Contemporary Theatre Education and Creative Learning: A Great British Journey (Palgrave Studies In Play, Performance, Learning, and Development) 3030637379, 9783030637378

Table of contents :
List of Contributors
England
Scotland
Wales
Contributors to ‘Practitioner Voices’
Scotland
England
Wales
Acknowledgements
Contents
List of Figures
Chapter 1: Map Reading: An Introduction
Map Reading: An Introduction
Landscapes: Nations, Politics and Theatre Education
Departures: Creative and Cultural Journeys Across Great Britain
En Route to a Twenty-First-Century Theatre Education
Border Crossings: Twenty-First-Century Theatre Education
On the Horizon
Practitioner Voices: Scotland, England and Wales
Three Thousand Miles
Bibliography
Chapter 2: Landscapes: Nations, Politics and Theatre Education
Britishness
Englishness
Scottishness
Welshness
Bibliography
Chapter 3: Departures: Creative and Cultural Journeys Across Great Britain
Setting the Scene—Post-war to the 1990s
The Roads Begin to Part
England—The Semantics of Creativity and Culture
What Direction Is England Travelling In?
The Roads Divide
Scotland—In Culture We Trust
Wales—Stepping Forward, Taking a Bow
Creativity and Creative Learning
Creativity?
Theatre and Creativity
The Politics of Creativity
On the Ground
So Where to Now?
Bibliography
Chapter 4: En Route to a Twenty-First-Century Theatre Education
How Did We Get Here?
In the Folds of the Map
Bibliography
Chapter 5: Border Crossings: Twenty-First-Century Theatre Education
New Markets, New Modes
Immersion and Intimacy—A Pedagogy of Felt Experience
The Art of With: Co-creativity and Co-authorship
Theatres of Place
Dialogic Construction of Place
Security and Transition
Theatre as Place-Maker
Representation
Bibliography
Chapter 6: On the Horizon
Bibliography
Chapter 7: Practitioner Voices: Scotland, England and Wales
Scotland
Theatre and Transformation
Children’s Theatre as a Political Act
Theatre and Location
The Value of a Young Company
England
Intimacy and Storytelling
Sensory Story Board
How Intimate Theatre Can Engage SEND Children by Removing Judgement
Authentic Voices
Theatre of Place
The Joy of Long-Term Relationships
Experimentation in Contemporary Devising with Young People
Wales
Ordered Chaos
Children, Theatre and Radical Thought
Professional Values Within a Theatre for Children Context
International Influences
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

PALGRAVE STUDIES IN PLAY, PERFORMANCE, LEARNING, AND DEVELOPMENT

Contemporary Theatre Education and Creative Learning A Great British Journey Mark Crossley

Palgrave Studies In Play, Performance, Learning, and Development

Series Editor Lois Holzman East Side Institute for Group and Short Term Psychotherapy New York, NY, USA

This series showcases research, theory and practice linking play and ­performance to learning and development across the life span. Bringing the concerns of play theorists and performance practitioners together with those of educational and developmental psychologists and counsellors coincides with the increasing professional and public recognition that changing times require a reconceptualization of what it means to develop, to learn and to teach. In particular, outside of school and informal learning, the arts, and creativity are coming to be understood as essential in order to address school failure and isolation. Drawing upon existing expertise within and across disciplinary and geographical borders and theoretical perspectives, the series features collaborative projects and theoretical crossovers in the work of theatre artists, youth workers and scholars in educational, developmental, clinical and community psychology, social work and medicine—providing real world evidence of play and theatrical-­ type performance as powerful catalysts for social-emotional-cognitive growth and successful learning. Advisory Board Patch Adams, Founder, Gesundheit Institute, USA Natalia Gajdamaschko, Simon Fraser University, Canada Kenneth Gergen, Professor, Swarthmore College, USA and Tilburg University, the Netherlands Artin Gonçu, Professor, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA James Johnson, Professor, Pennsylvania State University, USA Fernanda Liberali, Professor, Pontific Catholic University of São Paulo, Brazil Yuji Moro, Professor, University of Tsukuba, Japan Alex Sutherland, Professor, Rhodes University, South Africa Jill Vialet, Founder and CEO, Playworks, USA More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14603

Mark Crossley

Contemporary Theatre Education and Creative Learning A Great British Journey

Mark Crossley School of Arts De Montfort University Leicester, UK

Palgrave Studies In Play, Performance, Learning, and Development ISBN 978-3-030-63737-8    ISBN 978-3-030-63738-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63738-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the ­publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and ­institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Belgrade Asian Youth Theatre Photographer Nicola Young This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

List of Contributors

The following people generously gave their time to be interviewed for the text. I have outlined the nation and city in which the company or interviewee is based, to help an at a glance guide to the geographic breadth of contributors, but it must be noted that many of the practitioners work across England, Scotland and Wales.

England Adel Al-Salloum—Director of The Spark Arts for Children, Leicester Manya Benenson—Participation Officer, Education, Nottingham Playhouse Theatre, Nottingham* Christopher Davies—Co-artistic Director, Bamboozle Theatre Company, Leicester Sam Cairns—Co-director of Cultural Learning Alliance, London Rob Elkington—Director Arts Connect West Midlands, Bridge Organisation, Birmingham Chris Elwell—Director, Half Moon Theatre, London Romana Flello—Young Court manager, Royal Court Theatre, London Trina Haldar—Artistic Director—Mashi Theatre Company, Leicester Jo Scalpello—Group Marketing Director Trafalgar Entertainment Inc. Stagecoach Theatre Arts, Woking Louisa Roberts—Head of Educational Programme Development and Training, Stagecoach Performing Arts, Woking Derek Nisbet and Janet Vaughan—Co-artistic Directors, Talking Birds Theatre Company, Coventry v

vi 

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Jacqui O’Hanlon—Director of Education, Royal Shakespeare Company, Stratford upon Avon Peter Rumney and Nettie Scriven—Co-artistic Directors, Dragon Breath Theatre Company, Nottingham Justine Themen—Co-artistic Director for 2021, Belgrade Theatre, Coventry Gordon Vallins—Pioneer of theatre in education (Belgrade Theatre) and theatre arts in the curriculum, Royal Leamington Spa James Yarker—Artistic Director, Stan’s Cafe Theatre Company, Birmingham

Scotland Julia Fenby—Education Officer, Creative Scotland, Glasgow Paul Fitzpatrick—Chief Executive, Imaginate, Edinburgh Guy Hollands—Associate Director (Citizens Learning), Citizens Theatre, Glasgow* Dougie Irvine—Artistic Director, Visible Fictions, Glasgow Sophie Ochojna—Marketing and Development Manager, Visible Fictions, Glasgow Neil Packham—Community Drama Director, Citizens Theatre, Glasgow Laura Penny—Producer, Visible Fictions, Glasgow Joan Parr—Interim Director of Arts and Engagement and Head of Creative Learning, Creative Scotland, Edinburgh

Wales Sarah Argent—Freelance Theatre-Maker and Associate Artist with Theatr Iolo, Cardiff Catherine Bennett—Movement Director, Volcano Theatre, Swansea Paul Davies—Artistic Director, Volcano Theatre, Swansea Rhian A. Davies—Executive Producer, Theatr Genedlaethol Cymru, Carmarthen Diane Hebb—Director: Engagement and Participation at Arts Council of Wales, Cardiff Timothy Howe—Creative Engagement Manager, Sherman Theatre, Cardiff Kevin Lewis—Freelance Theatre-Maker and formerly Artistic Director Theatr Iolo, Cardiff

  LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 

vii

Lee Lyford—Artistic Director, Theatr Iolo, Cardiff Quotes from these interviews are indicated with ‘…’ speech marks with no date listed, or indented with no date. The roles indicate the specific posts at the time of the interview. An asterisk indicates that since the interview they have moved to another post or are now working freelance.

Contributors to ‘Practitioner Voices’

In addition to the interviews, the following people kindly wrote an additional short essay (or two) to illuminate their practice. These can be found in the final ‘Practitioner Voices’ chapter.

Scotland Paul Fitzpatrick—Imaginate—Theatre and Transformation Dougie Irvine—Visible Fictions—Children’s Theatre as a Political Act Dougie Irvine—Visible Fictions—Theatre and Location Neil Packham—Citizens Theatre—The Value of a Young Company

England Manya Benenson—Intimacy and Storytelling Christopher Davies—Bamboozle—How Intimate Theatre Can Engage SEND Children by Removing Judgement Chris Elwell—Half Moon Theatre—Authentic Voices Janet Vaughan—Talking Birds—Theatre of Place James Yarker—Stan’s Cafe—Experimentation in Contemporary Devising with Young People James Yarker—Stan’s Cafe—The Joy of Long-Term Relationships

ix

x 

CONTRIBUTORS TO ‘PRACTITIONER VOICES’

Wales Catherine Bennett—Volcano Theatre—Ordered Chaos Timothy Howe—Sherman Theatre—Professional Values Within a Theatre for Children Context Paul Davies—Volcano Theatre—Children, Theatre and Radical Thought Kevin Lewis and Sarah Argent—International Influences

Acknowledgements

This book has taken a rather long time to compile, write and edit. Along the way I have had the fortune to meet dozens of incredible theatre educators, policymakers, teachers, children and young people all across Scotland, England and Wales. To all of those people may I say a heartfelt thank you. In particular, I would like to express a debt of gratitude to all the generous contributors who agreed to be interviewed (at length) and many of those who also kindly offered to contribute a Practitioner Voice essay (or two). Their expertise and wisdom have given the text both depth and immediacy. To the staff at Palgrave Macmillan and Springer Nature who have been so patient in waiting for this book to arrive, thank you for your perseverance. Like many in this field I am grateful to Helen Nicholson, partly for her insightful texts that have guided me towards and throughout this book but also her personal help in advising on its direction in its early days. A particular mention must go to my friends and colleagues at De Montfort University in Leicester. I would not have been able to take on such a project without the support from them, particularly my friend Jill Cowley who has always kept me on the straight and narrow. Finally to my family. This book would be no more than an idea down the pub if it wasn’t for my daughter Beth and her unerring capacity to distract me at the right time with the need for driving lessons, my son Joseph who brilliantly reminded me to mention Gramsci and take me for a pint now and again and of course my wife Siȃn who offered unending support and her insightful professional knowledge on special educational needs provision. To all three of you, cheers. xi

Contents

1 Map Reading: An Introduction  1 2 Landscapes: Nations, Politics and Theatre Education 23 3 Departures: Creative and Cultural Journeys Across Great Britain 59 4 En Route to a Twenty-First-Century Theatre Education131 5 Border Crossings: Twenty-First-Century Theatre Education163 6 On the Horizon247 7 Practitioner Voices: Scotland, England and Wales253 Bibliography277 Index295

xiii

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 5.4 Fig. 5.5 Fig. 5.6 Fig. 5.7 Fig. 5.8 Fig. 5.9 Fig. 5.10

Ordered Chaos (2019) Volcano Theatre youth theatre. (Photographer: Victoria Boobyer) 18 Stagecoach Ealing students performing at Shaftesbury Theatre, London (2019). (Photographer Theo Wood) 166 The Hidden (2017) at Paisley Central Library with pupils from Dumbarton Academy. Visible Fictions. (Photographer Mark Donnelly)181 Words in the Woods (2007) featuring Hannah McPake. Theatr Iolo in partnership with Vale of Glamorgan FEI (Forest Education Initiative). (Photographer Kirsten McTernan) 185 Daniel Naddafy performing in Glisten (2018) with audience member Arlo in the post-show interactive play session. Half Moon Theatre. (Photographer Stephen Beeny) 187 Makara and the Mountain Dragon (2020) Bamboozle at Curve Theatre, Leicester. (Photographer Pamela Raith) 192 Beastly Ongoings (2019) featuring Catherine Bennett. Volcano Theatre in collaboration with Crug Glas and the Coastal Housing Group. (Photographer Claudine Conway) 193 Royal Court Theatre Shine Project at Eltham Hill School (2018). (Photographer Helen Murray) 205 School Rulers: Hard Hats (2004) at Castle Vale School, Birmingham. (Photographer Graeme Braidwood) 220 School Rulers: Explosion (2004) at Castle Vale School, Birmingham. (Photographer Graeme Braidwood) 220 Any Fool Can Start a War (2014) Billesley Primary School in collaboration with Stan’s Cafe. (Photographer Graeme Braidwood)223 xv

xvi 

List of Figures

Fig. 5.11 Fig. 5.12 Fig. 5.13 Fig. 7.1

Gulliver’s Travels (2012) at Curve Theatre, Leicester featuring Chris Jack as Gulliver. Dragon Breath Theatre. (Photographer Pamela Raith) 227 Somewhere to Belong (2015) Belgrade Asian Youth Theatre. (Photographer Nicola Young) 238 Tales of Birbal (2017) Mashi Theatre company. (Photographer Pamela Raith) 241 Manya Benenson story objects. (Photographer: Manya Benenson)262

CHAPTER 1

Map Reading: An Introduction

As I am sure you are familiar, on many maps in public places, there will be a large arrow or marker indicating ‘You are here’ to help locate yourself in the surroundings and orientate the rest of your journey. I would like to borrow this mapping analogy (along with many other cartographical invocations throughout the book) as a means of quickly navigating you to the central destinations of this text. At the heart of this book there are four key themes. The first theme is a recognition of hybrid innovation and influence. Theatre education within Great Britain has reached a phase of intense hybridity where we must acknowledge and articulate the intricate coalescences of traditions, forms, pedagogies and methodologies that have emerged not just within the late twentieth century or broadly into this century but specifically within the last few years of this century. New fusions are emerging, bridging the public and private sectors of theatre, recalibrating traditional demarcations of practice which have often developed organically or by accretion rather than design. These developments have, for many reasons, often gone under the radar, recognised by specific writers in the field of theatre education and the practitioners themselves but habitually overlooked by the wider theatre community, critics and academia. Theatre and theatre education specifically are readily invoked in pursuit or valorisation of national

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Crossley, Contemporary Theatre Education and Creative Learning, Palgrave Studies In Play, Performance, Learning, and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63738-5_1

1

2 

M. CROSSLEY

identities and strategic cultural objectives but their significance in such spheres is rarely credited. To delineate theatre education in the context of this book I am specifically looking at theatre education and theatre for young audiences in Great Britain, what may be collectively referred to as theatre for, with and by children and young people. Helen Nicholson (2011) offers a delineation of the terms theatre education and theatre for young audiences which serve as a helpful starting point for this text: Theatre education involves professional theatre-makers working with young people in all kinds of educational settings and learning environments, including schools, hospitals, theatres, museums and heritage sites. This work may be undertaken by freelance practitioners, or those who work for companies that specialize in theatre education or they may be part of a bigger theatre or cultural organization. […] Theatre for Young Audiences involves professional performance that is particularly designed for children and family audiences within the cultural sector. (p. 86–87)

Nicholson distinguishes these from drama education, referring to the teaching of drama in schools. This latter domain is not a central theme of this text, however as will become clear in this chapter and beyond, these boundaries are now exponentially blurring or expanding and the evolutions and fluctuations of drama and theatre within schools have a fundamental impact on theatre educators more broadly. Second, this hybridity has been kindled by the significant changes that are occurring within the respective nations of Great Britain, namely England, Scotland and Wales, as national educational and cultural policies create ever more delineated and divergent routes forward for each country. The intention is to illuminate the interaction between policy, strategy and practice. The arts and culture have found or placed themselves at the forefront of many of these current national debates, hence an emphasis on the extent of change in recent years. Theatre education, as an intrinsic element within arts and culture, has shaped and been shaped by these national agendas yet it is not solely defined by them. To allocate generic national identities and traits upon practitioners and practices is far too reductive; however, attention must be paid to the confluence of civic, regional and national policy and practitioner innovation in response to this. Place is the third theme of the book, from broad conceptions of nationhood to specific articulations of personal ‘place in the world’. Place-making

