular physical activity is to become part of the Canadian culture, then dance should be an integral part of this broader vision of physical education that includes all expressive movement.[5]

Through an examination of archival records, interview transcripts, publications and other documents of the period, this paper will examine the accomplishments and strategies adopted by the Dance Committee of CAHPER during the first two decades of its organizational history. From their initial inception in 1965, this nationally focused network of professionals developed policy, generated resources, and created a network of support that helped to establish the foundation of educational dance across Canada. These achievements, however, were also accompanied by philosophical, financial, and political tensions—both from within their own membership, and among their professional colleagues across the country.

First steps: the emergence of a national educational dance network
In 1965, at the CAHPER national convention held in Fredericton, New Brunswick, a President’s Committee for Dance was established. This small group of professionals believed that dance was an essential component of the physical education and arts curriculum, and as such, should be taught as part of the teacher education curriculum. Rose Hill, the first national chairman of the CAHPER Dance Committee later reflected,

“The decision to form a Dance Section grew from a Modern Dance session at the Conference and the discussion was mainly in terms of Modern Dance.”[6] Although the term “modern dance” was initially used to describe their professional focus, terms such as “creative modern” and “modern educational” would later be adopted by the Dance Committee as they worked to develop and refine a Canadian vocabulary for dance education.

In 1965, Rose Hill published the Dance Committee’s first newsletter. In it she summarized the Committee’s discussion points. These topics included: the importance of developing a common understanding or vocabulary for dance and dance education in Canada; the need to develop an effective system of regional and provincial communication; the importance of gender inclusivity; and the desire to establish a national dance resource directory in higher education.[7] This newsletter also included a survey that asked dance educators across Canada to identify whether folk or creative modern dance formed a regular part of the program in provincial schools, universities, and recreational clubs. The survey also inquired about the desirability of creating regional resources for dance teachers in the form of professional networks and workshop support. Two years later,  Hill reported the survey results. A majority of provincial elementary and high schools declared that they taught folk dance as part of their regular physical education curriculum, however, “very little was taught” with regard to creative modern dance. Hill also reported—that with the exception of Quebec and British Columbia who, at the time, did not offer a required pre-service program for teachers—both folk and creative modern dance were taught in all pre-service professional courses across the country.[8]

In advance of the 1967 CAHPER Conference in Montreal, Hill met with her Ontario colleagues Bill Henry (Consultant, Etobicoke Township), Ella Sexton (Ontario Department of Education), Sheila Stanley (Toronto Teachers College), and Jean Stirling (Ontario College of Education), in order to plan for a dance symposium at the conference. The symposium sub-committee subsequently organized two sessions. The first session, entitled “Modern Dance: What Is It?” was chaired by Sheila Stanley and featured a modern dance demonstration by Hugho Romero, a young choreographer and dancer with Les Grandes Ballets Canadiens de Montréal. This presentation was followed by a facilitated discussion “on the nature of Modern Dance as an artform and a means of communication… [and] an examination of the differences between dance in education and dance as an artform.” The discussion also entailed an exchange of ideas about choices of motivation and stimulation for dance, and “the place of dance in boys’ education.”[9] During the second session, participants discussed how to organize regional workshops and apply for Federal funding. As a result of this meeting, the Dance Committee later agreed to create a national communication network for dance education by dividing the country into three regions: West, Central and East. Each region was to have a chair. Dorothy Harris, from the University of Alberta, was elected chair of the Western Region (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba); Sheila Stanley, from Toronto Teacher’s College, was elected chair of the Central Region (Ontario and Quebec); and Dorothy Walker of the Nova Scotia School Board was elected chair of the Eastern Region (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland). Provincial chairs were also elected, and these individuals were asked to form provincial committees with representation from every level of education.[10]

Philosophical roots: a Canadian perspective on dance education
In the formative years, members of the CAHPER Dance Committee were largely female physical education professionals who believed that dance was an important component of a well-rounded life. They believed that the educational system in Canada needed to promote a form of expressive dance that was broadly defined and inclusive, as opposed to narrowly defined dance forms such as folk, tap and ballet. They believed educational dance was versatile and offered the potential to foster individual creativity in addition to skill development and physical fitness. Familiar with the evolution of modern dance in the United States and influenced by modern educational dance as found in English schools, these early advocates argued that physical education and the fine arts curriculum should be expanded to include creative and/or modern dance. A report from the 1967 Montreal Dance Symposium stated:

All the programming at this Symposium has been done in modern dance, because this particular facet of dance is still in its infancy in the physical education programs of this country. The importance of folk dance’s contribution in overall education is of equal importance and we are fully appreciative of its values. But in recognition of this need, the Committee members’ intent at this Symposium has been to organize a presentation in modern dance which would lay the basis for steady development in an understanding and appreciation of the value of modern dance in education. To all of us who are vitally concerned with its contribution in all education, Margaret H’Doubler’s words quoted at the beginning, serve as a challenge and as a course of inspiration.[11]

The inaugural quote read by Sheila Stanley at the Symposium’s opening greeting was a citation from the seminal text,  Dance: A Creative Art Experience, written by Margaret H’Doubler—the noted American modern dance educator. D’Houbler argued that dance was an expressive movement art that could foster creativity and individuality. She observed, “Nature adequately provides the means for self-expression though movement; education must provide the ways. Not until provision is made in the curriculm for creative activity can we hope to renew much needed asethetic sensitivity in our lives today to be freed from herd-like conformity.”[12]

Discussions about the shape of educational dance in Canada reflected the historical influences and professional training experienced by early CAHPER Dance Committee members. Summarizing this influence, Rose Hill observed, “Modern dance in Canada has been influenced by the schools of dance in the States and by Laban’s theories in England.”[13] With regard to influences from the United States, in the late 1960’s modern dance (also called “aesthetic dance”) appeared as a convention theme at the American Physical Education Association (APEA) conferences as early as 1905. In 1930, the National Society for the Directors of Physical Education for Women (NSDPEW) formed a National Section on Dance. In 1932, as a way to “reach more people” a Dance Section was also created within APEA. In this forum, four areas of dance concentration were identified: aesthetics, education, forms, and theatre.[14]

In addition to the influence of modern dance in the United States, a wave of English trained educators emigrated to Canada in the years following World War II. These professional educators were trained in the “Central European” (or what would later be identifed as “Free” or “Creative”) dance techniques of Rudolf Laban, an Austro Hungarian dancer. Laban’s movement theories effected a dramatic change in physical education curriculm in Britain. Laban’s foundational text, Modern Educational Dance, was published in England in 1948. In this text, Laban presented a theoretical framework for educators to use as they taught creative and/or modern dance in an educational context.[15] A signficant number of prominent CAHPER Dance Committee members with Laban training immigrated to Canada from England. Many of these early pioneers, such as Joyce Boorman, Nora Chatwin, Jean Cunningham, Rose Hill, Mary Liddell, Hillary Matthews, Shirley Murray and Jennifer Wall either experienced Laban traning at the Art of Movement Studio in Surrey, United Kingdom, or were exposed to Laban theory through their teaching experience in the primary and secondary schools in England.[16] Shirley Murray, who immigrated to Canada in the late 1960s, commented in personal correspondence to Dance Committee Chair, Donna Peterson, “I am the typical British import who trained at the Art of Movement Studio in England then came to Canada.”[17]

The influence of the English (Laban) use of the term “modern educational dance” was quite apparent in early Dance Committee deliberations. In 1968 Hill received funding from the National Fitness and Amateur Sport Directorate to offer dance workshops across Canada. In her description of these workshops, she described dance as “modern educational dance” and argued that the educational workshops were designed:

To promote the instruction and appreciation of modern educational dance as a vigorous form of physical activity in recreation and at all level of education with particular emphasis on the needs and interests of women. Modern educational dance differs from ballet, tap and other more popular and better known dance forms in that it does not require such specialization and technical knowledge in order for partipants to get vigorous physical activity and an exhilarating sense of well-being.[18]

By the late 1960s, the nomenclature for expressive dance in Canadian elementary schools included the terms “creative” “modern” and “modern educational.” In 1969 Joyce Boorman published the textbook Creative Dance in the First Three Grades and Shelia Stanley published Physical Education: A Movement Orientation—with three chapters devoted to “creative and modern dance.” Stanley’s dance theory directly referenced Laban’s text,  Modern Educational Dance.[19]

With growing interest from a larger contingent of CAHPER delegates, at the 1969 CAHPER Convention in Victoria, British Columbia, the National Dance Committee sponsored two information sessions and held its first National Dance Workshop. Sufficient interest had grown within CAHPER to warrant an additional, stand alone national forum specifically devoted to dance.  As Rose Hill later reflected, over the first five years of development, the CAHPER Dance committee had carefully shepherded the growth of dance in Canada.

