17th January 2018 1:00
By Blue Tutors
The Artistic Director of the Royal National Theatre, Rufus Norris, recently published an article in the Guardian where he questioned the decreasing presence of creativity in school curriculums. He questioned the logic of our governments decisions in such matters, quoting these figures:
'Last year the creative industries were worth £92bn to the UK economy. The sector returns more golden eggs every year to the Treasury than the automotive, oil, gas, aerospace and life science industries combined, and for every £1 invested in subsidy the government gets £5 returned in taxes.'
He goes on to say that 'It would seem careless in the extreme to endanger this success story. Particularly if the carelessness were based on myth.' Indeed, since 2010 there has been an unbelievable drop of 28% in the number of pupils taking creative GCSEs. Norris flags that there has been a corresponding drop in the numbers of teachers being trained in these subjects, and carries on to say that this is not such a problem at private schools, 'and the state schools where inspired teaching and leadership pulls determinedly against the prevailing and constrictive tide.'
'According to the World Economic Forum, by 2020 creativity will be in the top three most important skills for future jobs, alongside complex problem solving and critical thinking. Which are skills innate to and honed by a creative education… Creative confidence brings initiative and freedom of thought, an understanding of teamwork and communication that sits at the heart of a dynamic and successful working life.'
But how do we encourage schools to widen their horizons beyond the curriculums to propagate this productive creativity?
Funding.
18 of the top 20 places with top school funding in the UK are in London, and there is a growing consensus that disadvantaged pupils (those who qualify for free school meals) have greater social mobility opportunities than elsewhere in the UK. The BBC recently stated that
'Schools in London get more funding because they have bigger challenges - extra costs because of their location and extra demands, such as high levels of deprivation and many pupils speaking English as a second language. It has often been claimed that London has its own demographic microclimate, with many migrant families arriving with high ambitions for their children. But head teachers argue that there's no escaping the overlap between social mobility and financial support. None of the lowest-funded 20 authorities makes it into the top 50 for social mobility.' Indeed, one example shows that an area near the bottom of the social mobility scale receives £4,729 for each secondary school pupil, while an area in the top five of the same scale receives an incredible £7,840.
So something has to be done to encourage poorer schools with poorer pupils to engage with a creative education. A group of head teachers have been working as a group called Worth Less? - a campaign that, after drawing together over 5,000 schools, is starting to combat the funding imbalance. One of its more famous findings is that a schools in Somerset would receive £2m less than a similar sized school in Westminster annually. The BBC rightly stated that 'head teachers are arguing that funding and social mobility should no longer be seen as separate conversations.'
Going back to Norris: 'The government should scrap the Ebacc in its current form, and work with the leaders we have – in the arts, in science, in innovation – to equip our young people with the skills they need. We need an education system fit for the 21st century, one that champions this country’s creativity as the foundation of its economic health... just like maths, “creativity should not be perceived as an exceptional talent; it is a basic skill that can be mastered with the right teaching and approach”.'
So if we balance funding to schools, we can spread social mobility around the country more evenly, and encourage a more creative education - boosting the prospects of the UK's future economically, socially and culturally, and start to tackle the London-centric nature of educational elitism. Yes, in many ways London is a microclimate for these things, operating in a slightly different manner, but that is no reason to deny the rest of the UK's schoolchildren pathways to creative excellence. Surely the future benefits to localised economies that would roll out over the coming generations is too obvious to ignore? IN any case, this is a matter it is worth following in the coming months.