1  MAP READING: AN INTRODUCTION 

3

is finding an increasing status within arts and cultural strategies within the twenty-first century and theatre educators are uniquely situated to respond to these agendas, refracting these national debates to a human, localised level through which participants, in this instance children and young people, can find personal agency within the macro strategies of government and major cultural stakeholders, notably the arts councils. The text considers the context in which children and young people navigate between multiple expressions of personal, everyday nationalism and a collective sense of belonging to a nation-state. The new agendas of cultural citizenship and national identity have brought creativity and creative learning to the fore. This final theme is at times a contentious term which meets with a mix of reactions when in conversation with theatre educators as there is some anxiety that it can be invoked too liberally within the arts, suggesting an exclusivity in its use. To be precise, my interest is in creative learning within the context of theatre education alongside a clear acknowledgement that creative learning is a broad spectrum of approaches available across many situations and all subjects and age groups. Whilst this delineation may offer some clarity, there are still many intricacies and challenges within the current creativity agenda. Having started with the analogy of ‘You are here’ as a fixed marker, it actually may be useful to proceed with the idea that we can lift this marker off the map and move it to where it may be needed next as one of the principle reflections of the book is that ‘where we are’ keeps shifting. Fortunately, theatre education in all its forms is one of the most adaptable and agile of travellers so is constantly adjusting its route map through the new landscapes. These travels are not without losses, doubts and impasses, but more often than not they are led by resilience and imagination. The geographic specificity of the title is important and intentional as I refer to a Great British journey as opposed to the United Kingdom or Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is a precise choice as my travels took me from England to Scotland and Wales, the three mainland nations, collectively referred to as Great Britain or Britain. My adventures in research did not take me over the Irish Sea to Northern Ireland, the fourth nation which when corralled together with the other three mainland states creates the United Kingdom.1 At times I use the term nation to describe England, Scotland or Wales and occasionally I use the term country. There 1  The full title of the country (including England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) Please note this book is being

4 

M. CROSSLEY

is some contention over whether this latter term is applicable for these nations as each has certain degrees of autonomy but are not fully independent states, but there is a consensus that to denominate them as countries is practicable in most scenarios.2 This book has taken roughly three years to compile and edit and in that period between 2017 and 2020 there have been significant developments in the educational map of Great Britain. The Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland is now in its ninth year of implementation in which creativity and the arts play a central role. Wales are currently in the final stages of a consultation period for their new Curriculum for Wales, set to roll out nationally from 2022, with Expressive Arts established as one of six mandatory areas of learning, whilst in England the National Curriculum continues to be refined with the absence of performing arts, except music, from the mandatory framework from Key Stage 1 to 4. The intention of this book is to capture this molten period in which the Scottish and Welsh curricula, resonating with certain tectonic political shifts, are distancing themselves from the English model whilst across all the three nations innovative theatre-makers are experimenting with and nurturing new modes of theatre education to facilitate or challenge these current national climates. This moment in time and the contemporary voices and practices of theatre and theatre education within the text are initially set within the context of the national, political, cultural, educational and theatrical cultures of each nation in order to understand why and how we have reached this present divergence. The central relationships I examine are those between professional theatre and the formal educational sector from early years through to young adulthood. The aim here is to articulate the new pedagogies and methodologies emerging from the coalescence of curricula and cultural shifts and experimental theatre education. This latter description of an experimental theatre education culture belies a perplexingly overlooked synergy between experimental theatre and theatre education, an absence this book seeks to address. This affiliation of contemporary theatre and theatre education has progressed through many forms since the end of the Second World War, written during the febrile fluidity of Brexit negotiations so the composition of this composite nation may be in flux as we speak. 2  The United Nations only recognises the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a sovereign state and member of the UN, as does the International Organisation of Standardisation (ISO) which issues ISO country codes.

1  MAP READING: AN INTRODUCTION 

5

interposed by what may be seen now as the three most prominent periods of modern austerity, immediately post-war, the financial crash of 2007–8 and now as we reel from the multiple shocks of COVID-19. Both education and theatre within Great Britain have made momentous shifts over that period and correspondingly the discourse and practice between these sectors has evolved dramatically from the early years of theatre in education (TIE), the evolution of process drama and now the re-emergence of theatricality and collaborative production models from ‘conventional’ text-based performance through to experimental forms. Where relevant I have also considered the role that professional theatre companies play as sites of education through youth theatres and projects which may not directly engage with schools but play a key role as supplements or surrogates for creative expression as schools are less able or willing to offer performing arts subjects due to curricula or financial constraints. Pursuing this theme a little further this text gives consideration to how the formal and informal worlds of performing arts education are colliding as parents and children seek to fulfil the theatre void through private performing arts schools which have seen an exponential rise in recent years with franchises including Stagecoach, Razzamataz and Pauline Quirke Academies setting up new ‘schools’ across the country. I consider to what extent is the informal becoming the new necessary for some, the indispensable performing arts curriculum for those who can afford or access it. The text, as noted at the beginning, does not seek to examine drama education including the role and methodologies of drama or theatre teachers within early years, schools and colleges. This domain is vast and many notable texts from Dorothy Heathcote, Gavin Bolton, David Davis and many more have expertly articulated such pedagogies. This text looks more broadly at theatre’s relationship and response to the changing curricula both within the discreet performing arts but also in the early years foundation stage, core and optional subjects and curricula objectives throughout the key stages and the underpinning purposes or capacities, to use the official Welsh and Scottish curriculum terms respectively. Although formal teaching of drama and theatre within the curriculum is not a central theme, due attention is given to recent curricula changes as this establishes the context and the domain in which professional theatre educators are practising. Whilst some context is given to the history of theatre in an educational context in Great Britain, the aim is not to document this at length for its own sake as many other texts have already rigorously mapped this

6 

M. CROSSLEY

territory, including Theatre for Children and Young People edited by Stuart Bennett (2005), Roger Wooster’s texts Contemporary Theatre in Education (2007) and Theatre in Education in Britain: Origins, Development and Influence (2016) and Helen Nicholson’s Theatre and Education (2009) and Theatre, Education and Performance (2011) as well as Learning Through Theatre: The Changing Face of Theatre in Education, edited by Anthony Jackson and Chris Vine (2013) and Imagining the Real: Towards a New Theory of Drama in Education by David Davis et  al. (2014) to name but a few. My own reference to these texts and to the traditions and legacies of drama and theatre education that they document is intended as a refreshed lens to focus on the evolutions and subtle revolutions in recent years and how these decades of innovation bring us to this point in time. The distinct traditions of theatre and drama in education are delineated in correspondence with theatre for, with and by children and young people. In part I articulate the fluctuating fortunes of theatre in education (TIE), which as with many aspects of theatre education has been somewhat caught in the folds when the map of theatre is drawn. The intention is to acknowledge its recent challenges but also recognise its significance both historically but more particularly as of now in its influence on the hybrid methodologies of the present day. My aim is to identify how these existing and emergent hybrid practices flourish, cope or struggle with the changing nature of national educational debates, policy and practice and where does the future lie for this sector of our culture? The word ‘our’ here is a contentious term as greater distinction is emerging between English, Welsh and Scottish cultural identities in a post-Brexit, mid-/post-COVID world. The recent and current curricula developments in Scotland and Wales are testament to this with a notably foregrounded status for the respective national cultures, including the Welsh language, in the curricula. The chapter headings and content have organically emerged out of the interviews and travels I have undertaken for the text, having spoken to theatre practitioners, Artistic Directors, producers, participation and engagement officers, arts education advocates, heads of theatre education, Arts Council executives and a pioneer of theatre in education.

Map Reading: An Introduction ‘Map Reading’, in which we are currently ensconced, is the opening chapter with the principle aims of setting the agenda and the thematic structure for the text. In articulating theatre education the specific remit I propose

1  MAP READING: AN INTRODUCTION 

7

is theatre for, with and by children and young people and delineate this from other modes of dramatic learning. This chapter engages with the first principle theme of the text, a recalibration of the innovation within contemporary theatre education, driven by a prolific and industrious confluence between theatre educators and the broader community of theatre practitioners. My proposition is that this vibrant and influential hybridity is too readily unnoticed in national and theatrical discourse. This first theme alongside the three other central themes of national divergence, place and creative learning, infuse across the text rather than acting as discreet linear headings and this opening chapter outlines their significance and interrelationship. The rationale and the detail of the chapter structure is then attended to, in particular the correspondence between national identities, cultural strategy and theatre education practice. The chapter concludes with a story of a journey entitled ‘Three Thousand Miles’, part reality—part imagined. It places the author in the research by charting my own route up to and throughout the project, overlaid with and in correspondence to the fantastical ebbs and flows of theatre education across the map of Britain in recent decades.

Landscapes: Nations, Politics and Theatre Education Landscapes: ‘Nations, Politics and Theatre Education’ is the first of two chapters establishing the context and the domain in which theatre education resides within Great Britain. This chapter begins with a consideration of national identities across England, Scotland and Wales but also Britishness itself with the intention of unearthing some of the principle factors affecting what Homi K.  Bhabha refers to as ‘nationness’. The imperative to this chapter is first that the book is predicated upon articulating the relationship between national agendas and theatre education so this chapter establishes some of the key frames of reference and paradigms. Second, an enunciation of nationness, in all its manifestations from personal to local to national, leads us to a greater understanding of place and place-making, central tenets of arts education strategy within the twentyfirst century and of key concern to this text. National identities within twenty-first-­century Great Britain are experiencing resurgences and crises, dependant on where you point the compass and the repercussions of these fluctuations are keenly felt within cultural policy and therein theatre education. As borders are trespassed by globalisation and digital connectivity, conversely this intensifies an attention upon what constitutes a nation and national identity.

8 

M. CROSSLEY

Departures: Creative and Cultural Journeys Across Great Britain Having established the national contexts of political and cultural identity, ‘Departures’ offers a detailed historical and contemporary analysis of the trends in creative and cultural strategy within the three nations. It begins with a comprehensive account of the recent history of arts education policy and advocacy, specifically drama and theatre, over the last seventy years since the end of the Second World War, in order to understand what is informing current debates over the centrality or otherwise of arts within the core curriculum of British schools and wider participation for children and young people within theatre education contexts. Whilst some of this history has been addressed elsewhere, this chapter is distinct in its specific comparison of the national discourses in cultural and creative education across England, Scotland and Wales. Creativity and creative learning are given a specific focus in this chapter, finding correspondence and distinction with theatre education. The debate is given immediacy and relevance with reference to the latest curricula and strategic initiatives and a wide range of practitioner and stakeholder voices.

En Route to a Twenty-First-Century Theatre Education ‘En Route’ leads us into the second part of the book with a wide ranging exploration of current practices and their lineages. My ambition in this chapter finds itself in tune with Helen Nicholson’s proposition that: ‘The education of young people is always orientated towards the future, but it also builds on the knowledge of the past’ (2011: p. 12). As with Nicholson, I will acknowledge and appreciate in ‘How Did We Get Here?’ the depths of the inter-relationships and recurring patterns of pedagogy and methodology that exist and have existed within theatre and drama education over the past fifty years or more. In particular, this section looks to reappraise theatre in education’s influence on current theatre education practices. In the folds of the map addresses the perplexing and perennial absence of analysis and recognition afforded to the nexus of contemporary theatre and theatre education and proposes a more overt correlation between them and an acknowledgement of the potential of theatre education in national cultural discourse.

1  MAP READING: AN INTRODUCTION 

9

Border Crossings: Twenty-First-Century Theatre Education ‘Border Crossings’ addresses the here and now of theatre education and creative learning. It begins with a consideration of how new markets and new modes are transforming the landscape as the public and private sectors, led by innovative practitioners from diverse backgrounds, are rewriting the rules of engagement. Three particular developments of twenty-first-­ century theatre education are then investigated in detail: immersion and intimacy, co-creativity and place-making. These transformations have been wrought into being by the theatrical evolutions in performance, participation and spectatorship over the past few decades and the attention to them reflects the specific trends in methodology articulated by practitioners. This chapter is pervaded throughout with the rich detail of practitioners, advocates and policymakers, illustrated with numerous images capturing the vibrancy of theatre made for, with and by children and young people over the last few years.

On the Horizon This brief penultimate chapter casts an eye over the future vista of theatre education, uncertain as it is in this landscape of Brexit, COVID-19, emergent nationalism and divergent educational agendas. What indicators do we have for impending optimism or anxiety in this field of pedagogy and praxis and what trajectories may theatre education find itself on beyond 2020? Returning to the themes of maps and departures the chapter considers where these diverse journeys across England, Scotland and Wales may take each nation and what version of Britain will theatre educators and young theatre-makers be charting their way through in the foreseeable future?

Practitioner Voices: Scotland, England and Wales The voices of practitioners infuse the pages of this book, but in this final chapter, which completes the focus on twenty-first-century theatre education, several of those practitioners who have contributed now generously offer reflections on theatre education practice in their own words. Each short essay presents an illuminating insight into contemporary theatre-­ making for, with and by children and young people, from its ethos and

10 

M. CROSSLEY

politics to its methods and its practicalities. The themes they alight upon resonate with and have informed the subject matter of the entire text from Dougie Irvine’s reflections on location and space to James Yarker’s articulation of experimental practice, from Kevin Lewis and Sarah Argent’s recognition of European and international influences on theatre education to Manya Benenson’s account of intimacy and storytelling within a hospital context. The ‘voices’ represent practice from across the three nations addressed in the book with Dougie Irvine, Paul Fitzpatrick and Neil Packham writing from a Scottish context, whilst Kevin Lewis and Sarah Argent’s piece is accompanied from a Welsh perspective by Catherine Bennett and Paul Davies from Volcano Theatre, Swansea and Timothy Howe from Sherman Theatre, Cardiff. England-based practitioners include Manya Benenson from Nottingham Playhouse alongside Janet Vaughan from Talking Birds in Coventry, Chris Elwell from Half Moon Theatre in London and James Yarker from Stan’s Cafe in Birmingham. The reader is welcome to engage with each of these essays individually or read them in correspondence with one another. The particularity of each account may be exactly what the reader is looking for whilst at times there may be an interest in how the broader themes of the book from national cultures, place, hybridity, collaboration and so forth are echoed in the details of the practitioner perspectives. * * * Within the book I refer to the terms theatre and drama on a regular basis, so greater clarification of these at the start may be useful, particularly when they are framed in an educational context and wedded to concepts such as theatre in education and process drama. Whilst there is not an easily demarcated boundary between them, theatre connotes some degree of performance, practised to presentation standard for an audience. This is evident in theatre for children or young people’s theatre in which the experience and learning is built around a theatrical construct drawing upon a variety of the inherent skills required for presentation, notably characterisation or, as is often common in contemporary performance, personification or participation. Drama may well be used to develop material which becomes theatrical, but in and of itself it is focused on the immediate experience, the process itself, such as in process drama which centres on the tension, conflict and problem solving ‘in the moment’ with far less emphasis on crafting these improvised experiences into a finished

1  MAP READING: AN INTRODUCTION 

11

performance. There is already an evident correlation and co-dependence between the two as even within process drama some theatrical devices from role, props, basic costume, simple scene setting, time limitations and so forth may well be utilised and likewise in theatre, improvisational drama may be crucial to the development of the final theatrical narrative or even the final mode of production as witnessed in ‘improv’ theatre. A theatre in education performance may be followed by a workshop during which a drama improvisation is staged to explore the theatrical themes or a process drama experience may be paused to frame a key moment more theatrically so as to reflect on its significance. So it is more apt to consider the spectrum upon which these terms reside and therefore the extent to which a methodology focuses on more or less of drama or theatre practices, or a blend of both, at any given point. As will be discussed within this text, contemporary theatre is now perpetually re-defining its boundaries and its relationship to other media but at least for now these broad definitions offer some benchmark to work with, and at times, against.