Dance is alive in Canada. Having emerged from the prenatal environment of 1965-1967, modern dance in Canada took its first wobbling steps in 1968 and seems to have found itself on very solid ground. With the establishment of the first National Dance Workshop being held in Victoria at the time of the 1969 CAHPER convention, modern dance should firmly estabish itself as an integral part of the physical education society.[20]

After the Victoria Conference, in her year-end report to the Board of Directors of CAHPER, Committee Chair Dorothy Harris noted that the Dance Committee had made significant progress. She reported on the success of the national and regional workshops held in 1968 and 1969, and announced that the Dance Committee membership would commit to offering a scholarly article on dance in the feature section of the CAHPER Journal.[21] Harris also reported that preparations for a “Talk Workshop” on the future of dance in Canada was being organized, and that preliminary discussions had been held with the Chair of the International Dance Conference Committee of the Dance Division of the American Associate for Health, Physical Education and Recreation (AAHPER).

Notably, both Canadian and American organizations had agreed to co-host a Bi-National Dance Conference at the University of Waterloo in 1971. In anticipation of this International event, Harris commented:

Since this will be a unique opportunity for outstanding recognition of CAHPER and its interest in and support of dance through the Dance Committee, it is imperative that a high standard of Canadian contribution be maintained. Much of our time, work and concern will be directed toward this event in the coming year. As a relatively young organization within the CAHPER structure, the Dance Committee will welcome advice and support from the CAHPER Board of Directors.[22]

Harris’ comment about the importance of maintaining a “high standard” of Canadian contribution in light of the impending Bi-National Conference with the Dance Section of AAHPER is noteworthy. Throughout 1968 and 1969 a number of informal correspondences were exchanged between members of the senior executive of the AAHPER Dance Division and members of the CAHPER Dance Committee. These exchanges included a presentation by Frances Dougherty (Chair, Dance Section of AAPHER) at the Victoria Conference about the history and evolution of the Dance Division of AAHPER, and a request by the editor of the Journal of Physical Education and Recreation (JOPER) for scholarly articles about the status of dance in Canada. Miriam Grey, editor of JOPER, wrote to colleague Gwendolyn Peacher:

I have one thought of something you might do for the Dance Division. Have you been in Canada long enough to maybe write an article about dance in Canada, with comparison to dance in the US perhaps? It could fill us in about dance activites of our neighbours to the North. We hear about the Canadian National Ballet. What else is there? Is there any modern dance? What are the schools and colleges doing? Who are the people teaching, directing, choreographing and dancing?[23]

Peacher was the first to alert Rose Hill that she, “might be hearing about the Dance Division of AAHPER’s proposal of a joint conference with Canada.”[24] Hill was initially cool to the idea, and responded, “I really feel that our own Dance Committee has not yet arrived in a stature of being able to cope with an enterprise of this nature.”[25]

Nevertheless, Hill and Dougherty did ultimately agree, and a Bi-National DanceConference was held at the University of Waterloo in 1971. These early connections with the Dance Section of AAHPER may also have helped to lend momentum and inspiration for the CAHPER Dance Committee. In 1979, AAHPER successfully added the “D” in their association’s title. AAHPER became AAHPERD—thereby officially recognizing dance as a distinct area of study. Two years later,  Joyce Boorman and her Canadian colleagues Cunningham and van Neikerk were also successful in their bid to lobby for the addition of the “D” to CAHPER. Clearly, dance colleagues from both sides of the border shared the same vision. The impact of the Bi-National Dance conference on Canadian Dance Committee members was significant. Reflecting on this impact, Boorman later commented, “the Bi-National Conference with AAHPER saw a young and growing committee proudly fulfilling its partnership with ‘the elder statesmen’ and emerging stronger and with greater recognition.”[26]

Coming of age: organizational consolidation and affiliation challenges
From 1970 to 1976, the CAHPER Dance Committee focused on the creation of a formal administrative structure and the development of specific initatives that were intended to build synergy, visibility and financial sustainability—regionally, nationally and internationally—for educational dance in Canada. This period of growth and consolidation also brought with it debates about gender equality and organizational affiliation.

