Research: The Future Of Arts Education in England - SSAT Study/Discussion - My thoughts and findings.
The Schools, Students and Teachers Network’s study about the future of arts education in England highlights a number of areas of interest that relate to my project. The study discusses the concerns many member of the SSAT have with the curriculum, with specific links to how arts education is being impacted in light of the EBACC’s introduction. Although it is important to note that this study is from 2016/17, the fact that such concerns were raised by the SSAT shows how detrimental the EBACC has been and continues to be to student’s learning, even from when it was put in place. This study acts as a documented discussion of a range of points of view about education, the arts, the value of arts education and what can be done to keep it in the curriculum in a meaningful manner. There are a range of people who participated in this discussion, from policy makers to school leaders to arts practitioners, which is very important because the breadth of viewpoints is vital to determining a general consensus that is well rounded and beneficial to what can be done from this. The fact that a variety of professionals were in discussion to produce such a study shows that the impact of the EBACC on creative subjects has been concerning to those in education, as well as those in creative industries, and the goal of finding a way to provide meaningful arts education is still very much up for discussion.
As this study is centred around arts education, the narrowing of the curriculum and the opinions of those both in and out of education on such matters, I found the study to be particularly important in terms of how many of the concerns were echoed among a diverse range of professions. Even at a glance, the general consensus from the study was that of an acknowledgement that there continues to be issues in delivering creative subjects in a way that is beneficial and meaningful to the student’s learning. Highlighted in the introduction of the study the notion that “a near-compulsory Ebacc will lead to a narrowing of the KS4 curriculum; with the arts, technologies and vocational subjects most at risk” (The future of arts education in England, 2017) is outlined from the beginning. This summary of the discussion shows how vital a wide and immersive curriculum is, because if this is not available to students it will result in a very narrow and limited curriculum, that provides no creative outlet for students across a range of abilities. There is also a suggestion from this that subjects such as the arts, technology and vocational studies are somewhat ‘less than’ with compared to subjects that are considered to be core. This highlights that there is a hierarchy within secondary education, therefore showing that the impact of the Ebacc has been more negative than positive. One could argue that the inclusion of the Ebacc was the main catalyst for the devaluation of the arts in schools because of its ability to limit a student’s learning options and schools resources in the subjects that are not included within the performance indicator.
The discussion was opened up by Lord Puttnam, who discussed the importance of creativity. This gave the beginning of the study some context about the importance of a creative mind and how vital it can be in the workplace. Puttnam describes creativity and how it “relies to an extraordinary degree on resilience” (The future of arts education in England, 2017) and that “depicting creativity as a muscle; with resilience establishing itself as probably the most important factor of that muscle’s development” (The future of arts education in England, 2017) was particularly interesting. The fact that creativity is held with such high regard, shows how valuable this is as a tool. This links to my project because throughout my work it is my intention to give students the opportunity to expand their creativity, regardless of ability. Although I am showing them how to approach artistic techniques, it is ultimately about unlocking creativity. If this is taken away from students, the ability to problem solve, think for themselves and generate ideas is limited, and therefore young people are leaving education without key life skills that they simply will not develop in other subjects. The fact Puttnam describes creativity as “resilience” (The future of arts education in England, 2017) is significant because it gives the ability to be creative a position of importance or of a higher value because without that resilience, many would be limited in their ambition. However, it is important to acknowledge this viewpoint is from the position of someone who has been in the creative industry for many years, which would explain why creativity is held with such esteem.
Although this is not a generalised viewpoint, I think that the viewpoint is valid when comparing it to other areas of my research. When looking at the position of the artist, in context with this discussion, a recent Tate paper asks artist educators their position on their role, citing that it is not their job to ‘teach’ but rather to “provide learners with the skills, confidence and knowledge to interpret art for themselves” (Pringle, 2009). I found the link between Puttnam’s comments and that of the artist educator very similar because it all centres around developing students to be assured in what they believe, create, think and feel in what ever situation they find themselves in, educationally or otherwise. It shows that there is value within creative subjects because they develop people as individuals, rather than solely in an academic light.
As mentioned previously, this discussion piece was undertaken in 2016/17, which is significant because some of the comments made refer to previous Prime Ministers, as well as cabinet members. However, I still believe it is important to note their comments and how they relate to the discussion at hand because their decision making, as well as their opinions on key areas such as education, have had an impact on how the curriculum is today. With this in mind, there is much discussion in this study about David Cameron’s comments about schooling, stating that “too many young people leave school culturally disadvantaged” (The future of arts education in England, 2017) and the importance of the arts to the British economy which is discussed at length by the then Chancellor George Osbourne. Further to this, Labours stance “talks about the arts as a vehicle to bring people together from all walks of life” (The future of arts education in England, 2017). I found this area of the discussion very interesting because the viewpoint of David Cameron suggests that students are being given limited education in terms of their cultural knowledge, thus leaving them at a disadvantage. This is an intriguing viewpoint when compared to the inclusion of the Ebacc and how it has streamlined the curriculum to a predominantly academic state. One could argue that students lack of cultural knowledge is due to the limited exposure they have to the arts on a consistent or compulsory basis. The lack consistency between government opinion and policy is evident here because the insinuation that students are “culturally disadvantaged” (The future of arts education in England, 2017) is caused by the devalued nature of the arts, and how the lessons themselves have become limited in time, funding and priority within the school day. Not having an arts subject as a core subject simply adds to this lack of cultural understanding for the younger generation.