Three Thousand Miles I have travelled several thousand miles in writing this book, by car, train, tram, Tube, plane, bicycle and on foot. The romantic in me wishes I could say by boat as well but sadly not as the British mainland was the limit of my adventures. I began my journey with the shortest trip of them all, a walk around the corner in Leamington Spa to see a friend of mine, Gordon Vallins, the celebrated pioneer of theatre in education. I ended my travels with coronavirus enforced Zoom calls to interview Jo Scalpello and Louisa Roberts from Stagecoach Performing Arts, an organisation operating nearly 2000 ‘schools’ of franchised performing arts across the globe. The distance between these two odysseys can easily be measured in virtual miles, their separation in philosophy and methodology is at times clear but by some measures less distinct. These ‘distances’ speak to the central enquiry of this book as I look to understand and articulate what has changed in theatre education across Great Britain between these two points of reference, why it has changed and what may be the impact of these transformations. In amongst and beyond these points on the compass there were many other adventures and the routes to and from them and the destinations themselves tell us something of how the map of theatre education is being re-written. I am aware that Helen Nicholson evoked the imagery of maps

12 

M. CROSSLEY

in Theatre, Education and Performance (2011) so I hope Helen will not mind that I conjure with it again, particularly in light of this book’s title and the miles I have amassed in the pursuit of theatre practitioners, theatre education advocates and arts policymakers. Nicholson (2011), alongside many authors cites Dwight Conquergood’s perception of map and place (2004) which again is pertinent in this context. Citing Michel de Certeau, Conquergood proposes a metaphorical analogy between the fixity of maps and the transgressions across their boundaries: ‘de Certeau’s aphorism, “what the map cuts up, the story cuts across,” also points to transgressive travel between two different domains of knowledge: one official, objective, and abstract—“the map”; the other one practical, embodied, and popular—“the story”’ (2004: 145). From my own perspective this analogy has resonance yet will also require some reconsideration as, Nadine Holdsworth notes, borders are ‘persistent’ (2010) in the face of globalisation and so the border crossing adventures of theatre educators are now faced with ever more defined national cultural borders. At the end of the road where I live, there is a plaque which proudly announces, although I am not sure how it can be certain in such an asymmetrical nation, that this point is the centre of England. I am, therefore, categorically (and happily) a resident and academic of the Midlands and so living and working in this part of England, I wanted to capture the wealth of this region’s practitioners. I had the pleasure of making the short trip to visit the Belgrade Theatre in Coventry, to talk to one of its current co-­ Artistic Directors, Justine Themen. It was a theatre envisaged to ‘encompass the whole city’ in the words of Gordon Vallins, who in pursuit of that ambition in the mid-1960s nurtured a new methodology of participatory drama at the theatre which became known globally as theatre in education. Not that long ago it would have been a less fruitful journey as the Belgrade dismantled the TIE department in the late 1990s and for a while let the vision and legacy fade until surprisingly recently. Luckily, like my regular experience of the inner city ring road which races past the theatre, it has now returned full circle to where it started. A few short pedal strokes away brought me to a high rise tower just to the south of the city centre where Talking Birds, a contemporary performance company, make their home. As with many theatre-makers of today their base is not readily definable as ‘theatre’, inhabiting industrial or commercial spaces, re-­ purposed in the pursuit of art. Such spaces, occupied by Talking Birds, Volcano Theatre, Stan’s Cafe, Bamboozle and others, are a reminder that adaptability and pragmatism are fundamental to the survival of

1  MAP READING: AN INTRODUCTION 

13

contemporary theatre and theatre education. Both Belgrade and Talking Birds have seen the city of Coventry ebb and flow, decline and prosper over many decades and now stand ready for the city to embrace 2021, the year of the City of Culture with its promise of resurgence, tempered as it may be by the spectre of COVID-19. Neither company can envisage themselves without the city and this significance of place is reaffirmed again and again during my travels, some emphasising the specifics of their urban locality, for others their significant ‘place’ is regional or national, particularly as I cross borders into Wales and Scotland. Only a short ride away from post-­industrial Coventry you enter another world, Stratford upon Avon, a global tourist destination and home to the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC). The concept of place in this context is simultaneously precise and yet global, birthplace and every place, as pilgrimages to the town conversely affirm the playwrights worldwide appeal. The reach of the RSC’s educational philosophy and methodology is likewise extensive, so when Jacqui O’Hanlon,3 the Director of Education and significant contributor to recent high profile reviews on creativity and arts education, enthuses over the power of the ‘pedagogy of the rehearsal room’, its implications for theatre education are to be duly noted. To reiterate, a central aim was to speak to contemporary theatre-­makers, beyond the well-known bastions of the Belgrade and the RSC, who work either wholly or partially within theatre education but do not necessarily align themselves or have a tradition of theatre in education. In the Midlands, this instinct took me to Birmingham to visit old friends in the shape of Stan’s Cafe in the city, to Nottingham with Dragon Breath Theatre Company as well as Manya Benenson at the Nottingham Playhouse where the long established Roundabout TIE company still operates. Several contributors were also right on my commuting doorstep in Leicester in the form of Mashi Theatre, The Spark Arts for Children and Bamboozle Theatre Company, the latter making work for children with special educational needs. I often found myself on many trains to London to speak to some of the capitals major voices on children and young people’s theatre, from Romana Flello at the Royal Court Theatre in Sloane Square out to the East End home of Half Moon Theatre, or the bustling café of the Young Vic which served as an ad-hoc office for Sam Cairns from the Cultural Learning Alliance. This range of London interviews was a reminder that the battles 3

 From 2019, O’Hanlon is also chair of the Cultural Learning Alliance (CLA).

14 

M. CROSSLEY

for theatre education (hearts, minds and policy re-thinks) are fought in very specific circumstances, sometimes illustrious but often challenging, frequently in areas of socio-economic deprivation yet simultaneously they play out in the digital realm through journalistic acumen, research and data led evidence. Crossing the Prince of Wales Bridge, over the River Severn from east to west, I wondered how many times I’d been to Wales. This is not a particularly astute question as the answer is ‘many’, due to family connections and holidays to the Gower Peninsula, Anglesey and beyond, but in this instance I am thinking of it within the arc of my career as a teacher, researcher and assessor of performing arts. Back in the early 2000s I travelled to Cardiff each summer to ensconce myself within a non-descript mid-range hotel, alongside many other performing arts teachers, to pour over the hundreds of parcels and thousands of samples of work that would arrive from schools and colleges across the UK, all delivering the newly minted qualifications known as Advanced Vocational Certificates of Education (AVCEs). One such AVCE was focused on performing arts and for a brief period in the first years of this century it spread rapidly, garnering a following of teachers, students and parents in its seemingly prestigious equivalence to A Levels with grades from A to E. These were the middle years of the Tony Blair administration, hope was high, the arts had a growing significance and presence within the curriculum and every summer seemed to be hot, certainly in Cardiff. Alongside AVCEs were a plethora of like-minded qualifications including the Creative and Media Diploma and Applied Drama GCSE as well as quangos and agencies to facilitate such initiatives, including the Learning and Skills Network, for whom I worked as a consultant promoting qualifications and training teachers in the vocational performing arts for many years until the organisation’s disbandment in 2011. When I trained as a drama teacher in the early 1990s, theatre in education and theatre education more broadly, despite funding cuts, were still a significant presence within schools and the curriculum. TIE companies including Big Brum regularly led workshops on my PGCE4 secondary drama teaching course and many a time we stopped to attend a highly charged conference organised by the Standing Conference for Young People’s Theatre (SCYPT) at which speakers urged immediate resistance to the National Curriculum. In tune with the ethos of SCYPT, our PGCE 4

 PGCE—Postgraduate Certificate in Education.

1  MAP READING: AN INTRODUCTION 

15

was as much ideological as it was methodological, inviting and often urging us to adopt a radical stance within a school environment. When I began teaching my first post was in the city of Leicester in the East Midlands, an upper school (14–18-year-olds) in a working-class suburb to the south of the city centre. I dutifully carried my political and social conscience into the school and I like to think I made quite radical interventions in an early production of Animal Farm with subversive invitations to view animal/man as child/teacher. At that time Leicestershire’s model of drama education was famous across the country and the GCSE5 Drama it developed was empowering for staff and students alike, with freedom to develop any project pertinent to the students’ interest and skillset. Working with children from a working-class estate in Leicester often meant exploring challenging subject matters from gender equality and racial tension to domestic violence and gang culture. Yet alongside such sober material I also found myself directing a full orchestrated production of West Side Story and writing a musical based on A Midsummer Night’s Dream in the first two years. This posed no conflict, however, not for me or the students I taught. Process drama quickly transformed into musical rehearsal as lesson turned into lunchtime, curriculum dissolved into after school activities. Looking back on this time I would contest that all of these activities, processes and performances were radical for these pupils. All offered agency and voice for many of them, who often felt marginalised either in their own family, community or peer group. Theatre and drama were both (to borrow Dorothy Heathcote’s phrase) learning mediums. I mention this as later in the text there is some attempt to delineate the differences between methodologies, with participation at times essentialised within theatre in education. Definitions are obfuscated however when a fifteen-­ year-­old, all too accustomed to bullying, walks on stage in West Side Story to sing ‘little boy you’re a man, little man you’re a king!’ In this moment how are we to distinguish this highly charged and self-empowering moment of engagement from many other participatory modes. My reflection is that, in the realities of working with young people, my pedagogy and methodology quickly hybridised from Heathcote to Hornbrook, Shakespeare to Sondheim. My pedagogy was principled but also pragmatic and eclectic and this has been echoed as an outlook by practitioners throughout my travels.

5

 GCSE—General Certificate of Secondary Education.

16 

M. CROSSLEY

As traverse the Prince of Wales Bridge on this particular occasion in Spring 2019 it rains a little, the outlook is not so luminous as in the early days of this century, at least not over my shoulder in England but perhaps a little brighter ahead of me into the Principality of Wales. The map of theatre education in Wales has changed radically in recent years as theatre in education companies have found survival to be an increasing challenge. The new educational agendas from the Welsh Assembly bring opportunities to some in the arts whilst others find their ambitions and business models out of step with the current aspirations and budgetary inclinations of the nation. As I head to Swansea to visit Volcano Theatre, the roads to the north of me snake into the Brecon Beacons and away to Llandeilo, Llandovery and beyond. A few miles further up the A470 lies Llandrindod Wells, once home to Theatr Powys, ‘perhaps the most outstanding example of a TIE company in Wales’ (Ogden 1997: p. 52), yet closed due to a loss of funding in 2011. BBC Wales reported how much remorse there was from every quarter, councillors in Powys lamented how ‘regrettable it was’ and Arts Council of Wales spoke of ‘pressure on public funding’ and the ‘very difficult’ choices which had to be made, but it closed nonetheless. As Arts Council of Wales reduced TIE funding across the country, several companies, including Action PIE TIE Company based in Cardiff, found the funding climate too arduous to survive, so disbanded and regrouped to meet the challenges of the new strategies, with a focus on theatre for young people. There are opportunities in Wales for theatre educators as we enter the third decade of this century but national agendas, as in Scotland, often decide the fate of artists who may or may not have the agility or inclination to adapt to the latest schemes. Volcano Theatre seem to have found a resilient model for survival, luckily for me as it affords the opportunity to watch their youth groups perform at the company’s city centre base, an old Iceland frozen food store on the High Street. As I head off the M4 motorway into Swansea the road signs proclaim their message in linguistic tandem—Slow/Araf, Canol y ddinas/City Centre—I am both within Britain and unequivocally in Wales. On arrival in the city, the clouds part, Swansea basks in the warmth of Spring sunshine. That evening I weave my way to the back of the Volcano building where a theatre space has been hewn from the carcass of the shop, and I sit amongst parents, grandparents, siblings and friends of the young performers. The youngest group from four to seven, called Dash, burst into life as mini automata, swathed in red and green light inspired by the Ted Hughes novel The Iron Man. Then the eight- to twelve-year-olds perform Ordered Chaos, a wild physical eruption of youth, roused by the

1  MAP READING: AN INTRODUCTION 

17

paintings of Francis Bacon. Performers rush across the floor, thrash the air with defiance and cut loose with an empty barrel, jumping in and out and rolling it with glee over one another. Other performers watch on, perched high on the timbers of the old partition walls, before tumbling down into the space to make mayhem again. Catherine Bennett, the choreographer who led the devising process with the children captures this spontaneity in her programme notes as she writes: ‘The children are hugely adept at improvising, they don’t exactly know who is going to go next, and they don’t exactly know what they are going to do until they do it. They are ordered chaos’ (Fig. 1.1). This is unashamedly contemporary performance, in the spirit of Volcano and in the attitude and choreography of the piece. The audience love it. So do I. More importantly, the young performers themselves seem to love it. They inhabit the space with self-possession and agency, their movement embraces risk, and their collaboration speaks of care for and affiliation to those around them. They take a few deep bows and then dissipate into the darkness to embrace the congratulations and revel in the immediate post-­ show chatter. I don’t think it’s too fanciful to claim that something new has been experienced, felt and learnt by us all. We see them and they see themselves differently, perceptions have shifted a little, maybe significantly. This is theatre as education; theatre made today, co-authored with young people, crafted from uncompromising and complex stimuli, devised and rehearsed with professional techniques and a sense of creative risk that brings a thrill and energy into the live space from young people that we are often led to believe prefer the reassurances and anonymity of remote, digital and virtual worlds. They are definitely present with us on this night. Things have changed since Cardiff and the AVCEs nearly twenty years ago. In England, we have engineered ourselves into an education system where the performing arts despite its resilient popularity in the ‘extra curricula’ world of Stage Coach, Pauline Quirke Academies and the like is struggling to find its voice amongst the clamour of rhetoric on examination rigour and academic hierarchies. Initially when you look at the early years’ framework or special educational needs (SEND) provision in England, there is a degree of optimism to be had. Within SEND the emphasis is on a child-centred curriculum, responding to the four broad areas of need.6 The lack of external standardisation creates a freedom of 6  The 0–25 SEND Code of Practice (2015) identifies ‘four broad areas of [special educational] need and support’ (see Chap. 6 for detailed descriptions): communication and inter-

18 

M. CROSSLEY

Fig. 1.1  Ordered Chaos (2019) Volcano Theatre youth theatre. (Photographer: Victoria Boobyer)

curricula design as the child becomes their own curriculum. Each child’s educational progress is personalised to themselves and cannot be extrapolated across children with different conditions or even with the same condition. Drama and theatre, as will be identified in ‘Border Crossings’ often action; cognition and learning; social, emotional and mental health; sensory and/or physical needs.