In 1970, the CAHPER Dance Committee held a two-day “Talk Workshop” at Geneva Park, Ontario. Eighteen members were present, representing dance in universities and school boards across Canada. One of the primary objectives of the workshop was to prepare for the 1971 Bi-National Conference. Other parts of the agenda reflected efforts to formalize the Committee’s operating code and discuss affiliations with other physical education and dance associations. At this meeting, the membership discussed the Dance Committee’s affilation with the Women’s Athletic Committee (WAC) and the University Women’s Physical Education Committee (UWPEC) in relation to their status within CAHPER. They argued that CAHPER’s organizational structure presented a gender bias that stigmatized dance as an exclusively female activity. Minutes from this meeting reflected this concern and resulted with the following motion:

WHEREAS the Dance Committee of CAHPER is currently categorized with WAC and UWPEC under the supervison of the VP for Physical Education (Women) and WHEREAS the Dance Committee believes such categorization represents a stigma and limitation to the development of dance for men as well as women, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dance Committee be responsible directly to the President of CAHPER.[27]

A subsequent motion reinforced this principle by stating that meetings and events should be gender inclusive: “It was futher agreed that the Dance Committee disassociate itself as an official group from functions limited to ‘women’ e.g, ‘women’s luncheons, etc.”[28]

Underlying the issue of gender inclusivity, however, lay the dance committee’s additional concern about their organizational status—and legitimacy—within CAHPER.

Following the motion regarding gender inclusivity, the Dance Committee passed a motion that re-cast the Committee as an official Section of CAHPER. The motion read, “BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dance Committee be renamed the Dance Section (or Division) of CAHPER.”[29]This motion was followed by the formation of a Dance Executive Committee, comprised of the chair, past chair, chair-elect, secretary treasurer and a publications officer, and an Advisory Board, comprised of the Dance Executive in addition to provincial chairs. Four subcommittees were also formed with respective mandates that included the development of programs, a dance periodical, an operating code, and preparation for the Bi-National Conference. Provincial chairs were expected to form their own committees, offer workshops and generate income. A portion of this income was to be forwarded to the national dance committee.

Following these discussions, members of the Dance Committee turned their attention to the issue of organizational affililation. The Dance Executive was united in the belief that dance should remain within the national CAHPER Association. They commented,

“Under no circumstances should the CAHPER Dance Section break from the National CAHPER structure, as such action would weaken what has already been built up for ‘Dance in Canada.”[30] Their membership also drew a careful distinction between affiliation with organizations that broadly supported dance education as opposed to those organizations that promoted a specific form of dance. Although they agreed to affiliate with the Candian Dance Teachers’ Association, their endorsement reflected a line of distinction:

Based on the premise that the National CAHPER Dance Section is a body concerned with the development and generation of knowledge about dance in general, it is felt that having direct affiliation with dance organziations concerned with specific dance forms, solely for the purpose of including representation for any or all of these dance forms, is undesirable. However, people interested in various forms of dance and in contributing to the development of dance in general are encouraged to join the CHAPER Dance Section.[31]

In 1971, the Dance Section of CAHPER formalized their operating code and defined their twin organizational priorities:

a. Promote the continuous development of sound philosophies and policies concerning all forms of dance in education and recreation by providing leadership which will be effective in the improvement of methodology and program;
b. Be concerned with the recognition of dance as an artform and the generation, development and dissemination of knowledge about dance in general.[32]

These two priorities defined the scope and focus of the Dance Sections’ leadership both in terms of educational dance as physical activity and as an artform.

