Last month, the Cultural Learning Alliance (CLA) published ImagineNation: The Case for Cultural Learning, which includes evidence of the benefits of cultural education and argues the case for investment.
The report comes against the backdrop of increasing concern about the future of cultural education. There are worries that the National Curriculum Review in England will sideline arts subjects and that the English Baccalaureate will focus schools on more “mainstream” subjects such as maths, English and science.
There has also been a reduction in the number of places available for teacher training in arts and cultural subjects at secondary level, and a 27% drop in Ucas applications to art schools.
On top of this, the added danger of funding cuts is that some museums might see education programmes as disposable “extras”, compared to looking after buildings and collections.
The need for cultural learning is not just subject specific. Of course, any society needs cultural creators and teachers, but the point of a broad and rich cultural education is that it makes for better all-round students who are engaged with an extensive range of subjects and interests.
The CLA’s report includes several recommendations about how cultural learning might be embedded in schools, and also how its impact might be measured.
It will be used, according to its authors, to bring together a strategy for cultural education.
Perhaps the publication of this report will force the government’s hand. In April, culture minister Ed Vaizey commissioned the Henley Review of Cultural Education. Its belated publication is expected this month.
Politicians from all parties appear to agree that cultural education is a good thing. If that’s the case, government should publish the review and get on with implementing its findings.
Sharon Heal, editor, Museums Journal
sharon@museumsassociation.org
www.twitter.com/sharonheal
Mick Waters: call to action for cultural education
The report comes against the backdrop of increasing concern about the future of cultural education. There are worries that the National Curriculum Review in England will sideline arts subjects and that the English Baccalaureate will focus schools on more “mainstream” subjects such as maths, English and science.
There has also been a reduction in the number of places available for teacher training in arts and cultural subjects at secondary level, and a 27% drop in Ucas applications to art schools.
On top of this, the added danger of funding cuts is that some museums might see education programmes as disposable “extras”, compared to looking after buildings and collections.
The need for cultural learning is not just subject specific. Of course, any society needs cultural creators and teachers, but the point of a broad and rich cultural education is that it makes for better all-round students who are engaged with an extensive range of subjects and interests.
The CLA’s report includes several recommendations about how cultural learning might be embedded in schools, and also how its impact might be measured.
It will be used, according to its authors, to bring together a strategy for cultural education.
Perhaps the publication of this report will force the government’s hand. In April, culture minister Ed Vaizey commissioned the Henley Review of Cultural Education. Its belated publication is expected this month.
Politicians from all parties appear to agree that cultural education is a good thing. If that’s the case, government should publish the review and get on with implementing its findings.
Sharon Heal, editor, Museums Journal
sharon@museumsassociation.org
www.twitter.com/sharonheal
Mick Waters: call to action for cultural education