1  MAP READING: AN INTRODUCTION 

19

play a central role in facilitating experiential environments for children with SEND, creating open-ended participatory performances whereby any form of response from the child has value. Likewise, within mainstream early years teaching the emphasis is on a child-centred curriculum as outlined in the Development Matters documentation. The framework refers to the Unique Child engaging with the world and Expressive Arts and Design, which includes drama, is one of the seven core Areas of Learning and Development. This ethos is echoed in the Foundation Phase within Wales which identifies Creative Development as one of its seven Areas of Learning and in the Early Level (P1) of the Curriculum for Scotland which is based on the Scottish Play Strategy (2013), emphasising what sounds like the utopic pedagogic principles of ‘fun, joy and laughter’. In England, dispiritingly and without clear rationale, this experiential, potentially arts-rich pedagogy dissipates rapidly through the mainstream primary school years. There is little or no place for drama or dance in the statutory curricula from Key Stage 1 to 4, with dance relegated to a few brief objectives within Physical Education whilst drama is almost invisible from the primary curriculum with scant inferences in the English curriculum. From a secondary perspective the picture isn’t any more appealing. As I write, the current statistics for Drama GCSEs and A Levels make for uncomfortable reading, with a drop of roughly 30% in entries at both levels in the last decade.7 The governments flagships arts accreditation for schools, Artsmark and the individual award available for children and young people entitled Arts Award are making some headway to ameliorate this decline, but neither are without contention and progress is slow. Flying north to Scotland took me no time at all. In less than an hour I rose above then left behind the Midlands. Below me, in the vicinity of my flightpath lay a multitude of towns that signal the traditions and transitions in theatre education in recent decades. In Rochdale, m6 Theatre Company, begun in 1977, continues to survive and thrive as a theatre for children and young people. Meanwhile, thirteen miles to the west in Bolton, one of the first towns to support a theatre in education company after Coventry, the Octagon Theatre still proudly declares its educational credentials, stating that ‘working with young people is in our DNA’ but now the website highlights its connections to ‘industry artists’ and the  GCSE and A Level entry numbers taken from the Joint Council for Qualifications annual results tables. 7

20 

M. CROSSLEY

opportunity to complete the Arts Award. A few minutes later and I found myself cruising over Lancaster, another pioneer of TIE at the Dukes Theatre, formerly known as the Playhouse. Scrolling through the history of the theatre on their website I’m told all about when Andy Serkis performed there but no mention is made of TIE. Creative learning is now front and centre of their provision with an offer to email the Creative Learning manager or the Lead for Arts Award. The border is lost in cloud and rain as we quickly descend into Glasgow. I wrap myself in a coat and hat; it’s cold and wet, it’s June. As with any flight you’re strangely unaware of how far you’ve travelled but the conversations north of the border quickly remind me exactly where I am. The practitioners themselves, from Visible Fictions to Glasgow Citizens, may not immediately personify the national debate as their focus is theatrical more than overtly political, but the agendas to which they respond and the communities which they serve infuse the conversations with a national specificity. The Edinburgh International Festival served as a physical and topical backdrop to some of my interviews in Scotland, as Dougie Irvine from Visible Fictions and I huddled in a Fringe café away from the rain (again) one August and a year or so later, Paul Fitzpatrick, the chief executive of Imaginate, the leading producer of children’s theatre in Scotland, discusses the Edinburgh International Children’s Festival. Through such events, Scotland authors its national and international identity, with theatre and the arts playing a central role in its construction, fuelled by the ambitions of the Scottish National Party and the long shadow of Brexit. What I have witnessed in Swansea and Edinburgh and in many other locations and situations around the country is an evolution in theatre made with, for and by young people. At the forefront of this progression is collaboration and co-construction, giving agency and voice to the participants. There is a lineage to be traced and celebrated from the original models of theatre in education and process drama but now the methodologies and modes of professional contemporary theatre practice, from all parts on the spectrum from text led to experimental devising, are stating a greater presence, with rehearsal and performance centralised as mediums for learning, theatre practice revalorised as pedagogy. What I also witnessed on my travels were similarities but also distinct divergences in practice across England, Scotland and Wales as theatre-makers and educators deal with the visible and volatile ruptures in arts and cultural education policy and strategy.

1  MAP READING: AN INTRODUCTION 

21

Virtual trips to Surrey and Stagecoach in 2020 are a long way from theatre in education’s inception in 1965 at the Belgrade. They are also seemingly a long way from the experimentation of Stan’s Cafe, Visible Fictions, Theatre Iolo and Talking Birds to name but a few of the companies I travelled to meet who confidently practise theatre education in the twenty-first century. All, however, are on the map as it now stands, with more connections than may first be apparent. Over ten years ago, in 2009, Helen Nicholson encapsulated the evolution of theatre education at that time. In this explanation is the departure point for my own text so I have taken the liberty of quoting the author at length: Contemporary theatre education is undergoing a period of transformation both artistically and politically. Artistically, a new generation of drama and theatre educators have been inspired both by the reflexivity and spontaneity of drama education methodologies and by a re-energised professional theatre and performance culture. New paradigms of theatre and performance have proliferated in response to twenty first-century circumstances, and these new performance vocabularies are filtering into education. Theatre education has, therefore, extended its dramatic repertoire from a prevalence of naturalistic theatre that relied on dialectical thought to interrogate social issues, and it now includes a wide range of performance styles that push the boundaries of representation, such as site-specific performance, live art, installation and autobiographical performance, all of which are found at the cutting edge of contemporary theatre-making. Politically, there is no longer one single ideology or clearly identifiable narrative that unites theatre-­ makers who work in education, and this means there are multiple reasons for bringing theatre into education. (2009: p. 45–46)

Nicholson points us towards the new worlds of exchange and hybridity, and so we are left to wonder what exactly these new ‘filterings’ may look like now, over ten years later. Shortly after Theatre and Education (2009) Nicholson wrote Theatre, Education and Performance in 2011 and both of these texts serve as significant points of departure for this book which seeks to understand and shed some light on the innovations which have followed in the ensuing decade, not only re-energised by performance experimentation but also animated and agitated by the educational and cultural transformations now at play across Great Britain. Despite some of the challenges and the tensions that I document along the way, I would affirm that, above all else, this is a book about possibilities as that is the impression I have formed from all my travels and

22 

M. CROSSLEY

encounters across Great Britain. There is an undoubted acknowledgement of how difficult recent years have been and may still be due to a multitude of factors, economic, political, epidemical and educational, but there is renewed hope as practitioners and advocates always seem revived by the dynamism and optimism of children and young people. Theatre practice is central to this text, but it is not a ‘how to’ practical guide. Methodologies of practitioners are referenced and analysed and readers may extract their own practical ideas from this but there are no tasks and activities to ‘take-away’ as the contemporary parlance has it. It is an invitation to go on a journey, as I have done, across Great Britain, as it exists now almost a quarter of the way through this twenty-first century. The landscape of theatre education is changing and the further I have travelled the more I have noticed this. In your mind’s eye, criss-cross the country with me and imagine the map being re-drawn.

Bibliography Bennett, Stuart, ed. 2005. Theatre for Children and Young People: 50 Years of Professional Theatre in the UK. ASSITEJ Aurora Metro Publications Ltd. Conquergood, Dwight. 2004. Performance Studies Interventions and Radical Research. The Drama Review 46 (2(T174)): 145–156. Davis, David, et al. 2014. Imagining the Real: Towards a New Theory of Drama in Education. Institute of Education Press. Holdsworth, Nadine. 2010. Theatre and Nation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Jackson, Anthony, and Chris Vine, eds. 2013. Learning Through Theatre: The Changing Face of Theatre in Education. Abingdon: Routledge. Nicholson, Helen. 2009. Theatre and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ———. 2011. Theatre, Education and Performance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Ogden, Gill. 1997. History of Theatre in Education in Wales 1979–1997. In Staging Wales: Welsh Theatre 1979–1997, ed. Anne-Marie Taylor, 47–60. Cardiff: The University of Wales Press. Ricketts, Kathyrn. 2010. Untangling The Culturally Unscripted Self Through Embodied Practices. In Key Concepts in Theatre/Drama Education, ed. Shifra Schonmann, 135–140. Sense Publishers. “Scottish Play Strategy”. 2013. https://www.playscotland.org/about/ play-­strategy/. Wooster, Roger. 2007. Contemporary Theatre in Education. Bristol: Intellect Books. ———. 2016. Theatre in Education in Britain: Origins, Development and Influence. London: Bloomsbury.

CHAPTER 2

Landscapes: Nations, Politics and Theatre Education

This chapter begins with a consideration of national identities within Great Britain with the intention of unearthing some of the key factors affecting what Homi K. Bhabha refers to as ‘nationness’. It is imperative to start here for two main reasons. First, the book is predicated upon articulating the relationship between national agendas and theatre education so this chapter establishes some of the key frames of reference. In this intent I am cognisant of Nadine Holdsworth’s assertion that ‘theatre is deeply implicated in constructing the nation through the imaginative realm and provides a site where the nation can be put under the microscope […] theatre opens up a creative space for exploring the paradoxes, ambiguities and complexities around issues of tradition, identity, authenticity and belonging associated with the nation’ (2010, p. 6). Second, an enunciation of nationness, in all its manifestations from personal to local to national, leads us to a greater understanding of place and place-making, central tenets of arts education strategy within the twenty-first century and of key concern to this text. Helen Nicholson (2011) thoughtfully attended to the relationship between place (be that home, national or global), theatre and identity, and whilst referring to her writing, alongside that of Holdsworth, my intention is to articulate this within the particularity of the current British context of theatre education. National identities within twenty-­ first-­ century Great Britain are experiencing resurgences and crises,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Crossley, Contemporary Theatre Education and Creative Learning, Palgrave Studies In Play, Performance, Learning, and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63738-5_2

23

24 

M. CROSSLEY

dependant on where you point the compass and the repercussions of these fluctuations are keenly felt within cultural policy and therein theatre education. As borders are trespassed by globalisation and digital connectivity, conversely this intensifies an attention upon what constitutes a nation and national identity, as Holdsworth argues, ‘in a world increasingly dominated by the internationalism of politics, a global economy and transnational cultural exchange, the border becomes progressively obsolete. However, the persistence of the border as a marker of national identity illuminates debates on nation states and nationalism’ (2003, pp. 25–26). The acclamation of place and place-making is one of the notable response to such upheaval, to localise and democratise the process of creating public places that people want to live, work, play and learn in, as it is often referred to. It is a means to affix some local agency, in the face of national and global agendas which are often seen to be monopolised by cultural or political elites.

Britishness So will the Real Great Britain step forward This is the national identity parade Shoe gazer nation forever looking backwards Time to reject the sixties charade. (Real Great Britain Asian Dub Foundation 2000)

This book is tagged as a ‘Great British Journey’ so it’s somewhat incumbent on me to decipher what this Great Britishness means in the twenty-­ first century and therein what the repercussions are for theatre education and creative learning. In geographical terms Great Britain is fairly straightforward, as I have already clarified its specific boundaries are England, Scotland and Wales. Legislatively, it is also relatively easy to delineate the powers held at Westminster, predominantly related to the constitution, tax raising, defence and foreign policy and immigration in contrast to those devolved to Wales and Scotland,1 which include education, health, culture and the environment. However, the picture becomes much more complicated when we go in search of the ‘ness’ of our collective country Great Britain and the separate nations within it. What is the nature of Britishness, 1

 These devolved powers also apply, in broad terms, to Northern Ireland.

2  LANDSCAPES: NATIONS, POLITICS AND THEATRE EDUCATION 

25

Englishness, Scottishness and Welshness? Referring to the ‘ness’ of nations, draws us to Homi K. Bhabha’s concept of ‘nationness’ which, in his words in The Location of Culture (1994), refers to ‘the binding social and cultural aspects that define a people or a nation. This is nation ‘constructed through and out of cultural text and context, and specific to its locality’ (p. 146) It is apposite to articulate nationness, as the ideologies interwoven into its conception and the pursuance of these informs education, arts and cultural policy and practice in each nation. The correlations and contrasts between these national identities will infuse the text throughout, so the aim at this juncture is to establish the principle debates and perspectives on nationhood and theatre’s role in its composition, so that we might understand the context of and the impetus behind current political, cultural and educational agendas, and theatre educations response to them, as they arise in the chapters. At the turn of the millennium, Asian Dub Foundation exhorted the ‘Real Great Britain’ to step forward but immediately this proves a problematic, and possibly a contentious premise. In the same year, 2000, the BBC asked the question: What is Britishness? and collated disparate responses from celebrities, authors, politicians and the media. Finding no particular consensus they ended with a quote from The Daily Telegraph: ‘Our nationhood has been shaped over centuries by waves of settlers, each bringing his own contribution to British identity. (…) But that is the point: it is our common nationality that allows us to define Britishness in civic, rather than racial, terms’ (October 2000). Whilst ethnicity and race have been invoked by right-wing groups to ascribe nationality, recent focus in governmental and cultural discourse has centred on the civic (and therein the cultural) dimension of British national identity, although this by no means resolves the debate. The intangibility of a British identity has long been acknowledged, entangled as it is with historical impedimenta and the competing internal identities of England, Scotland and Wales. Finding any commonality of opinion on Britishness is hard to come by, and any imposition of a definition is contentious, as Judi Atkins identified in 2016: The emergence of Britishness as a political concern comes at a time when it is increasingly difficult to appeal to ‘the nation’ as a unified entity. In a culturally diverse society such as Britain, there is no single common opinion, or doxa […] and so politicians must draw on an ever wider range of myths, values, cultural symbols and institutions in articulating their visions of

26 

M. CROSSLEY

Britishness. After all, an overly restrictive definition of Britishness risks being exclusionary and thus is unlikely to attract widespread support. (p. 617)

Attempting to coalesce around a shared British identity would seem particularly elusive due to the distinct national loyalties evident in England, Scotland and Wales. Atkins draws our attention to the 2011 census in which a majority of people in England, Scotland and Wales identified solely as English (60%), Scottish (62%) or Welsh (58%) rather than British. Informing these identifications are the often powerful and persuasive ‘myths, values, cultural symbols and institutions’ that are specific to each nation. Simon Clarke and Steve Garner (2010) remind us that the construction of a nation-state is an unnatural symbiosis of physical, interpersonal and imaginational factors: ‘The nation is both a territory—a special space protected and managed by a state—and a people who owe solidarity to each other and allegiance to that state. Thus, blood (genealogy) and soil (territory) combine to make nationals who “belong” in that place, to that group. Being part of a nation necessitates a collective act of imagination and emotional investments in belonging. People construct nation-­ states. They are not natural units’ (p. 62). Michael Billig (1995) proposed the concept of ‘banal nationalism’ to describe the everyday, mundane facets of life that underpin the more overt manifestations of politicised nationalism. He argues that such ‘cool’ banality is often underestimated and given lesser significance than ‘hot’ nationalism: ‘Ordinary life in the normal state (the sort of state which the analysts tend to inhabit) is assumed to be banal, unexciting politically and non-nationalist. Nationalism, by contrast, is extraordinary, politically charged and emotionally driven’ (p. 44). This everyday banality significantly reinforces and shapes national identities ‘through implicit, repetitive, symbolic reinforcement’ (Hearn 2007, p. 660). Billing notes however that this subtle, ongoing infusion of nationness is essential to the invocation of more strident ‘hot’ nationalistic ‘calls to arms’. It may be axiomatic but helpful to suggest that Britishness is simply too amorphous to articulate through a top-down strategy yet this doesn’t prevent educational curricula from seeking to delineate it and entreat the teaching of it to children and young people. This is most evident in England, which encourages the teaching of ‘fundamental British values’ as part of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural (SMSC) development of every pupil. In the 2014 SMSC guidance, these values were described as ‘democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and

2  LANDSCAPES: NATIONS, POLITICS AND THEATRE EDUCATION 

27

tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs’ (p. 5). It is difficult, however, to delineate what is particularly British about these values, as opposed to any other comparable democratic nation, and perhaps curiously (or tellingly) there is no mention of English values in a curriculum delivered only in England. The guidance goes on to identify what may be seen as the ‘cooler’ aspects of everyday citizenship and how they may ‘contribute positively to the lives of those living and working in the locality of the school and to society more widely’ (p. 5) but a ‘hotter’ more politicised conception of nationhood is made explicit as the fundamental values are overtly correlated (literally in the Footnotes of the guidance) to the Prevent Strategy of the UK government, which was established to counter terrorism and radicalisation. Assumptions are then made in the document that there are no viable contradictory perspectives to these values as it states that: ‘Actively promoting the values means challenging opinions or behaviours in school that are contrary to fundamental British values. Attempts to promote systems that undermine fundamental British values would be completely at odds with schools’ duty to provide SMSC’ (p. 5). National preoccupations with terrorism and such matters are clearly not the remit of this book but the dialogue and possible tensions between national government agendas, be that British, English, Welsh or Scottish and the autonomy of children and young people to identify with or contradict those agendas is of relevance. Theatre education by its nature facilitates alternative conceptions of personal and social identities, as Nicholson writes: …theatre can offer an alternative to conventional and packaged mediascapes of nationhood. Working through the aesthetic frame of theatre can hold this cultural anxiety long enough to look at the issues it raises, and drama, theatre and performance can provide young people with a symbolic space to explore alternative narratives of national identity. Theatre education can provide a further context for learning a sense of national identity that recognizes that it is inclusive, multiple and plural. (2011, p. 151)