In June of 1971, the University of Waterloo hosted the much anticipated the first Bi-National Conference on dance. Dorothy Harris, then Dance Chair, commented that the conference, “gave us all the ground work to develop our dance programs at the university level.”[33] The success of the Bi-National Conference may also have given members of the Dance Section of CAHPER the confidence to organize, seven years later, an international conference on a much grander scale. Harris commented, “It made us more visible, and they could see what dance people could accomplish, and could trust us and support us in future endeavours.”[34]

In 1973, at their national annual meeting, the Dance Executive discussed the implications of the formation of a new dance association in Canada. This new organization, called “Dance Canada,” raised concern among the Executive’s membership. Dance Canada’s first conference was to be held later that year, with a conference theme of “Dance in Education.” The prospect that Dance Canada might discuss and define dance in Canadian education elicited the following response from the Dance Executive:

A position paper is needed on Dance in Education which would be prepared by the Dance Committee to go out from CAHPER. There appeared to be an urgent need to go on record with a statement of some sort as soon as possible. It was proposed that a simple statement of philosphy be prepared indicating who we are, what we are doing, and a statement of general direction for policies in education.[35]

In its February meeting, the Dance Executive passed the following motion entitled, “Dance in Canadian Education:”

That the definition creative modern dance as herein correct to read, ‘From the fusion of the philosophies, concepts and methodologies of the above dance forms, a uniquely Canadian Dance is in the process of developing. This form is being generated by the energies and forms true to the evolving Canadian identity.[36]

The Dance Executive also agreed that it would not formally affiliate with Dance Canada—presumably because of the belief that this organization may have been too focused on specific forms of dance (such as ballet, tap, jazz, etc.) and not on the more broadly conceived values of educational dance for life. A year later, however, Joyce Boorman stated that she attended a Dance Canada conference, and came away with a different conclusion. Boorman advocated for a reversal of the Dance Executive Committee’s earlier decision about organizational affiliation with Dance Canada:

Dance Canada has become a relatively open organization compared to what were our initial fears at the onset. The input of our organization on the educational side was greatly respected and I believe that we will eventually have to take a close look at the organization of our Committee in relation to Dance Canada structure. At the moment I feel it necessary to call an extraordinary National Executive meeting in order to reverse our decision not to pay funds to Dance Canada for this year. I believe that the withdrawl of our voice from Dance Canada at this point would be a very unfortunate and negative step not only for our own Committee but for the furtherance of dance in this country.[37]

Boorman further added; “I paid fifty dollars of my own funds to ensure that the Committee remains on the voting list.”[38] This debate about the impact of affiliation with Dance Canada led to futher internal dissention among the CAHPER Dance Executive. As late as 1976, the correspondence between Joyce Boorman and Donna Peterson appeared quite divided and somewhat heated.[39] Although the difference of opinion may have continued over the summer, by the fall of 1976, the President-elect of CAHPER, Audrey Bayles, indicated her intent that CAHPER would indeed form an official affiliation with Dance Canada.[40] Boorman and her colleagues would later reflect on this struggle:

The Dance Canada Association was formed and we not only met their challenge but significantly advanced their growth, so that to this day, we are not two groups in deadly conflict, but two members of a larger family of dance working for the mutual health of, ‘Dance is the Canadian way of life.'[41]

By the late 1970s, the CAHPER Dance Committee had received recognition as a viable “Section” within CAHPER, and had met a number of challenges with regard to identity, mandate, and affilation. This status, however, required vigilant persistence. Iris Hamilton, as the Chair of the Dance Exeutive, would subsequently need to remind the President-elect of CAHPER, Don Newton, that the Dance Section held all the rights and privileges of a “Standing Committee.” Hamilton’s response to correspondence from Newton’s office reflected her insistence that the Dance Section be taken seriously:

From two recent epistles from your office, it is apparent that you perceive me to be Chairman of a ‘Special Interest Committee.’ I am Chairman of the Dance Committee and my understanding is that the Dance Committee is a ‘Standing Committee.’ Indeed, Donna Peterson dealt with you as President-elect and my understanding is that the President-elect is the portfolio holder for Standing Committees. As well, I have been in touch with Audrey Bayles [CAHPER President] and we both understand that she is our portfolio holder. I do hope this clears up the matter.[42]

