Editorial
Henley review: must try harder
After months of delays, the Henley Review of Cultural Education in England has been published. But was it worth the wait?
The document is effective in that it explicitly makes the case for cultural learning. And many of its recommendations on partnerships, a national plan and cross-ministerial working are to be welcomed.
But despite its length, there is much missing, and some cause for concern in the government’s response. For a start, there is an over-emphasis on formal education in the classroom, which all sounds a bit, forgive the pun, old-school.
Many museums have done effective work outside of the classroom and there is real value to be gained, as any teacher will testify, from taking children out of familiar surroundings.
There is also little recognition of out-of-school learning, informal education and early-years work, areas that some museums have excelled in over the past decade or so.
Although the government has pledged new money, it has ignored pleas to put arts and culture on to the national curriculum and the English Baccalaureate – so schools will continue to focus on the subjects against which their performance is measured. Adding arts and culture to the curriculum would have more impact than the gimmicky cultural passport idea.
A big chunk of the new funding, £3m, will go to heritage schools, where English Heritage will draw up a list of local historical sites and encourage schools to visit. This is despite the irony that English Heritage axed its outreach department last year.
And worryingly, both English Heritage chief executive Simon Thurley and education secretary Michael Gove referred to our “nation story”, which is enough to make anyone who believes there are multiple stories to be told nervous.
If the government is going to convince museums that there is a serious commitment to cultural education, it is going to have to try much harder.
See comment and vox pop.
Sharon Heal, editor, Museums Journal
sharon@museumsassociation.org
www.twitter.com/sharonheal
The document is effective in that it explicitly makes the case for cultural learning. And many of its recommendations on partnerships, a national plan and cross-ministerial working are to be welcomed.
But despite its length, there is much missing, and some cause for concern in the government’s response. For a start, there is an over-emphasis on formal education in the classroom, which all sounds a bit, forgive the pun, old-school.
Many museums have done effective work outside of the classroom and there is real value to be gained, as any teacher will testify, from taking children out of familiar surroundings.
There is also little recognition of out-of-school learning, informal education and early-years work, areas that some museums have excelled in over the past decade or so.
Although the government has pledged new money, it has ignored pleas to put arts and culture on to the national curriculum and the English Baccalaureate – so schools will continue to focus on the subjects against which their performance is measured. Adding arts and culture to the curriculum would have more impact than the gimmicky cultural passport idea.
A big chunk of the new funding, £3m, will go to heritage schools, where English Heritage will draw up a list of local historical sites and encourage schools to visit. This is despite the irony that English Heritage axed its outreach department last year.
And worryingly, both English Heritage chief executive Simon Thurley and education secretary Michael Gove referred to our “nation story”, which is enough to make anyone who believes there are multiple stories to be told nervous.
If the government is going to convince museums that there is a serious commitment to cultural education, it is going to have to try much harder.
See comment and vox pop.
Sharon Heal, editor, Museums Journal
sharon@museumsassociation.org
www.twitter.com/sharonheal