This endeavour is potentially at odds therefore with broader constructs of nation-states. Superficially then, this may suggest that personal compositions of national identity sit more comfortably within the aesthetics and pedagogy of theatre education. Anthony P. Cohen (1996) proposed the concept of ‘personal nationalism’, contending, ‘The “nation” is a grand generalization that does not discriminate among, and says nothing

28 

M. CROSSLEY

specific about, its individual members. By contrast the individual is highly specific and is distinguished from other individuals in innumerable and very particular ways’ (1996, p. 802). However, Cohen acknowledges that this only presents an incomplete picture as individuals construct their identity through local, regional and national lenses, as he proceeds to ask ‘Why, then, do individuals elect to identify themselves (to themselves as well as to others) in terms of the nation?’ (ibid.). The interaction between the personal and the collective nation-state operates at a complex, dialogic level therefore, as Hearn (2007), in his analysis of Cohen, highlights: ‘Cohen suggests that there is a common interest in having a national identity as such, precisely, and somewhat paradoxically, because it provides a shared ground for articulating personal identities’ (p. 663). As this text progresses, such nuanced intra and interpersonal expressions of nationness begin to reveal themselves in projects, practitioners and theatre companies as lodestones towards and against which personal and local identities of ‘place’ are framed. In addition to this, in recent reappraisals of Billig’s theory (e.g. Hearn and Antonsich 2018), the significance of the strata between the personal and the national has been given greater prominence. This strata includes regional and national agencies responsible for creating and disseminating national agendas. In the context of this text this may be seen to comprise, amongst others, arts councils and other funding bodies as well as arts and creativity commissions and reviews. The influence of such bodies, alongside the governmental, must therefore be acknowledged in each nation, in terms of their capacity to shape the nation-state on an individual and collective level. This may seem axiomatic but is also problematic when framed within the context of recent debates over the legitimacy of such agencies to enable genuine cultural democracy and self-­representation for communities. Hadley and Belfiore (2018) attend to this when in their analysis of British cultural democracy and policy they identity a ‘failure of a mode of implementation, which has variously resulted in a resource-draining physical infrastructure, vested interest (Jancovich, 2015), the rise of managerialism and econometrics and a disposition towards hyperinstrumentalism (Hadley & Gray, 2017)’ (p. 221). Hearn and Antonsich help us connect, yet distinguish, the personal from the political in their analysis of ‘everyday nationalism’ (2018) and in this conception of the everyday are possibilities for framing and articulating children and young people’s theatrical exploration of nationness. Identity is central to their proposition, or more precisely the dialogic

2  LANDSCAPES: NATIONS, POLITICS AND THEATRE EDUCATION 

29

relationship between the macro-level of our social identity (national, ethnic, gender, class, etc.) and the micro-level of our personal identity. Our identity, they contend, is constructed in the discourse between these levels of identification: ‘So it may be that part of what everyday nationalism provides evidence of, is how this happens. It helps show us how individual selves get “sutured” (Hall 1996: 5–6) into taxonomies of identities and how strange, subtle and quixotic this process can be’ (2018, p.  599). Building upon this dialogic and often conflicting negotiation of identity which functions intra but also interpersonally, Hearn and Antonsich argue that a nation is much more than a concrete, hegemonic structure and is actually built on a shifting heterogeneous polyphony: ‘Far from a unified site, the nation is in fact also a product of everyday contestation and disagreement, an extremely dynamic and ambiguous process made of multiple, conflicting ordinary voices. Not listening to this polyphonic production would be to treat the nation as something out of history, something which does not adjust to the changing of people and times’ (p. 601). As already indicated, part of the difficulty in articulating Britishness is the co-existence of national agendas within England, Scotland and Wales. Great Britain is an amalgamation of nations, subsumed and united over many centuries. Wales was annexed by England in the early sixteenth century for strategic and economic reasons, whilst the Treaty of Union of 1707 bound Scotland and England (which encompassed Wales at that time) together into a single nation, with one parliament in London.2 The twentieth century, however, saw a resurgence of nationalism in Scotland and Wales with the formation of the Scottish National Party in 1934 and Plaid Cymru in Wales in 1925; both parties promoting independence. The emergence of these national agendas in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries led to the devolution of specific powers to the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments3 and the political fissures between the three nations have been further exposed through the convulsions of Brexit, particularly between England and Scotland. In March 2017, The New Statesman mused in its leader column that ‘Britishness is a noble idea. However, as a wave of populism and nationalism breaks across Europe, are these the end of days for the United Kingdom? Or will the rickety old British state survive a 2  The Act of Union 1800 added the Kingdom of Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. 3  Welsh Parliament is the official name (from May 2020) of what was previously the National Assembly for Wales.

30 

M. CROSSLEY

second Scottish referendum; survive even the crises-ravaged European Union?’ The end of the ‘kingdom’ may still be a little way off yet but there is a buoyant nationalism in Wales and Scotland which has energised and accelerated divergent cultural and educational policies and strategies. In order to understand these divergences, consideration must then be given to what constitutes these separate nation-states of mind. Culture, creativity and the arts have all been galvanised or at least invoked as levers of societal and personal change in each nation. As will be noted later in the text, creativity (including the arts) is now habitually framed as an expression of our cultural identity which in turn may be seen as an expression of our national identity, structured as it may be from a multitude of personal narratives. Across Great Britain there is now a potent blend of centralised, instrumental ambitions for culture to forge nationhood and the egalitarian values ascribed to it, yet these national ambitions are often formulated and couched diametrically in the language of personal, creative expression. Culture and our democratic access to and expression of it has long been a fault line within Great Britain. Hadley and Belfiore note that the ‘defining crisis of UK cultural policy has resulted from attempts to combine, articulate and actualise ideas associated with both democracy and culture’ (2018, p. 218). Cultural democracy has been a contested domain over many years within the arts and found itself with a variety of definitions. Edward Little (2008) contended that cultural democracy must be ‘predicated on direct public participation in the creation of a living, responsive culture’ (p. 158), whilst more recently in 2017, The Kings College report Towards Cultural Democracy4 co-authored by Nick Wilson, Jonathan Gross and Anna Bull described cultural democracy as the ‘substantive social freedom to make versions of culture’. The tenor of these definitions finds resonance with Cohen’s vision of personal nationalism, with the emphasis on the everyday ecology of cultural production and transaction. So it is important to reflect on how the arts and theatre specifically have informed and been shaped by these concepts of cultural and national identity so that we are cognisant of the role theatre education plays in the making of, and perhaps resistance to, such notions. Theatre and the arts more broadly make an ongoing contribution to the discourse on national identity and how we self-identify within that national frame, from explicit reference within cultural policies and arts council strategies to heterogeneous articulations from playwrights,  Full title: Towards cultural democracy: Promoting cultural capabilities for everyone (2017).

4

2  LANDSCAPES: NATIONS, POLITICS AND THEATRE EDUCATION 

31

theatre-­makers and theatre educators as well as children and young people. Duggan and Ukaegbu, citing the work of Nadine Holdsworth in Theatre and Nation (2010), accentuate this relationship in their analysis of small-scale British theatre: Nadine Holdsworth proposes that at a basic level, theatre is ‘something intrinsically connected to [understandings of] nation because it enhances “national” life by providing a space for shared civil discourse. Theatre, as a material, social and cultural practice, offers the chance to explore histories, behaviours, events and preoccupations in a creative, communal realm that opens up potential for reflection and debate’ (Holdsworth 2010: 6). As such, theatre is part of any cultural discourse on understandings of national identity or ‘Britishness’. Theatre is a fundamental part of imaginatively constructing ideas about and understandings of ‘the nation’, thus it provides a site where ‘the nation can be put under the microscope’ (Holdsworth 2010, p. 6). (Duggan et al. 2013, p. xiv)

Theatre, as with other facets of cultural, political and social life reflects the illusory nature of articulating Britishness. Duggan and Ukaegbu go on to reference Antony Gormley’s high profile performance installation One and Other in Trafalgar Square in 2009 in which members of the public occupied the vacant fourth plinth for an hour each. Resonant of Hearn and Antonsich’s ‘polyphony’ (2018) they cite Holdsworth’s expression of ‘rampant polyvocality’ to describe the piece and go on to state: ‘What Gormley’s project highlights is that the notion of Britishness and of what defines the nation of Britain, its inhabitants and its cultural and political discourses is invariably complex and as such, any single definition is likely to be incomplete at best and fatuous at worst’ (p. xv). Tellingly, one of the more recent plays exploring the multiplicity of Britishness, One Million Tiny Plays About Britain by Craig Taylor (2016), draws our attention to the fragmentation of British conventions as a myriad of scenes, including a Pakistani delivering Italian restaurant flyers to an elderly woman isolated through dementia, remind us of our new diversity and our civic fragility. This eclectic, compendious and often contradictory nature of Britishness was neatly captured by a member of the public who, in 2014, responded to The Guardian: ‘British is a helpful catch all term for all of us … especially those who don’t feel English, Welsh, Cornish, Northern Irish, or Scottish.’ A reminder then to tread carefully through this landscape.

32 

M. CROSSLEY

Englishness You can’t sit down and write a play about England, not one that anyone’s gonna wanna see. (Jez Butterworth 2011)

An appraisal of national identity and the place of theatre in reflecting or refracting that identity inevitably begins with England, partly due to its scale within the whole of Great Britain, partly because national politics is ciphered through the Westminster parliament and not least because national discourses on identity tend, quite understandably, to pivot around the relationship between England and the respective nations; a state which Tom Nairn and Paul James (2005, p. 137) refer to as ‘England and…’. As indicated by Butterworth’s comment, conceptions of England are elusive at best, and at worst anodyne or antagonistic. Butterworth was referring to his highly acclaimed 2009 play Jerusalem which originally starred Mark Rylance in the leading role of Johnny ‘Rooster’ Byron, a modern yet mythic English hero, railing against the oppression of ‘little England’. Whilst Shakespeare, in Richard II, may have poetically distilled England into ‘This other Eden, demi-paradise’, it has in actuality been far more problematic to essentialise Englishness in theatrical, political or educative terms, often to great artistic effect if not political or educational success. Attempts have been made to demarcate England politically in recent decades, notably in 1975 with the establishment of the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, reformed by Margaret Beckett in 2000 and in 2011 it was renamed the Regional Affairs Committee. It involved a discreet committee of English MP’s debating specific English matters but with a very limited remit or authority. In 2015, a set of procedures called English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) were created, giving specific voting rights to English members of Parliament when the legislation only affects England. These, however, have only ever been partial or superficial attempts to designate an English political identity and in many respects they reflect the wider complications of extricating Englishness from Britishness. The search for Englishness is often localised or globalised. Urban or regional distinctions are proffered as typically English, from London Cockneys to Yorkshire ‘Grit’, yet these specifics often only alert us to the differences rather than the cohesion. On a broader scale, it is almost impossible to extrapolate Englishness from Britishness, partly because of

2  LANDSCAPES: NATIONS, POLITICS AND THEATRE EDUCATION 

33

the British political, and therefore cultural power, held in England, but also because the projection of Britishness on a global scale if often conflated or confused with Englishness, with many of the British tropes based on English stereotypes from Beefeater guards5 to the ubiquitous Bard. Simon Featherstone observes that …one of the enduring strengths of the English state has always been its avoidance of classic modes of nationalist description, representation and symbolism. Its resistance to definition and particularly its willingness to subsume national identity within the geopolitical organisations that it silently dominated—Great Britain, the Empire, the United Kingdom—produced a resilient, contradictory anti-nationhood, the very denial of nationalism allowing strategic assertions of national power. (2009, p. 9)

A specific identification or meditation on Englishness is similarly conflated when it comes to theatre. The term state-of-the-nation play is often invoked to describe texts and productions which seek to capture the zeitgeist of the nation, with Nadine Holdsworth affirming that the raison d’être of such plays is to ‘explicitly critique the nation’ (2010). Yet national identity in this context is regularly assumed to be British or perhaps delineation within this term is simply avoided due to its complexity. Dan Rebellato (2013), for example, discusses British state-of-the-nation playwrights including David Edgar (Plenty) and Howard Brenton (The Romans in Britain). Rebellato states that such texts ‘create a synthesis of individual motives and societal forces’ and that ‘in this ability to hold together the public and the private in its grand visions of Britain and Britishness, the state-of-the-nation play reflects the structure of the nation-state’ (p. 248). This expression of the nation-state may seem self-explanatory at first, but within a British context it requires greater scrutiny. It might be noted, for example, that both Plenty and The Romans in Britain are arguably far more specifically English than they are British as they deal with issues of class and colonial rule, respectively. Elsewhere in Contemporary British and Irish Drama (2013), the same text in which Rebellato writes, there are discreet chapters on Welsh and Scottish theatre which indicates a necessary delineation of national identities within Britain. This absence of discourse over Englishness but an observance over Welsh and Scottish theatrical distinctiveness continues across a number of texts, including  Formally known as Yeomen Warders.

5

34 

M. CROSSLEY

The Cambridge History of British Theatre (2004) which devotes six chapters to Scottish and Welsh theatre, with one for each nation explicitly on national identity. The final chapter in the book by Liz Tomlin, ‘English Theatre in the 1990’s and Beyond’, suggests in its title an interrogation of national identity but the emphasis is on stylistic traits within contemporary English theatre companies and playwrighting rather than thematic evocations of Englishness within the nation’s theatres. Artists themselves, in theatre and other art forms, are arguably more eloquent than Jez Butterworth suggests at voicing and subverting notions of English identity. Julian Barnes’ novel England, England (1998) imagines a recreation of all things quintessentially English in a theme park constructed on the Isle of Wight. The representations of Buckingham Palace, Robin Hood, cricket and warm beer become more popular than mainland England itself in their offering of a seductive nostalgia. Tim Crouch, the experimental theatre-maker, presented England (2007) to audiences across a range of gallery spaces in the UK. Using the metaphor of a heart transplant, Crouch presents us with an evocation of an exploitative yet fragile nation, an uncomfortable host ‘body’ for shifting global cultures and identities. A review of the work, from The Scotsman incidentally, wrote that it was ‘a reflection on an idea of national identity, character and history—of Englishness itself, increasingly swamped by the sheer power of twenty-first-century global markets, and turning to ashes in the mouth’ (2007). Often when Englishness is invoked as a term within theatrical texts it is imbued with racial signification, an anxiety or animosity towards otherness. In an analysis of Roy Williams plays, Michael Pearce notes that in Sing Yer Heart Out for the Lads (2002), set amidst England’s World Cup 2002 qualification, one characters appropriation of rap culture into conversation is seen by his family as ‘as a bastardization of his Englishness’ (2013, p. 150). In reference to Williams’ play Days of Significance (2007), he reflects that the language of the military characters situated in the Gulf War ‘reveals deeply embedded racist attitudes in the fabric of Englishness when pitted against the “other”’ (2013, p. 165). This theme, particularly post-9/11, resonates within work for young audiences as illuminated by Nicholson who identified a range of productions in that period which responded to the ‘contemporary cultural anxiety surrounding the construction of national identity’ (2011, p.  131). These included John Retallack’s touring production Hannah and Hanna (Company of Angels, 2001) exploring the issues facing young refugees and Mark Ravenhill’s adaptation of Terry Pratchett’s Nation (National Theatre, 2009) which

2  LANDSCAPES: NATIONS, POLITICS AND THEATRE EDUCATION 

35

reflected upon an island nation’s identity. For many artists, there is a reticence to propose a confident English identity, preferring instead to suggest the communal through the personal. On that subject, Simon Featherstone references the peripatetic performance making of Richard Long but notes that his practice of walking, cycling and camping through South West England makes ‘no claims to national meaning (Seymour 1991: 32)’ (2009, p. 83). Given this context, it is not surprising that any articulation of national identity is somewhat difficult to decipher or even find within English arts and cultural policy or English education. The latest Arts Council England strategy for 2020–2030 entitled Let’s Create is infused with reference to people and place, country and community but unlike in Scottish and Welsh arts council documentation these concepts are left without exposition. National priorities are identified for the Cultural Communities outcome with the intention of removing ‘geographic, economic and social barriers that currently prevent many people from taking part in publicly funded cultural activity’ but these are not framed within an identified English cultural strategy. The influential Creative People and Places (CPP) funding initiative which supports action research projects across England noticeably focuses on ‘local cultural provision’ (p. 3), as opposed to connecting communities nationally. Whilst it may not as a scheme have the capacity or intention to galvanise at a national scale, Hadley and Belfiore argue that CPP ‘chart the formation of an attempted shift towards a seemingly culturally democratic discourse from the arts marketing schematic of “cold spots” (Gilmore, 2013) to everyday creativity (64 Million Artists, 2016)6 and, potentially, cultural democracy’ (2018, p. 220). Arguably, the objectives and remit of CPP may indeed be the appropriate strategy in targeting funding in very specific locations yet also a reflection that connecting disparate people and places in England is logistically, conceptually and politically beyond the remit of the Arts Council. As will be explored further in ‘Theatres of Place’, this valorisation of local, everyday culture may also unwittingly reinforce a parochial marginalisation of children’s co-creative or collaborative practice.