Carving space and holding the line: research and academic legitimacy
During the 1970s, the Dance Executive worked to develop and refine a strategy for the dissemination of knowledge about dance in Canadian education.  Although regular feature articles on dance would not appear in the CAHPER Journal until 1976,  as early as 1969 short articles were published on a range of educational dance topics. Publication titles included: “Dance—A Challenge” (1969), “Modern Dance Is” (1970), “Men and Creative Dance” (1970),  and “Elementary School Physical Education Creative Dance (1970).  In 1971, the President of CHAPER, William Orban, wrote to the Dance Committee chair to inquire if their membership would like representation on CAHPER’s “science orientated action committee” in order to advise the Federal government on research related to fitness, sport and recreation.[43] This invitation prompted Jennifer Wall to solicit the opinion of members of the Dance Executive, who subsequently all agreed that membership on the research council should be strongly endorsed. Both Sylvia Shaw and Joyce Boorman responded to Wall’s invitation identifying several specific fields of dance research interest. Boorman commented, “I think we need immense research into dance and its educational impact. There have been too many statements and too little research in this area.”[44] By the end of the month, Wall responded to Orban’s request, “We are definitely interested in research—very, very little has been done in Canada at present in the dance field,” and she forwarded the name of Rose Hill as the Dance Section’s representative on the Research Council.[45]

Research productivity continued to unfold as both a goal and a concern for the Dance Executive. Under Iris Hamilton’s leadership as Dance Executive Chair, a publication was produced that compiled a series of articles on dance which were previously published in the CAHPER Journal. Two new postion papers were officially endorsed by the Committee, entitled “Dance in Canadian Education” (1976) and “Creative Modern Dance in Canadian Elementary Education” (1976)[46] A research sub-committee of the CAHPER Dance Committee was established, and in conjunction with Dance Canada’s 1976 conference, a  “Learned Societies Day” was organized and designed to be a special time set aside for the presentation, discussion, and analysis of dance research and theory. In 1976, the Chair of the research sub-committee, Ruth Priddle, established a formal link with the Congress of Research on Dance (CORD).[47]

In 1978, building upon the success of the Bi-National Conference, Joyce Boorman and Dorothy Harris conceived of the idea of hosting an international conference devoted solely to children’s dance education.[48] Capitalizing on the Commonwealth Games that were to be held in Edmonton in July of 1978, a conference entitled “Dance and the Child” was planned. The Dance Executive successfully sought the endorsement of CAHPER, the University of Alberta and Alberta Culture. The conference, held just prior to the Commonwealth Games, was a tremendous success and resulted in the formation of Dance and the Child: International (DaCi). This non-profit association entered the Counseil International de la Dance (CIDD), UNESCO, as an autonomous, fully constituted branch of CIDD with the purpose to promote the growth and development of dance for children at the international level. In addition to its mandate to promote opportunities for children throughout the world to experience dance, the organization expressly identifed the objective, “to encourage research in movement and in dance which will benefit the child in all aspects of development.”[49] Canada’s Rose Hill was the first international Chair of DaCi.

Adding the ‘D’: expanding impact and “patchwork potholders”
During the early 1980s, the Dance Section of CAHPER continued to focus on research, and also drew attention to dance advocacy in the university sector. In the early years, the Dance Executive raised concerns about the status of dance at the high school level.[50] A decade later, members of the Dance Executive identified the university level as the next area to focus their efforts.

Ruth [Priddle] stated that in our organization there is no focus on Dance at the university level—that our emphasis has always related to elementary through high school levels. Ontario Universities are having trouble sustaining dance. Ruth proposed that the provinces should invest time in universities. [We should] appoint an individual to deal with problems of curriculm and find out what the university people need.[51]

