Who would argue that an investment of around £110m in curriculum-related creativity is money poorly spent? Creative Partnerships (pp 9-10) sounds like the ultimate panacea for the current problems of a reducing emphasis on, for instance, music teaching in primary schools. Sadly though, unlike in Scotland, where every primary school pupil has been promised the opportunity of free music tuition (ArtsProfessional issue 45, March 10 2003) thanks to a £17.5m cash injection from The Scottish Executive, universal issues are not resolved through this programme.
Creative Partnerships is targeted at a limited number of ‘disadvantaged’ geographical areas, and therefore the majority of schools in England have no automatic entitlement to involvement in the scheme. This postcode lottery of resource provision is, to put it mildly, unfortunate. Estelle Morris says that she wants to ensure that every young person gets the same kind of exposure to the arts that is “currently often available only to children whose parents can afford to pay” (p9). She goes on to cite examples of projects, that, as far as we’re aware, are simply not available to the ‘paying public’. However well off (or badly off but willing to pay) parents may be, if they live outside the golden circles of Creative Partnerships areas, there is not the remotest glimmer of hope that they can access for their children the sort of artistic opportunities provided through the scheme – though equal disadvantage for all is, of course, one way of levelling the playing field...
Published: 23-02-2004