6  64 Million Artists are a social enterprise organisation focused on promoting creativity. The original pilot was known as 53 Million Artists and was a collaboration between King’s College London’s Department of Culture, Media & Creative Industries and 64 Million Artists’ cofounders David Micklem and Jo Hunter.

36 

M. CROSSLEY

It is understandable that there may be some reticence on the part of Arts Council England in defining something as contentious as Englishness, when you notice the degree of criticism they garnered for their publication of Cultural Democracy in Practice guide (2018), despite signalling their view that cultural democracy was ‘not a fixed thing but a range of approaches to widening involvement in arts and culture’ (p. 2). In light of Hadley and Belfiore’s earlier observations on cultural democracy (2018), it is perhaps unsurprising that the guide was castigated by many for its lack of acknowledgement of institutional hierarchies and detail on how to action greater cultural democracy. Arts Professional cited theatre-maker and member of the Movement for Cultural Democracy, Hassan Mahamdallie, who retorted, ‘It’s difficult to avoid a conclusion that these efforts by the Arts Council are really to protect its vulnerability over real questions about equity, distribution of power, redistribution of funds and institutions’ (2018). Mahamdallie’s concerns resonate with long-standing suspicions that, for many people, disenfranchised from the levers of power, cultural and national identities are prescribed for and imposed upon them by cultural elites rather than organically constructed, democratically by all quarters of society. This view, however, is countered by some cultural theorists who argue that English society has always been too amorphous to attribute such dominant influences. Robert Colls and Philip Dodd offer us a historical view on this perception, in their consideration of Englishness in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: Although there is certainly evidence to support the thesis that Englishness and the national culture were reconstituted in order to incorporate and neuter various social groups (…) who threatened the dominant social order, it is unhelpful for two reasons to see the reconstitution as a simple matter of the imposition of an identity by the dominant on the subordinate. First, the remaking of class, gender and national identity was undertaken at such a variety of social locations and by such various groups that it is difficult to talk of a common intention. (2014, p. 26)

The authors go on to identify the second reason to suggest imposition was ‘too simple’ is that the ‘establishment of hegemony involves negotiation and “active consent” on the part of the subordinated’ which they argue ignores the ‘completely oppositional identities and practices forged by the subordinate groups’ (p.  27). Whilst Colls and Dodd’s analysis focuses on previous centuries, there are still resonances for today in their

2  LANDSCAPES: NATIONS, POLITICS AND THEATRE EDUCATION 

37

divergence of opinion from those that accentuate the power of cultural elites. Despite many attempts to articulate what constitutes cultural democracy, multiple views remain over how and by whom it is constructed. Within theatre education and creative learning these debates have particular pertinence as advocacy for the arts in education is often framed within the discourse of cultural democracy. The recently launched Drama, Theatre and Young People Manifesto7 (2020) stated, ‘Making drama and theatre is an essential part of being human. Participating helps us to express what we care about, and why; reminding us of who we are and what we can be. Drama is a source for cultural capital, identity and heritage; it inspires us to take risks, think critically and builds social cohesion through collaboration.’ The passion and motivation behind this manifesto are clear in the reflections of Adel Al-Salloum, the Director of The Spark Arts for Children in Leicester, who contributed to the manifesto: ‘This piece of work broke my heart. The very fact we need it made me very sad. It’s a narrative for people to gather around as we’re constantly on the back foot justifying our value.’ The call for drama and theatre entitlements for children and young people in this context is essentially beyond any reasonable argument but the principle of entitlement carries with it problematic inferences of being within or outside of preferred cultural boundaries and implicit debates over who defines ‘high quality’ experiences, in the words of the manifesto. Prior to this 2020 publication, Towards Cultural Democracy (2017) expressed concern over what it referred to as the ‘deficit model’ which places a ‘primary emphasis on promoting “access” to the publicly funded arts. Critics of this approach call it “the deficit model”, as it implies that people who don’t attend publicly funded arts are not doing what they “should”’ (2017, p. 1). The report sought to emphasise the wider ecologies of culture and the ‘cultural capabilities’ at a grass-roots level. Drawing upon the ‘Capabilities Approach’ of Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen, who refer to the ‘substantive freedom’ required for meaningful cultural agency, the report authors proposed that:

7  The Drama, Theatre and Young People Manifesto was developed by the National Campaign for the Arts, an alliance of drama and theatre organisations in the UK including National Drama (ND), Action for Children’s Arts, London Drama, London Theatre Consortium and The Standing Conference of University Drama Departments (SCUDD).

38 

M. CROSSLEY

It is this substantive social freedom to co-create versions of culture that we call cultural capability. Whilst much policy interest has legitimately focused on the unequal funding share of arts and culture across various socio-­ economic variables—including location, class and ethnic group—we suggest that re-positioning the cultural policy agenda in terms of promoting cultural capability will help address issues of parity and fairness in a much more comprehensive and locally adaptive fashion. (p. 5)

Similar arguments for recalibrating cultural value and the sources of it have been made over many decades, including Owen Kelly whose proposals from the 1980s called for ‘many localised scales of values, arising from within communities and applied by those communities to activities they individually or collectively undertake’ (1985, p. 6). Kelly was responding to Roy Shaw’s call for a democratisation of the arts, and his notion of ‘arts for all’ which as Kelly initially states ‘sounds like a good idea’ yet goes on to question ‘When we hear the phrase “arts for all” we want to know just what “arts” are being referred to, and why. We want to know what it is about these “arts” that is so important that everybody needs to have them’ (1985, p. 1). Hadley and Belfiore (2018) progress this argument a stage further, building upon Kelly’s proposals they write: Kelly (1985) argued not for an extension of the concept of “the arts” to encompass more activities from more people in more places, but rather its replacement. This radical, political project called for “many localised scales of values, arising from within communities and applied by those communities to activities they individually or collectively undertake” (Kelly, 1985, p.  6). In this sense, the impact of cultural democracy on cultural policy becomes an issue that is less of cultural valuation and more one of cultural animation and (self) representation. (p. 221)

It would seem that such approaches may respond to some of the arguments voiced by the critics of the perceived gatekeepers of culture, yet Towards Cultural Democracy ends with multiple recommendations reliant on ‘gatekeeper’ accordance (p. 7). It is an understandable strategy to target instrumental levers as attempting to influence organic ‘under the radar’ culture, as the report puts it, is an elusive goal. Yet this friction between objective and strategy is a central challenge for nations seeking to cultivate a national identity through culture and its manifestations in the arts and education. There is a complex balance to find between the ardour of central cultural agendas which seek to promote economic growth,

2  LANDSCAPES: NATIONS, POLITICS AND THEATRE EDUCATION 

39

health and well-being, social cohesion and national self-promotion whilst the fostering of such ambitions is framed in policies and strategies which exhort the ‘substantive freedoms’ of citizens. The symmetry of citizenship is of central concern in this regard. To what degree is citizenship a construction regulated on behalf of the public and to what degree is it a construction of the public, for individuals to fashion and articulate? The English National Curriculum includes Citizenship as mandatory at Key Stages 3 and 4 with a certain emphasis, it may be argued, upon the responsibilities rather than the potentiality of citizenship. Governmental and societal frameworks are presented as de facto, suggesting that citizenship is a set of capabilities to exercise rather than an experiment in self and civic realisation. It avoids any prescriptions of English national identity or culture, yet it does however immediately refer to citizenship within the context of the United Kingdom, despite the fact that the curriculum is specific to England and not taught across the rest of the country. This limited attendance to citizenship in relation to nationhood is observed by Nicholson who proposes that a contemporary expression of citizenship ‘is now often seen to extend beyond national boundaries and includes ideas of a global, cosmopolitan or even corporate citizenship’ (2011, p. 130). The reason for this obfuscation between England and the United Kingdom is understandable as England oscillates between its status within the ‘kingdom’ and its disunited artistic and educative context. There is also a marked contrast between the hegemonic intentions that seem to be inherent in the curricula documentation with the ‘polyvocality’ representative in the theatrical response to nationhood and citizenship. This absence of divergent and dissonant ‘voices’ was noted by Ofsted reports on the Citizenship curricula within which they stated, for example, that ‘the diversity of national, regional, religious and ethnic identities in the United Kingdom are only rarely deconstructed to explore in any detail what this implies’ (2006, p. 13). In a wider context, there has been some evaluation of how curricula changes within British nations have exposed or indeed sought to foster distinctions in national identity. The journal Nationalism Studies reflected that ‘the introduction of the national curriculum by the Conservative government in the 1990s, amid some nationalist overtones, aimed to foster a strong sense of national identity’ (2014). In an article entitled ‘National Identity in the Context of the National Curricula of Scotland and England’ (2014) a comparison was made between the revised National Curriculum

40 

M. CROSSLEY

post 2013 and the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence (CfE), highlighting: Overall, the CfE includes many instances of language that emphasises Scottish national identity in particular. A common phrase in the ‘experience and outcomes’ portion of the CfE is that ‘Learning in the subject will enable me to develop my understanding of the history, heritage and culture of Scotland, and an appreciation of my local and national heritage within the world.’ Moreover, the social studies section in the CfE explains that through the curriculum, ‘children and young people’s experiences will be broadened using Scottish, British, European and wider contexts for learning, while maintaining a focus on the historical, social, geographic, economic and political changes that have shaped Scotland.’

They conclude by stating, ‘We have found that both curriculums aim to mould a sense of national identity. The English curriculum however, differs slightly from the Scottish version due to the lack of essence of Englishness in the text, whereas Scottishness is prevalent throughout the Scottish curriculum.’ This view of a paucity of a clear and confident English ‘essence’ is reflected in the argument proffered by Arthur Aughey who states, in his analysis of post-devolution Britain, that ‘what the English are being denied and what apparently is being denied to them is what the non-English always thought the English had in abundance—self-­ confidence’ (2007, p. 96). Given the importance placed on children and young people to have a voice in shaping the nation, as exemplified in the Drama, Theatre and Young People Manifesto (2020) and the recommendations of multiple reports including the Warwick Commission Enriching Britain: Culture, Creativity and Growth (2015), the Time to Listen report (2018) and the Durham Commission on Creativity and Education (2019), there has been a very limited discourse on the place of theatre education in articulating and questioning English nationhood, be that personal or collective manifestations of it. Perhaps this reflects a reticence towards English national identification as Aughey refers to and an anxiety that ‘cooler’ conversations of nationhood become conflated with ‘hotter’ diatribes of nationalism. In the academic domain, Nadine Holdsworth’s writing, including Theatre and Nation (2010) and Theatre and National Identity: Re-imagining Conceptions of Nation (2014) both attend to global practices including British but without overt reference to national identities

2  LANDSCAPES: NATIONS, POLITICS AND THEATRE EDUCATION 

41

framed through theatre for, with or by children and young people. Helen Nicholson’s Theatre, Education and Performance (2011) is a relatively rare example of writing on this subject, with specific reference to England and Britain. Drawing upon theoretical frames of nationhood including the work of Tim Edensor, Benedict Anderson8 and Michael Billig, she writes: ‘National identity always suggests some negotiation between self and otherness, and whether this remains set in an idea of the past or is open to new shapes, forms and rhythms depends on conceptualizing culture as a process, as a site of multiplicity and displacement, rather than rooted and fixed’ (p. 135). In responding to these challenges of reconciling self and other and countering homogenic narratives of national fixedness she contends: ‘Theatre education can provide a further context for learning a sense of national identity that recognizes that it is inclusive, multiple and plural’ (p. 151). Fuelling the convolution of national identities, particularly English, is the increasing pervasiveness of identity politics; expressions of belonging, solidarity and advocacy in relation to our own gender, ethnicity, religion, personal circumstances, geographic affiliation and ethics rather than association with national political parties or governmental agendas. For some these personal and collective identifications are positive manifestations of cultural democracy yet for others this valorisation of individual interests indicates a worrying trend in modern Britain. David Isaac, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, reflected in an interview with The Guardian in 2019 that whilst identity politics played a crucial role in advancing civil rights, ‘The increasing tendency for people to define themselves by their faith, gender, sexuality or race is undermining empathy among Britons.’ Isaac asserts that part of the solution to the individualistic undertones of identity politics is through the curriculum: ‘Teaching kids about not just same-sex relationships but what it is to be a good citizen would be a really important start,’ but as noted earlier, citizenship in the curriculum brings with it its own dilemmas in terms of who’s conceptions of citizen you adhere to. The politics of identity are obfuscating traditional demarcations of left-­ right politics, liberal and conservatism as noted by the former Labour cabinet minister John Denham in 2018:

8

 See Theatres of Place for further analysis of Edensor and Anderson.

42 

M. CROSSLEY

These differences don’t map readily onto the familiar divides of class, of ‘left’ and ‘right’. Older working-class voters may be less keen on rapid immigration and diversity than their university educated grandchildren but are strong supporters of public ownership and the NHS. Young liberals may be less keen on redistribution and the welfare state; more likely to blame poverty on the individual.

This is a reminder that whilst we may find some correspondences between left wing UK governments and increased levels of support and funding for arts education (although this is not always an accurate reflection of reality), it is too simplistic to correlate any future prosperity for theatre education with such governance. The current British government is testament to this as it promotes public ownership (notably the NHS) and major public works (partly prompted by COVID) in tandem with neoliberal market economics. In the present climate, the arts and arts education are habitually (if not universally) eulogised but notably from very different identity perspectives, at times to expedite the Arnoldian mantra of ‘the best which has been thought and said’9 or, in contrast, to resist such perceived cultural hierarchies through counter narratives. In this regard, arts education is often at the mercy of what is antagonistically referred to as the ‘culture wars’, in which cultural ‘tribes’ skirmish over contested territories of culture including arts and education. Dependant on where you turn we are in, or we are definitely not in, the midst of a ferocious culture war. Frank Furedi, writing in Spiked magazine (2020), is clear in his own mind that a liberal elite, far from being marginalised by conservative governments, exorcises the power on the cultural battlefield: ‘The countercultural movement had been institutionalised, and its representatives dominated institutions of culture, higher education and the public sector. […] the culture war is a one-sided conflict that is directed at a defensive traditionalist target.’ In the same magazine, Rakib Ehsan warns us: ‘The UK—whether we like it or not—finds itself in the middle of an aggressive culture war. The idea of national reconciliation now is wishful thinking.’ In a more conciliatory tone Julian McCrae, in Prospect magazine, contends: While polarisation might make for good headlines, the evidence for it is, at best, thin. Of course, people have differences and disagreements on what 9

 See Chap. 3 for further analysis of Matthew Arnold.