As a result of this concern about the dearth of university courses offered in dance, the Dance Executive initiated a research project in 1979-1980 entitled, “Deans Speak Out.” This project was designed to investigate how Deans of Education and Physical Education across Canada viewed dance education at the university level. Each committee member interviewed at least one Dean, and results were circulated in the form of a Dance Directory for post secondary dance courses offered by colleges and universities.[52] Also that same year, in anticipation of the centenary of Rudolf Laban’s birth, Sheila Stanley issued a nation-wide call for the creation of a Canadian registry of professionals who were using Laban’s theories of movement in their work. Stanley wished to create a “Map of Canada” display of movement trained persons living/working in Canada for the forthcoming CAHPER Winnipeg conference, and she also anticipated that this registry would be sent to the Goldsmith College’s Centenary Symposium held in London. The call asked for a listing of “sources of Laban training” and “field of application.”[53] Sixty-eight professionals responded to the call. Six of the respondents reported that they had trained with Laban at the Art of Movement Studio in England and twenty-three indicated they had studied at an English Physical Education College staffed by Laban-trained personnel. The remainder of those who responded to the registry were younger, and identifed that they received Laban theory at the University of Alberta and the University of Calgary, or, were trained in Ontario through a series of summer school workshops led by Laban trained visiting scholars from England under the auspices of Nora Chatwin, a consultant with the Ontario Department of Education.[54]

In 1985, the CAHPER Dance committee celebrated its 20th anniversary. At this event members reflected upon two decades of advocacy—and also used the occasion to honour one of their own. Brenda Brand, the Dance Executive Chair, reported:

We had a Dance Spectacular, a college dance festival, a high school dance festival, as well as a ‘Toast to Rose’ in honour of our dance committee’s founding ‘mother Rose Hill’ on the occasion of her retirement. She had received the very top honour of CAHPER.[55] I remember that the gift [she received from us] was a pair of patchwork potholders which I sewed and made some reference in the speech to bringing the pieces of Dance in Canada together as a whole. These thirty years later we struggle to keep it together in the face of greatly diminished funding, the retirement of the first generation of chairs and competing demands of job, volunteer and family responsibilities in the middle age generation.[56]

Brand’s retrospective—made all the more poignant by the gift of the “patchwork potholders” to Rose Hill—is a striking example of the gendered professional context in which these female physical educators were embedded.

Conclusion
For two decades, Canadian female physical educators lobbied their professional association to include “dance” as a legitimate and distinct area of study within physical education. To this end, they successfully formed a Dance Section with CAHPER, and built a network of professionals who promoted and taught modern educational dance in schools and universities. In 1994, their efforts were successful, and CAHPER became CAHPERD. However, as CAHPERD celebrated its 75th year anniversary, the issue of the profession’s formal title was raised yet again. In 2008, after much debate, CAHPERD changed its name to Physical and Health Education Canada (PHE Canada). “Dance” and “Recreation” were dropped from the national association’s title.  Writing of this change to the profession’s membership, Grant McManes, the President of CAHPERD reported,

What happens to recreation and dance? While some individuals may be concerned that the ‘R’ and ‘D’ have disappeared, CAHPERD views them as critical components that are integrated within quality physical education and movement education programs. Dance is an integral dimension of quality physical education (as are games, basic motor skills, individual/dual activities, alternative pursuits, etc.).[57]

Despite McManes’s projections about the security of dance within a “movement education” curricular framework, Francis and Lathrop, in their analysis of Ontario’s elementary school dance curriculum, argued that the primacy of dance in the movement education period peaked during the period between 1950-1980, but then was subsequently eclipsed by “health and fitness” in the decades following.[58]

Although it is tempting to embrace a “rise and fall” narrative when one examines the history of the Dance Committee of CAHPER and their efforts to raise the profile and distinct place for dance within physical education, Kirk and Vertinsky argue that educational historians must be cautious of progress and loss narratives. The story of educational dance in Canada—like the “female tradition” within physical education elsewhere—is more likely a complicated narrative of multiple pathways and overlapping themes. For a time, the legitimization of dance empowered female physical educators to gain expertise as dance educators and professionals, and to pursue careers as dancers, choreographers and academics. Although the metaphor of the “patchwork potholders” and the aspiration to be “elder statesmen” is a poignant reminder that their work was still deeply embedded within gender norms of the period—they were able to establish a foothold and seize leadership and professional training opportunities in an otherwise exclusively male-dominated field of sport and fitness. As a feminized domain largely consigned to the margins of elementary education and child-focused pedagogy, however, many of these early female physical educators who sought academic positions in higher education faced increasing pressure to achieve advanced degrees. The history of dance in Canadian education raises themes that are still relevant—and echoes of this historical struggle for the legitimacy of dance still prevail.