However, Lord Puttnam comments that:
“This rhetoric, argues Lord Puttnam, is a far cry from the dominant view of the arts world of the 1980s, when the phrase ‘creative industries’ was regarded with deep suspicion. Politicians and the wider society now recognise the value of the arts both as a vital expression of our culture, and as a valuable source of employment and satisfaction” (The future of arts education in England, 2017)
Although this viewpoint by Puttnam acknowledges that there has been progress in terms of how important the creative economy is to the country and how this line of work is viewed, I would argue that if the arts were truly recognised in terms of their “value” (The future of arts education in England, 2017) by politicians specifically, the arts would have been positioned as a core subject within schools. If it is so valuable to the economy and the cultural awareness of the country, why is it not promoted or given priority within schools, or at the very least on an even level to STEM subjects. It is important to note that there have been improvements to the perception of creative industries from the 1980s, as Puttnam rightly comments, however it has to be said that for true acknowledgement that the arts are valued as part of culture, then it has to become an integral part of a child’s education.
The study then goes on to discussing how the importance of the arts impacts other subjects. This was a section of the piece that I found surprising, because Lord Puttnam felt it important to reiterate the importance of ‘core’ subjects, specifically English and Maths, as if the focus put upon the arts would in any way diminish the importance of these subjects. Puttnam states that “he finds himself baffled by having to explicitly state, and re-state, his understanding of the fundamental importance of literacy and numeracy - as if these core subjects were in some way mutually exclusive!” (The future of arts education in England, 2017). The fact that this has to be said in a discussion around the Ebacc and the devaluation of creative subjects shows that many still believe that creative learning and academia cannot work together, with the sheer justification of the importance of English and Maths indicating a lack of understanding of what children should be learning. This argument of having to explicitly say English and Maths are fundamental to a child’s development in justification for not having more emphasis on the arts shows that many believe that young people should not excel in a range of subjects, but rather only the heavily academic ones. Or, that a student should not pursue something they enjoy at the risk of affecting their attainment in a core subject. I found this to be a very typical theme within my prior research, that prejudices and negative opinions cornering the arts have an impact on students learning and ultimately their choices.
Moreover, the discussion around policy and education reform became an integral part of this study. The thoughts of headteachers of schools who were flourishing under the Ebacc policy were particularly evident here because of their positive outlook on the performance measure. “Progress 8” (The future of arts education in England, 2017) was also loosely mentioned in the discussion, which is also a performance measure within the education system that awarded schools for A*-C grades in core subjects. It is important to note the thoughts of headteachers as they are tasked with the job of running a site for learning to its best possible capacity. However, it is also important to acknowledge that the comments made by Katheryn Pugh were from running a “high-performing” (The future of arts education in England, 2017) school, which sways the discussion into that of a more cautious mindset. Pugh’s viewpoint on the impact of the Ebacc and the effect it has had on the arts stated
“we must be mindful to ensure that we don’t overstate the risk to the arts. We need more hard evidence on how new accountability measures will change behaviours and practices. However, it is true that many headteachers are opposed to the Ebacc because it removes flexibility and makes it harder to offer a broad range of arts subjects. There is also a dispute over which arts subjects are in decline in schools and which are holding their ground within ministers and anti-Ebacc lobbyists disputing figures. We therefore need more empirical evidence and greater transparency to inform policy and practice” (The future of arts education in England, 2017)
While I agree there may be a need for greater understanding on the true impact of the Ebacc on arts based subjects, to suggest that we should not “overstate” (The future of arts education in England, 2017) the risk to the arts is a viewpoint I do not agree with. Overstating would suggest that the issues surrounding the lack of value in creative education shown through the Ebacc’s framework of solely academic subjects, funding for the arts or limited time for the subject are factors that simply are not significant enough to require change. However, this is the viewpoint of someone who has a school that statistically benefits from the Ebacc framework, which gives validity to the Ebacc’s purpose and its ability to succeed. But, one has to remember that not every school has the same story, nor the same framework or ability in students. Therefore the importance for a well rounded, wider curriculum may be more beneficial. Having no creative subjects within the Ebacc framework puts the subjects at risk and heavily devalued because the importance given to it simply is not there. While there may be grounds for further research to assess the damage caused, and the impact the arts have on student attainment, as well as not just relying on the creative industries’ feelings towards the matter, one can argue that to be so cautious in their opinion is to be complicit with narrowing the curriculum and thus an unbalanced focus on academia, rather than nurturing well-rounded and informed young people.