2  LANDSCAPES: NATIONS, POLITICS AND THEATRE EDUCATION 

43

the biggest issues facing the country are and how to solve them. But the idea that we are in the middle of a US-style culture war—where someone’s opinion on one issue is a guaranteed predictor of how they feel about other, seemingly unrelated ones—doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. (2020)

Evidence would suggest the validity of McCrae’s perspective, as whilst polls on the national politics of Brexit and national identity (Who feels British? etc.) highlight significant divisions, there is much greater consensus on issues which might be classified as categories of identity politics— the environment, gender equality, healthcare, equality of opportunity and discrimination.10 He also argues, resonating with the promotion of place-­ making, that communities are most readily motivated when given the agency to make ‘simple’ changes at a local level, advocating that ‘Britain urgently needs to transfer the energy and innovations of such approaches to the national challenges we all face’. The potentiality of collaboration will be revisited in the later chapters as I consider the capacity for contemporary theatre education to facilitate meaningful co-creation and participant led creativity. Denham (2018) detects a specifically English malaise in respect of identity, arguing ‘that we won’t meet the many challenges we face without addressing England: without engaging with English identity, England as a nation, with England as a place, as a democracy and as a political community’. It is certainly in the bounds of credibility therefore to say that Englishness has, to some degree, a crisis of confidence. The significance of this is reflected in the current English curriculum and in the resurgence of place-making. England, I would suggest, is trapped in a stasis of identity, a vacuum into which we have poured evocations of the past as placeholders or life preservers as satirised by Barnes’s England, England and constructed an education system predicated on a comforting ideology of traditional rigour which as Sam Cairns will later propose is redolent of the 1905 curriculum. Perhaps it is no surprise then that we have turned to place-making as in the face of any national ‘essence’ we have devolved identification to a local and personal level, perhaps hoping to find collective meaning in everyday and personal nationalisms. As I will suggest later, there is merit but also some reservations in this approach as it carries the potential for marginalisation or atomisation within a seemingly democratic initiative. Whatever strategic challenges lie ahead  Polls referred to include Ipsos-MORI and Engage Britain and BritainThink (2019).

10

44 

M. CROSSLEY

however, it would seem profitable to deconstruct or destabilise the barriers that may exist to enable children and young people to express their ‘polyvocality’ of Englishness.

Scottishness In 2012, the renowned Scottish sociologist David McCrone proposed that ‘Scotland is a more semi-detached country than at any point in the history of the Union’ (p. 76). This comment came two years before the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, which, despite the defeat, has continued to aggravate an ever growing fault line on national sovereignty between Scotland and England. It has been argued that this long-­ standing absence of full independence, a lacuna of identity, prompted the nation to go in search of an imagined mythic nationhood. Trish Reid, in Theatre and Scotland, notes that some have suggested Scotland has ‘turned instead to over-inscribed historical narratives for a sense of cultural identity’ (2013, p.  7). She refers to Tom Nairn’s famous exposition of the ‘sentimental discourses of Scottishness’, most famously ‘tartanry’ or as Nairn referred to it, the ‘vast tartan monster’ (1977, p. 162) which contributed, according to Reid’s summation of Nairn, to ‘a destructive false consciousness, a neurotic and infantilised national psyche’ (2013, p. 7). Reid is quick to argue however that Nairn’s view of the nation is, in her view, ‘overly pessimistic’ (p.  8) and that discourses on Scottish culture, facilitated notably through theatre, are more complex than he suggests. Whilst there may be some anxieties over the romanticisation of Scotland, there is undoubtedly an assured sense of pride in ‘belonging’ and a strong sense that dwelling in Scotland and self-identifying as Scottish confers an important status. For example, McCrone, in 2005, highlighted that in the 2003 Scottish Social Attitudes survey ‘70 per cent said that they personally would consider a non-white person living in Scotland to be Scottish if they spoke with a Scottish accent and claimed to be Scottish’ (p.  73). The importance of place and belonging are recurrent themes in the analyses of Scottishness, overriding any preoccupations of race or ethnicity. Kiely et al., in a work entitled The Markers and Rules of Scottish National Identity (2001), stated that ‘there is little doubt that nationality in Scotland refers to a “sense of place” rather than a “sense of tribe” (Smout, 1994), that, in other words, one is usually dealing with a civic rather than an ethnic form of nationalism (McCrone 1998; MCrone and Kiely, 2000)’ (p. 33).

2  LANDSCAPES: NATIONS, POLITICS AND THEATRE EDUCATION 

45

Politically, as with Wales, the general trend has been towards the left of centre in comparison to England as McCrone identifies: ‘if we divide public opinion in Scotland and England into left, centre and right in ideological terms, in Scotland the centre more resembles the left than it does the right, whereas in England the centre is closer to the right (Paterson 2002)’ (2005, p. 77). This political ethos has informed the Scottish educational system and curricula over many decades and therein contributed to the realisation of the ‘institutionalized state’ as McCrone refers to it: Educational qualifications are a good example in this argument in so far as the institutionalization of a separate system has long been a Scottish feature. The separateness of Scottish systems of education, law, religion, in short, civil society, are what marks it out as a quasi-state, a semi-state. In short, people think of themselves as Scots—and they do, in increasing numbers, over being British—because they have been educated, governed and embedded in a Scottish way. (2005, p. 74)

Allied to this it has been argued that the educational agenda within Scotland has been co-opted into the realisation of the nation-state. Mostafa Gamal and Dalene M.  Swanson (2017) contend that ‘it can be asserted that nationalism is mobilised as a discursive resource for educational policy by the Scottish government in order to consolidate the idea of it as the central entity around which Scottishness coheres, and the paternal representation of Scotland’s survival as an imagined sovereign country’ (p. 6). To what extent this argument has validity and to what kind of nationalism (hot or cool) they are referring to is debatable, but it is important to note the presence of such perspectives. It would certainly be implausible to suggest that there is any single factor defining or shaping Scottish national identity. From McCrone’s perspective, it is an accretion of cultural capital, reinforced by national media, in combination with institutionalised cultural habits that informs the manner in which Scottish citizens perceive their nationality and difference to England, rather than any deep divisions in social values or economic models, stating that ‘the cultural prism for translating social change into political meaning and action is different’ (p. 78). There is a clear consensus within Scotland that the arts, alongside or in tandem with education, are at the forefront of crafting but also challenging national identity in the twenty-first century. Theatre in all its forms is now playing a central role in defining the nation on the international stage. Ian Brown in Scottish Theatre: Diversity, Language, Continuity (2013) summates this resolve:

46 

M. CROSSLEY

The vitality of contemporary Scottish theatre can be seen to be a key expression, and now arguably a determinant, of national cultural and political identity—or, to be more precise, identities. These identities are inclusive, male and female, beyond and within the Central Belt,11 heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual, Scots, English and Gaelic. What is more, the cultural identities expressed are more and more clearly based on a modern international world-view which sees Scottish themes and concerns as part and parcel of, and engaged in creative interaction with, the international stage and human experience world-wide. (2013, pp. 216–217)

Brown identifies that this intent is not so much a ‘renaissance’ of Scottish theatre but a continuation of a national theatre culture which has been framing contemporary Scottish identity for many decades. However, he highlights the galvanising impact of recent events up to that point including the 1997 devolution referendum and the 1999 opening of the Scottish Parliament. The 2014 referendum on Scottish independence which came after the publication of Brown’s text unquestionably invigorated the nationalist debate further, particularly as it was noted by all politicians and commentators that under 18s voted for independence by 71% for to 29% against. Despite the overall defeat, therefore, there was a sense of the fight being rekindled at another time not too far distant, which Brexit may yet deliver. In 2003, Nadine Holdsworth considered how the nation and nationalism of Scotland was re-imagined in the work of David Greig (Europe 1994) and Stephen Greenhorn (Passing Places 1997). Holdsworth identifies the plurality and confliction of identities which pervades the work of the two playwrights. In reference to the psychotic gangland figure of Binks in Passing Places who speak to his dead twin throughout the play, she notes that ‘the image of psychiatric disorder is a prevalent theme in much theoretical analysis of Scotland emanating from critics such as Tom Nairn and Christopher Harvie. They present Scotland, like Binks, experiencing a split personality, a constant state of doubling and a national schizophrenia as it shifts between the dualism of British/Scottish, urban/rural, traditional/modern, Gaelic/Scots, subservient/rebellious’ (p.  34). Despite these unresolved conflicts Holdsworth reflects that in these writers works ‘there is something residually important about the nation, something that is worth trying to hold on to, worth trying to articulate amidst the 11  The Central Belt is the name given to the highly populated central area in Scotland including Glasgow and Edinburgh.

2  LANDSCAPES: NATIONS, POLITICS AND THEATRE EDUCATION 

47

increasing encroachment of globalisation into all areas of economic, political and cultural life’ (p. 39). Trish Reid in The Edinburgh Companion to Scottish Drama (2011) offers a corresponding argument to Brown and Holdsworth, identifying a late twentieth-century momentum, asserting that ‘questions of the nature and efficacy of national, regional and ethnic identities were already on the agenda in Scotland, and across Europe in the 1980s and 1990s’ (p. 191). Referring to a range of contemporary playwrights working in the late 1990s including Greig and Greenhorn, Reid contends that ‘they have responded to the pressures of contemporary Scottish life in ways both inventive and disturbing, focusing often on misfits and outsiders. Taken together their practice provides a useful antidote to the potentially totalising discourses of a nationalism that might veer towards the ethnocentric or exclusive’ (p. 199). Brown (2013) deftly maps recent developments up to that date in Scottish theatre and the key playwrights, companies and artists contributing to the debate on, and problematisation of national identity including Liz Lochhead, David Greig, Suspect Culture, Zinnie Harris and Douglas Maxwell. Citing Trish Reid, Brown notes the increased emphasis on siteand place-based work, inspirited by the work of the National Theatre for Scotland founded in 2006 which began their first season with a national festival of site- and place-based performance entitled Home. Companies such as Edinburgh-based Grid Iron are now well renowned nationally and globally for their site-based practice. Brown proposes, ‘This strand of new Scottish theatre has led to new configurations of the theatrically possible, just as new constitutional arrangements since 1997–1999 have led to new configurations of the politically possible in Scotland.’ He goes on to contend that site-based work is a ‘potentially rich field through which Scottish theatre artists might engage with the shifting dynamics of contemporary Scottish identity politics’ (p. 230). The author makes a brief correspondence between these broader contemporary trends and the advancement of theatre for and by children and young people, observing that ‘the Scottish Children’s Theatre Festival, for example, has developed and grown considerably into the dynamic and highly successful Imaginate Festival, featuring work from across Scotland’s young people’s theatre sector and from abroad’ (p.  231). Unsurprisingly, however, given earlier observations, this is the limit of the acknowledgement to theatre education within the national debate. This absence of discourse is changing however as arts and cultural policy begins to recognises the significance of

48 

M. CROSSLEY

this sector in shaping the national and international profile. Paul Fitzpatrick, the chief executive from Imaginate, offered me a more comprehensive reflection on this subject: Scotland is definitely playing its culture and arts card really strongly in terms of the way it expresses its identity. Theatre for young audiences plays its part in this as it has been an international success. The reason for that is a lot of our work is very visual and physical so we can go to lots of countries which don’t speak English compared to English speaking plays for children. This gives us quite an international status for a relatively small country and the Scottish government has seen this children’s sector as something to be celebrated as the fabric of Scotland. They like to project that we are one of the leading countries forth for children and young people. Now whether this is true is a different matter but it’s a great story to tell and its one the Scottish government likes to tell.

The strength of the children’s theatre sector in Scotland is particularly notable when contrasted to the decline in large-scale commercial theatres in the country, as identified by David Hutchison (2011). In comparison to England, the Scottish theatre sector is far more reliant on public subsidy for its ongoing survival. This partly reflects a healthy degree of support in line with national cultural priorities but Hutchison highlights that ‘its reliance on subsidy does make it vulnerable in difficult times’ (p. 204). This vulnerability was in evidence with the demise of John McGrath’s 7:84 theatre company and more recently, as referenced more fully in Scotland— in culture we trust, a number of Scottish children’s theatre companies faced closure due to Creative Scotland’s funding review in 2018. Many survived but only after a vociferous and co-ordinated lobbying campaign. Compared to England, it is noticeable how much more is overtly written about Scottish theatre and national identity. However, the focus is predominantly on playwrighting or on theatre companies such as Grid Iron and Communicado, writing and devising new work for adult audiences. The plethora of new writing and theatre-making specifically for children and young people in Scotland, spearheaded by Imaginate alongside companies such as Visible Fictions and Catherine Wheels, is often absent in academic discourse on nationhood despite its high profile, an incongruity I shall return to ‘In the Folds of the Map’.

2  LANDSCAPES: NATIONS, POLITICS AND THEATRE EDUCATION 

49

Welshness Slowly we strive towards cultural and political visibility. Our dramatists and their theatre are key to that process of re-positioning through their efforts to create ‘a shared space of dreaming for (our new) society.’ (Ian Rowlands, Welsh theatre director and playwright 2016)

The place of Wales within Great Britain and its relationship to England has some correlation with the England—Scotland discourse, yet there are important differences. In 2009, drawing upon recent polling data at that time,12 Jonathan Bradbury and Rhys Andrews identified a growing interest in Welshness married to a persistent affinity to a British identity: The survey data on the extent of identification with Welshness and Britishness shows little change. Welshness is a more popular identity but a sense of Britishness has not declined markedly in extent. Secondly, it is clear nevertheless that since 1997 Welshness has become predominant over Britishness in public discourses, involving the promotion of a civic Welsh identity, and constitutional preferences have changed further. At the same time though, it is apparent that these changes have occurred within a framework where the assumption of a basic belonging to the UK state in important respects shows little change. (2010, p. 230)

They highlight that in the relationship between England and Wales, there has been a ‘greater co-existence than has been the case in Scotland’ (p.  231), suggesting that ‘the evidence on public discussion of identity and constitutional preferences also points to the conclusion that Welshness still coexists with a relatively persistent vein of Britishness in Wales’ (p. 246). They also cite Billig’s conception of banal nationalism, referring in the Welsh context to a ‘banal Britishness’ fostered through shared cultural phenomena from television, sport and cross border work commitments (p. 237). In 2002, the then First Minister of Wales Rhodri Morgan sought to delineate a more overt political distinction between the nations when referring to the ‘clear red water’ that may need to exist between the National Assembly of Wales and Westminster.13 In the same speech, echoing a theme that will recur in the text, Morgan identified the relatively 12  Surveys included Welsh referendum study 1997; Welsh Assembly election study 1999 and Wales life and times surveys 2001, 2003, 2007. 13  Morgan was actually referring to a comment within The Guardian.

