Does the curriculum review allow teachers to step off the policy pendulum?

Chief standards officer for the City of London Academy Trust, Mouhssin Ismail, claimed in the Daily Mail that giving “equal status to the creative subjects… will lower standards, with more children studying less rigorous courses, subjects that are essential for further study and future life chances.”

In contrast, Rachel Sylvester in the Observer argued: “The government has flunked its curriculum review. It is a completely inadequate response to a system that is failing to draw out the talents of every child, to the detriment of pupils and their families but also of society and the economy.”

Politicians might be relieved by these responses, given keeping everyone unhappy might demonstrate a compromise. They will also be more than satisfied by the positive noises coming from the arts sector.

Must not be too complacent

Culture Commons led with the hyperbolic headline – “The arts will go back into the National Curriculum” – as if they had ever left. And Darren Henley, chief executive of Arts Council England, which I have previously argued has been complicit in the decline in arts learning, called it “a great day for the next generation of creative talent in England”. As one friend said: “It felt like we had been heard.”

Yup. Politicians are experts in making people feel they have been heard without actually doing anything. Civil servants are trained in this approach. So while, for instance, commitments such as the scrapping of Ebacc (something that could have been done on day one, given it has no official regulatory status) are welcome, I’d urge the arts sector, and arts educators, not to be too seduced or complacent.

In comparison to its call for radical changes to the English Language and D&T curriculum and assessments, the review’s approach to the arts was largely what the Observer described as a set of incremental tweaks. It failed to recognise the poverty of arts ambition and instruction in many primary schools.

Core enrichment offer?

The review makes no suggestion of any arts learning entitlement until 18 – or even 16 – which happens in most of the rest the world. Even before the Ebacc was a note in Michael Gove’s inbox, most children were abandoning formal arts learning around the age of 14. This is unlikely to change.

A focus on oracy might catalyse drama education but, from my experience in primary schools, improving oracy is currently being approached in drama-free ways. What young people lack throughout their schooling are sustained opportunities to make beautiful things. And despite suggestions for more practical learning from age 14, I am sceptical about this changing much, if at all.

The government’s response, while claiming “we will revitalise arts education as part of the reformed national curriculum and through high-quality support for teachers of these subjects”, offers nothing new. Even the “new National Centre for Arts and Music Education” is a reannouncement, with a level of funding unlikely even to meet Boris Johnson’s pre-Covid commitment to a £270 million arts premium for schools.

Similarly, the inclusion of the arts in a ‘core enrichment offer’ adds nothing to the six-month-old promise of an enrichment framework. Warm words don’t always lead to cold cash. But, without wishing to be completely ‘glass half empty’, there are seeds of hope in both review and response. There is still all to play for.

Practice is permanent

So how should we who care about arts learning play it over the crucial next few months? Here are three ideas:

First, be precise. Let’s be accurate in our proposals for what we want from the system and from school leaders. Vague aspirations to ‘redefine the purpose of education’ foregrounding the arts won’t cut it. Some of the coming ‘incremental tweaks’ on curriculum content could be fundamental – or become a missed opportunity. The drama, dance and drawing will be in the detail. Let’s get stuck in.

Second, be persistent. The arts are neglected in so many conversations about improving teaching and learning. Assessment experts rarely mention the arts, let alone gain insights from arts assessment to inform how other subjects are assessed.  Let’s politely muscle in on as many conversations about education as possible. The question: “Does your thinking include the arts?” can be respectfully disruptive.

Third, be practical. Use the rhetorical change of direction to be there – with high quality programmes and partnerships – for school leaders with a genuine desire to create arts-rich environments. Reach out to those who want to do more, but aren’t sure what or how.

I am hopeful. Above all, I hope this government survives long enough to enact their proposals. But let’s not worry too much about what finally emerges as the new curriculum. 

As school leader Liz Robinson has argued, the review “should empower us to step off the policy pendulum – which has historically swung wildly between seemingly irreconcilable positions – and instead build an integrated, sophisticated model defined by joyful rigour”.  Policy is temporary; practice is permanent.