In its concluding Recommendations the report says :
“…. de-mystification of visual education as an élite area accessible only to aficionados and those with exceptional artistic talent. Such nineteenth century attitudes are undemocratic and discriminatory; in short, they constitute a barrier to change that must be eliminated.”
( Darleks , eliminate - sweet of her, no?),

And then she goes on to say this:
“The fundamental skills of visuacy – creating, processing, critiquing – must be acquired from appropriately qualified teachers in the discipline context of visual education.”
In the space of a few words: “appropriately qualified” has been redefined as:
Not somebody whos good at it: “exceptional artistic talent”.
Or sombody who has long & carefully studied it: “aficionados”.
The term-”appropriately qualified”- has become whatever the author re-defines it as .
In this academic/automonous world the real subject of all conversation is power.Appropriately qualified is what ever ‘I’ say it is and you, being unqualified , better just get used to it.

I fear for our future if these wanabee turkeys were to really get the power they seek over primary/secondary education.
The ‘realization’ of new things is a élite activity for a simple & good reason, it is very hard to do ,it is hard work and needs a lot of real/élite skills and knowledge to have any chance of success .

Redefinition dos not cut it in the real world, its products are equipped only for a life of dependency and misery.

So I looked a little further, and found something interesting:

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology | Date: 1996
-cy suffix corr. to F. -tie, †-cie, originating in L. -cia, -tia, Gr. -k(e)í?, -t(e)í?, f. -k-, -t- + -?a, etc. -Y 3; occurs chiefly in -ACY, -ANCY, -CRACY, -ENCY, -MANCY. On the model of prophet/prophecy was formed idiocy from idiot, and thence secrecy from secret. The correspondence of agent and agency and consequently of lieutenant and lieutenancy gave rise to captaincy, chaplaincy, from captain, chaplain. The suffix is added to some words ending in t, as bankruptcy, baronetcy, paramountcy.

Now, the word “prophecy” goes back to about 1255. It is possible we derived the initial t->c transformation from the French, after the Norman invasion. More -cy words were later formed in accordance with this pattern. But then came the various rule-breakings: captaincy, chaplaincy, bankruptcy, paramountcy, etc.

In that case, SkillTivities are almost as good as morate bankruptcy, and we can visuate away!

Maybe we can reverse engineer this neologism, Diana. If we want our students to be literate and numerate, perhaps we should also expect them to be visuate!

Great grammar lesson, teacher. A grateful nation thanks you.

You can only have the -cy (or -sy) suffix when there is a corresponding word with a “t.”

Clement, clemency. Private, privacy. Autocratic, autocracy. Hypocrite, hypocrisy. Idiosyncratic, idiosyncrasy. Controvert, controversy. Papate (obs.), papacy.

The adjective “numerate” exists. Hence, numeracy. The adjective “visuate” does not exist (and I hope it never does–”visualization” has given us enough trouble).

Other terrible neologisms: “bibliolatry” (coined by John Byrom in the 18th century). He takes “idolatry” and makes “bibliolatry” from it, dismissing the fact that the “ol” was part of the root. (Yes, in Greek it was a suffix of sorts–but once it got to English, it was a suffix no more.)

Also, the dreaded Kaplan “SkillTivities”… under what “Skillusions” are they operating?

The root-suffix mush seeps into teacher trainings as well. Once, at a PD or meeting, we were given a sheet with prefixes and suffixes to teach the kids. One of those suffixes on the sheet was -tation. Ah, so “incantation” is “incan” plus “-tation”? Maybe it has something to do with the Incas!

It is fine to work with pictures–but must it be at the expense of verbatures?

I think the difference between how art is taught and how music is taught is worth considering. Music, at least instrumental music, has to be something to learn, not just something to do. You can’t do anything with an instrument without a lot of learning - focused, conscious, hard core learning. As a result a lot of people (though certainly not all) do learn a lot of music. Can art education learn something from that? I’m not sure.

With thoughts such as these, I find I am not willing to casually dismiss a call for more or better art education. And I’m not willing to totally dismiss the term “visuacy”. However I did read the article in The Australian, and I don’t get a good impression of their approach to the matter.