Visual arts history and criticism occupy central positions in visual arts curriculum statements in Western Australia, sustained by the belief that they actively contribute to the education of the student as a 'whole person'. In reality however, visual arts teachers often use visual art works as 'learning aids' because they don't have time, interest or experience to deal with visual arts works in any other way. The difference between theorists' and teachers' understandings of the place and purpose of visual arts history and criticism provides an important area of inquiry requiring urgent attention. This research aims to shed light on the content and methods used by middle school visual arts teachers, and their students' perceptions of the content and methods. A qualitative descriptive study was selected for the research taking the form of semi- structured interviews with six teachers The interviews were complemented by a questionnaire administered to one class of students from each of the six schools. Participating teachers were selected through a stratified sampling technique. Analysis of data was undertaken from a qualitative stance in the case of interview participants. Narrative-style reporting of interview content was employed to facilitate accurate representation of the teachers' perceptions of visual arts history and criticism at the middle school level. A quantitative analysis of students' questionnaires provided triangulation of methodology, ensuring greater levels of validity than would be afforded by qualitative methods alone. With pressure being applied by the impending implementation of the Curriculum Framework for Kindergarten to Year 12 Education in Western Australian Schools for the formal inclusion of Arts Responses (aesthetics, art criticism) and Arts in Society (art history), a pressing need exists for clear information about current professional practice. Findings indicated that a misalignment appears to exist between theoretical assumptions embedded in documentation supporting the implementation of the Framework and actual classroom teaching practice. The implications of such misalignment, albeit illustrated on a small scale, are that the initiatives of the framework may not be sustainable in the longer term, precisely because they are built upon invalid assumptions about what teachers actually do. The size of the sample and scope of the research limits the generalisability of findings, but the study may provide impetus for a more comprehensive evaluation.