The discussion of value in terms of the arts is discussed heavily within this study. Although it is important to note that quantifying value is somewhat subjective depending on the angle in which it is approached, I feel it is important to note within my findings because it has been a recurring theme within my research. In context with this study, the discussion of value arose when talking about the arts in relation to other subjects, as well as its role in the economy. The views of the Chief executive of Arts Council England, Darren Henley were particularly enlightening when the discussion turned to recognising the arts as an important subject, both in relation to the results it generates and the impact it has on other subject attainment, he stated that “If we are to value arts alongside humanities, sciences, literacy and numeracy, we need to do so both in word and deed” (The future of arts education in England, 2017). As this statement shows, if the arts are put on an even playing field to that of other subjects, it needs to be done in a way that is meaningful and beneficial to students. As there is an acknowledgement throughout the study that the importance of the arts is such that it needs to be utilised in schools, and its wider implications to benefitting the UK economy, if the arts where to be placed on an even level to that of English, Maths, Science and Humanities specifically, it would have to be done with similar emphasis to these subjects. Due to other factors such as funding, this simply is not the case in its current state. Although it is important for Henley to state it has to be done both in “word and deed” (The future of arts education in England, 2017) I would argue that this simply would not be done under the Ebacc’s conventions or due to the ever ongoing need to justify the “fundamental importance of literacy and numeracy - as if these core subjects and the arts are some way mutually exclusive.” (The future of arts education in England, 2017) It indicates that value is inherently placed more on one and not necessarily the other, because the term ‘value’ is too extensive and damaging to certain subjects, like the arts. I believe this also has an impact with the justification that additional arts education can be done through “extra curricular activities” (The future of arts education in England, 2017), seemingly relegating or devaluing the subject to an activity rather than a serious subject. However, if this is the only method of children accessing some form of arts education, it is at least a step to exposing students to creative learning.
There is also a clear disconnect between creative industry and what is taught in schools currently, highlighted clearly by two artist practitioners who were a part of this study. This adds to the value measured when referring to the arts because if schools are not teaching art in a meaningful manner then the likelihood of young people entering creative industries and thriving is small. Not giving students the valid tools, and prioritising academia over possible passions or interests in creative subjects impacts the skills students leave education with. The suggestion from the arts practitioners that “there is a disconnect between the study of arts at school and the real business of being an artist” (The future of arts education in England, 2017) can be agreed with because of the devaluation of the subjects within the curriculum. How can it be expected that the education is meaningful with little time, funding or value placed upon it. It becomes about how to achieve a grade in something with the minimal skills required, and less about how to carry meaningful skills required to flourish in the art world. As value is such a multi-layered and multifaceted subject especially when considering the arts in education, I would argue that the study does not tackle this issue nearly enough to provide enough space for real change in this area.
After reflecting and analysing on the main points of this study, I have found some really interesting and insightful aspects that have benefitted my research. I believe the study is a good discussion piece for change within the education system, simply through the breadth of people who was involved in such discussion. The fact that many opinions of those involved saw the devaluation of the arts through the impact of the Ebacc shows that the system does not work and is not inclusive to all types of learners. I also believe that the viewpoints of headteachers requiring more research about the overall impact the arts has had in light of the Ebacc is justified, however to state that it’s important not to ‘overstate’ such issues is biased to their situation. I think the discussion about arts education needs to be balanced and with a mind to all types of school situations, not just those who are doing well under such regimes.
I do feel however that the discussion of value was skimmed over with lots of bold and promising agreements or acknowledgements without identifying that the Ebacc’s current conventions would not allow for the arts to be on a par with English and Maths due to the constant reminder of the importance of these two core subjects. I do think that more research has to be done in this area, and a solid definition of the term ‘value’ in the context of such discussions needs to be outlined far clearer than it has been in this instance. However, I do agree with the conclusion to this study with regards to the need for specific research in certain areas of arts education to really measure the impact it has had on student learning. But, I think this level of research would still be understated by many because of the perception the arts has as a non academic subject. Overall, I am very pleased with this area of my research, and I believe that I can research on from this to form more viewpoints, answers and further lines of investigation about the Ebacc, curriculum and the value of the arts in schooling.
Sources
Webcontent.ssatuk.co.uk. 2017. The future of arts education in England. [online] Available at: <https://webcontent.ssatuk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/16151647/The-future-of-arts-education-in-England1.pdf> [Accessed 18 February 2021].
Comments