• Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email

Martin Heaney argues that more research is needed into education practice, if the role of education work is ever to achieve its full potential.

A decline in new audiences and new writing in theatre are both recognised as key challenges facing the industry in the Boyden report?s 'Roles & Functions of the English Regional Producing Theatres' (2000).To counter this decline, the report recommends that education should be repositioned as a core function of theatre. Actors, directors, and other theatre workers will ?participate in the programme as a matter of course. Their input will be facilitated and co-ordinated by a specialist education practitioner.? But how well equipped are today?s education practitioners to bring about this collaboration?

Bridging gaps

At present, collaboration between education workers and artists in theatre is something of a pot-luck process. As a freelancer, devising education programmes to accompany main-stage work, I have experienced extremes ? from directorial edicts forbidding entry to rehearsal rooms and working with actors, to enthusiastic directorial endorsement and wholehearted involvement in a highly creative process. Creativity in bridge-building between an audience and a work of art is an essential skill of the education practitioner and a great reward in itself. If new creative partnerships are to prosper, however, perhaps we need to apply this skill in bridging some of the gaps between theatre workers in their approaches to education. It is unrealistic to expect understanding to occur without structures to provide insight into education practice. Case studies and evaluation of successful collaborations could provide a basis for these structures

Isolation is a key obstacle to progress. The unique qualities and values of the diverse forms of current theatre education often occur beyond the view of many theatre workers. Each project is a creation with its own contours discovered only by its participants. The importance of evaluation is increasingly emphasised in professional discourse - but how can the outcomes of evaluation be channelled and shared? Is it enough to evaluate each project, often innovative in form and value, and not make the outcomes known to a wider community in theatre and beyond?

Sharing experience

It is perhaps not fashionable to look to Theatre in Education (TIE) for inspiration. Practitioners may deride the artistic quality of many TIE productions - but in doing so, they overlook the values and methodology of a practice rooted in an explicit understanding of educational and pedagogic objectives. Despite working in proximity, contemporary artistic directors and education officers rarely achieve the integrated approach that characterises TIE collaboration between directors and actor/teachers. Furthermore, the absence of a well-developed body of knowledge of participatory theatre education practice or a forum to share it has created a significant vacuum. Good practice, where it exists, does not circulate easily; yet collaboration and sharing of good practice provide opportunities for developing new ideas and approaches. At present, each practitioner learns from an eclectic range of sources. There are strengths in this of constant innovation and flexibility. But without sustained research this ad hoc approach will not create a specialised body of professional knowledge that can meet the demands of future collaborations or training for collaborative work.

Current practice

We cannot always replicate success but we can aim to record and share among other practitioners the codes and grammar of our work that make such outcomes possible. Future success of creative partnerships between artists and educators is, I believe, dependent on a rediscovery, through a research of practice, of the various forms and languages of contemporary theatre education. These beliefs derive from research I conducted into the role of the Theatre Education Officer (EO).This role, part-manager, part-educator, part-artist, defies easy categorisation. One person departments have replaced whole TIE companies - but the responsibility for education is still often identified with one key worker rather than accepted as a responsibility of the organisation as a whole. Isolation, again, is a factor. In single person Education departments, models of good practice can be easily lost when post-holders move on. Interviewees spoke of continually ?re-inventing the wheel?. Greater attention to methodology through ongoing professional training would also enable EO?s to form a professional community and counter the short-termist climate they operate in.

More than audience development

The lack of familiarity with the nuts and bolts of practice is also reflected in the context of policy-making. Policy initiatives at national level have advocated greater integration between education and marketing, for example. But these initiatives prioritise administrative and organisational imperatives and do not address the need to make the ?hidden? values of education more visible to all theatre workers.

The challenges faced by education workers sit deep within theatre organisation and the current lack of clarity as to the purpose of education work. There is a continuing contest around the meaning of education between engaging people for the sake of personal development, or engaging with people for the sake of the box office. The lack of distinction between what is education or audience development is particularly problematic. If an education programme is simply regarded as a sophisticated tool to fill a theatre, it is easy to overlook the potential for education work to generate art as well as new audiences.

A thorough research of practice would clarify these important distinctions of purpose. It could include case studies of exemplary practice. Page to stage schemes run by the education department of Birmingham Rep, for example, illustrate how imaginative programming can develop work for the theatre and ensure that the bridge between theatre and its audience is open to two-way traffic.

Research vs. Evaluation

A two-fold research requirement exists: the provision of channels of communication for practitioners to exchange ideas and insight, and a commitment to a fundamental research of practice that will renew and sustain the value of the work undertaken. This will go beyond evaluation to engage with the key questions of our activity. What is it that we do? Are we artists or educators? What do these terms mean in the contemporary context? Without research and reflection on these issues how can education practitioners engage meaningfully with other theatre workers?

Jenny Harris, Head of Education at the Royal National Theatre, neatly summarises some implications of the current lack of research: ?At the moment we?ve got lots of anecdotal evidence. We know our work is effective, but it wouldn?t stand up outside. That?s the problem. A lot of practice needs documenting and then we can teach our people how to do it. A lot of good practice has been lost. I think there?s a huge job to be done.?

Martin Heaney is a Freelance Theatre Education Director and Lecturer in Performing Arts t: 07939 148420 e: martinheaney@hotmail.com