50 

M. CROSSLEY

small scale of the Welsh nation and the Assembly as an asset in driving change: ‘Wales is of a size where we are well placed to work together to make things work better. We know where the problems lie, and we know each other pretty well—both institutionally and—very often—individually. We should therefore be able to take advantage of small scale to make big decisions more easily.’ There are certain correspondences  between Wales and Scotland in terms of how culture has been perceived to fill the space between the imagined and the reality of nationhood. Lisa Lewis in Performing Wales (2018) wrote that ‘culture in Wales has been involved in constructing and defining nationness in the absence of the apparatus of state structures’ (p. 6). Resonant of McCrone’s analysis of place and belonging in a Scottish context, Lewis draws upon the Welsh term cenedl, originally meaning ‘kindred, tribe or clan’ to articulate a contemporary sense of Welsh national identity. ‘The Welsh term cenedl, used to signify nation, actually alludes to the people as a people and is a reminder of the importance of dwelling on the civic in discourses around nationhood and nationness’ (p. 13). Lewis emphasises the significance of a shared imaginative vision of Wales, to will the nation into being. Comparing Wales to England in this regard, she states: The difference with the treatment and conceptualisation of nationness in Welsh culture could not be starker, for in the Welsh context it is often explicitly evoked through symbol and metaphor and forged into being as a cultural imaginary. Even when the nation is conceived as a political and civic entity, it is hardly ever claimed as a wholly political reality, partly because the discussion must dwell instead on the concept and processes of becoming a nation. (p. 14)

The importance of theatre to imagine the Welsh nation into being has been debated at length in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. In 1959, Emyr Edwards in the Wales magazine wrote: ‘Drama to an extent is the highest manifestation of culture, a unique social medium in itself. Drama is also intricately tied up with nationhood and language’ (p. 43). At times, however, there has been a sense that whilst the nation had an unquestionably rich cultural heritage, Wales has lacked a strong theatrical tradition. Thomas Taig in Towards a Welsh Theatre (1945) lamented that ‘Welsh people with their literary traditions are keenly appreciative of eloquent speech and rhetoric […] But they have no native theatrical

2  LANDSCAPES: NATIONS, POLITICS AND THEATRE EDUCATION 

51

tradition. Their traditional culture—not associated with any superior class or coterie—is spread through remote villages and handed on by quiet unpretentious people in all walks of life’ (pp. 19–20). This perspective was reiterated by Edwards himself in his 1959 article, stating that ‘there has never been a great tradition in this sphere of the nation’s culture’ (p. 48). More recently, David Adams has offered a number of detailed reflections on Welsh identity and theatre, notably his 1996 text Stage Welsh: Nation, Nationalism and Theatre: The Search for Cultural Identity. In 2002, he revisited this theme and, chiming with Taig and Edwards, he commented: It may come as something of a shock to realize that while there may have been professional theatre in Wales for centuries, Welsh professional theatre is a relatively new cultural phenomenon and certainly no older than the twentieth century. […] Welsh theatre is thus an invention of the late twentieth century. This explains much about the kind of theatre found in Wales—a practice that owes nothing to tradition because there was no tradition.

Whilst for some this may be looked upon as an obstacle, Adams identified the opportunity this gave to experimental practice in the absence of a canonical tradition compared to England. This theme was also attended to by Mike Pearson, a founding member of Brith Gof theatre company, who observed in Staging Wales (1997) that ‘with no mainstream tradition defining what theatre ought to look like, with no national theatre prescribing an orthodoxy of theatrical convention, with no great wealth of playwrighting, then theatre in Wales still has options’ (p. 85). In addressing concerns over the absence of a Welsh playwrighting tradition and the potential for experimental theatre to respond to the national discourse, Pearson argues how theatre may be better employed in developing a different repertoire with different performance structure, different ways of telling in different tones of voice, the better to address the experience, aspirations and principal concerns of a small nation: to embrace different topics or perhaps endlessly the same topics but in different ways; to constitute a reawakened interest in the experience of others as a political project; to assign fictional characters to their final fate. (p. 87)

52 

M. CROSSLEY

Brith Gof14 overtly explored Welsh national identity in a number of productions, including Gododdin (1989), Prydain: The Impossibility of Britishness (1996) and Polis (2001), and resonant within these productions and the companies ethos are the themes of hybridity, fluidity and civic identity which recur in the methodologies and performances explored later in the text. Heike Roms (2004) analysis of these productions identifies an attentiveness to nationhood and the impact of devolution. Prydain was performed in an empty warehouse on a new industrial estate in Cardiff and Roms, reflecting on this choice of hinterland, noted how the performance structure itself was an articulation of Welsh identity as a negotiation rather than a fixed narrative: ‘What distinguished this performance from its predecessors was that the pedagogy of nationness was thereby transformed into a performative event that was revealed as having no stable existence prior to or outside of its performance’ (2004, p. 187). Polis was a three-hour multi-site performance based on Odysseus, initially involving audience members dispersing in groups across Cardiff to film fragments of everyday life. Roms notes a particular shift within this production from earlier explorations of national identity: ‘I want to argue that (…) Polis marks a transition from a “cultural” understanding of such nationhood to one based on a conception of citizenship, a transition effected by the process of devolution’ (2004, p. 179). There is undoubtedly a reawakened interest in Welsh nationness since devolution of powers to the Welsh Assembly and the development of the new Curriculum for Wales which re-emphasises the teaching of Welsh across all age groups and foregrounds Welsh history and culture. This latter ambition was underscored in a 2019 report in which the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee recommended that ‘it is vital to ensure that the implementation of the Curriculum for Wales 2022 will be properly supported with teaching materials which reflect the ambition to teach the history of Wales from the local and national perspectives’ (p. 24). The existence of the Welsh language is a unique aspect to the Welsh context compared to Scotland15 and England and is central to the 14  Brith Gof theatre company was founded in 1981 in Aberystwyth by Mike Pearson and Lis Hughes Jones. The company was closed in 2004. Mike Pearson continued to collaborate on numerous productions with Mike Brookes under the name Pearson/Brookes. 15  It must be noted that in Scotland there are approximately 11,000 Gaelic speakers according to research reported in The Scotsman (2019). Gaelic is not required to be taught in Scottish schools. In comparison the Welsh Language Use Survey for 2013–2015 recorded

2  LANDSCAPES: NATIONS, POLITICS AND THEATRE EDUCATION 

53

c­ onception of Wales as a nation. As a result of the bilingual status in the country, two national theatres were established, firstly Theatr Genedlaethol Cymru (TGC) (2003) which is predominantly focused on the Welsh language and then the English-speaking National Theatre of Wales (2009). Roger Wooster addresses this particularity when writing that ‘companies in Wales have a responsibility to provide provision that reflects the fact that its two languages have parity’ (2007, p. 42). The justification for having a Welsh-­speaking national theatre is expounded by Rhian Davies, the executive producer for Theatr Genedlaethol Cymru (TGC): ‘The fact that we don’t have a national press makes it different for us as it’s always been a British discourse, not a Welsh discourse. We are becoming much more aware of national identity and less embarrassed talking about it. For children, Welshness is normal for them and there is no fear of bilingualism.’ There has been some concern expressed however that this division of national theatres reduces their potential impact. Lisa Lewis writes, ‘In relation to exploring the daily experience of bilingual Wales explicitly, both companies are hindered by their linguistic separateness. […] The establishment of two national theatre companies in Wales has hindered the possibility of a potentially exciting theatrical hybridity, which has not yet been fully explored in Welsh theatre’ (2018, p.  190). This argument is countered however by Arwel Gruffydd, TGC’s Artistic Director, who advocates strongly for a discreet Welsh-language-speaking theatre: Making theatre in the Welsh language is essentially radical. […] It represents an insistence that a minority voice will be heard and shared; that a minority language culture should be represented. What is essentially expressed and spoken of through the medium of Welsh-language theatre cannot be said in English. Or at the very least, when spoken in Welsh, as opposed to English, it carries a different meaning and has a different impact. (Geliot and Gomez 2016)

Whatever strategies are employed by the national theatres and other Welsh artists, there is a consensus that the arts and the arts in education in Wales must respond to the contemporary reality of the nation rather than a mythical, atrophied conception of it. Back in 1959 Emyr Edwards set out a clear challenge to theatre-makers of that era and beyond: 318,800 fluent Welsh speakers in Wales (mainly West Wales) which was approximately 11% of the population. The report identified that 23% of the whole population could speak some Welsh.

54 

M. CROSSLEY

The dramatist will find inspiration and material in the many spheres of Welsh life today. He must realise that Wales is no longer a country of completely pure Brythonic stock, and is not a happy breed set on its own. An intricate weave of cultures persists throughout its communities, and we must accept the presence of these outside influences, for indeed they are here to stay. (…) We have yet to produce a true and valuable interpreter of the problems of intermixing cultures in Wales. (p. 52)

The intricacy of this weave was reaffirmed almost half a century later by the Welsh journalist Carolyn Hitt in an article from 2014 entitled ‘Why Welshness Is a State of Being, Not a Question of DNA’. Citing Professor Dai Smith who famously wrote over thirty years ago, ‘Wales is a singular noun but a plural experience’, Hitt then proposes that such a plurality ‘can accommodate the Somali Welsh of Riverside; the Welsh-speaking Welsh of Snowdonia and the Boden-wearing Welsh of Monmouthshire. After all, modern Wales is built on a history of migration. Welshness is a state of being not biology.’ It is interesting to note that National Theatre Wales’ first show A Good Night Out in the Valleys (2010) sought to address these evolutions head on with their story of changing times in the Welsh Valleys. The show which toured to community venues in the area explored the changes wrought upon such communities by pit closures and deindustrialisation, as the critic Michael Billington (2010) wrote at the time: ‘“The past is a trap” is the play’s message. The valley towns, it argues, have to move on, bury the mining myths and redefine themselves.’ Billington goes on to note however that the production, at times, found itself trapped in its own myths. This is undoubtedly a central challenge for the new Curriculum for Wales, to facilitate new, plural visions of Welshness whilst simultaneously embracing history and traditions. This interrelationship between past and present in the negotiation of identity is acknowledged by Bhabha (1994) in what he refers to as the ‘double time’ of past and present. Roms (2004) draws upon this concept in her analysis of Brith Gof and Welshness: ‘Bhabha’s introduction of the performative into the national discourse creates an “interstitial perspective” (Bhabha 1994, p.  2) which makes manifest that “the people” that constitute a nation do not exist in a fixed and static manner, but are produced in what he calls the “double-time” of past and present’ (p. 180). This alertness to a fluidity in the construction of national identity reminds us of theatre’s potential to offer and engage in child-centred explorations of identity through which the national is

2  LANDSCAPES: NATIONS, POLITICS AND THEATRE EDUCATION 

55

framed through or alongside the personal and the local, the traditional hybridised with the contemporary. The significance of place in this context is fundamental. The Welsh term cynefin, originally referring to habitual tracks made in the landscape by animals, is now often used by Welsh artists and writers to evoke place, to evoke a sense of Welshness. The artist Kyffin Williams (2020) describes cynefin as ‘that relationship: the place of your birth and of your upbringing, the environment in which you live and to which you are naturally acclimatised’. In 2019, the Welsh Education Minister Kirsty Williams drew upon the term as a metaphor to galvanise the new curriculum: The principle of cynefin, I believe, is one that runs throughout the draft areas of learning and experience, and not confining itself just to the concept of teaching children about Welsh history. I want the story of Wales—its history, its language, its culture, its geography, its contribution to the world— to be a golden thread that runs through every aspect of the curriculum and I don’t think we should be confining ourselves just to the humanities AoLE16 or one particular subject. (p. 14)

Theatre and theatre education have a unique capacity to respond to place, to situate the theatrical experience in specific environments, landscapes and communities and to create work with participants that resonate with their lived culture and the particularity of their place. Back in 1945, Thomas Taig in Towards a Welsh Theatre passionately defended the need for live theatre in Welsh communities, in the face of more beguiling contemporary media: ‘In sharp contrast to the films, the living play is partly created by the audience in one place at one time, and to a much greater extent than most people would believe’ (p. 19). This theme of responsiveness and collaboration is returned to in Mike Pearson’s exploration of Welsh experimental theatre (1997) in which he refers to theatre’s capacity to negotiate a ‘complex set of contracts between two orders of participant—watchers (spectators) and watched (performers)—and in three sets of relationship: performer to performer, performer to spectator (and vice versa), spectator to spectator’ (p. 86). As will be discussed later in the text, Welsh theatre education and creative learning has sought to translate national ambitions through place-based projects. It raises the question as to whether these localised and often personalised acts of creative  AoLE—Areas of Learning and Experience within the Curriculum for Wales.

16

56 

M. CROSSLEY

expression can or should coalesce with ‘a collective act of imagination and emotional investments in belonging’ as Clarke and Garner (2010) suggest is required to bring a nation-state into being.

Bibliography Asian Dub Foundation. 2000. Real Great Britain. https://www.discogs.com/ Asian-­Dub-­Foundation-­Real-­Great-­Britain/master/77571. Atkins, Judi. 2016. (Re)imagining Magna Carta: Myth, Metaphor and the Rhetoric of Britishness. Parliamentary Affairs 69 (3): 603–620. https://doi. org/10.1093/pa/gsv057. Aughey, Arthur. 2007. The Politics of Englishness. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge. Billig, Michael. 1995. Banal Nationalism. SAGE Publications. Billington, Michael. 2010. A Good Night out in the Valleys—National Theatre Wales. https://www.nationaltheatrewales.org/ntw_shows/good-­night-­valleys/. Bradbury, Jonathan, and Andrews Rhys. 2010. State Devolution and National Identity: Continuity and Change in the Politics of Welshness and Britishness in Wales. Parliamentary Affairs 63 (2): 229–249. Brown, Ian. 2013. Scottish Theatre: Diversity, Language, Continuity. BRILL. Butterworth, Jez. 2011. Jerusalem—Show Trailer—Apollo Theatre. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=up3M7WOPsg4. Clarke, Simon, and Steve Garner. 2010. White Identities: A Critical Sociological Approach. Pluto Press. Cohen, Anthony P. 1996. Personal Nationalism: A Scottish View of Some Rites, Rights, and Wrongs. American Ethnologist 23 (4): 802–815. Denham, John. 2018. A Nation Divided? The Identities, Politics and Governance of England. Open Democracy. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/nation-­divided-­identities-­politics-­and-­governance-­of-­england/. “Drama, Theatre and Young People Manifesto”. 2020. https://dramatheatremanifesto.co.uk/. Duggan, Patrick, Victor Ukaegbu, Holly Rose, Geoffrey Fielding, Jessica Mitchell, and Tim Elameer. 2013. Reverberations Across Small-Scale British Theatre: Politics, Aesthetics and Forms. Bristol: Intellect Books. “Durham Commission on Creativity and Education”. 2019. Durham University. https://www.dur.ac.uk/creativitycommission/. “Enriching Britain: Culture, Creativity and Growth—Warwick Commission: The Future of Cultural Value”. 2015. Warwick Commission/University of Warwick. https://warwick.ac.uk/research/warwickcommission/futureculture/finalreport/warwick_commission_report_2015.pdf. Featherstone, Simon. 2009. Englishness: Twentieth-Century Popular Culture and the Forming of English Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

2  LANDSCAPES: NATIONS, POLITICS AND THEATRE EDUCATION 

57

Furedi, Frank. 2020. The Birth of the Culture Wars. Spiked. https://www.spiked-­ online.com/2020/06/19/the-­birth-­of-­the-­culture-­wars/. Gamal, Mostafa, and Dalene M.  Swanson. 2017. Nation State, Populism, and Discourses of Global Citizenship: Examples from Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence. In The Implications of ‘New Populism’ on Education, ed. Yaliz Akbaba and Bob Jeffrey. Stroud: E&E Publishing. Geliot, Emma, and Cathy Gomez. 2016. What Gives Theatre in Wales Its Radical Edge? British Council. https://theatreanddance.britishcouncil.org/ blog/2016/09/what-­gives-­theatre-­in-­wales-­its-­radical-­edge/. Hadley, Steven, and Eleonora Belfiore. 2018. Cultural Democracy and Cultural Policy. Cultural Trends 27 (3): 218–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954896 3.2018.1474009. Hearn, Jonathan. 2007. National Identity: Banal, Personal and Embedded. Nations and Nationalism 13 (4): 657–674. https://doi-­org.proxy.library. dmu.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1469-­8129.2007.00303.x. Hearn, Jonathan, and Marco Antonsich. 2018. Theoretical and Methodological Considerations for the Study of Banal and Everyday Nationalism. Nations & Nationalism 24 (3): 594–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12419. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db =aph&AN=131189551&site=ehost-­live. Holdsworth, Nadine. 2003. Travelling Across Borders: Re-Imagining the Nation and Nationalism in Contemporary Scottish Theatre. Contemporary Theatre Review 13 (2): 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/920087167. ———. 2010. Theatre and Nation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ———. 2014. Theatre and National Identity: Re-Imagining Conceptions of Nation. London: Routledge. Holdsworth, Nadine, and Mary Luckhurst, eds. 2013. A Concise Companion to Contemporary British and Irish Drama. Blackwell. Hutchison, David. 2011. The Experience and Contexts of Drama in Scotland. In Edinburgh Companion to Scottish Drama, ed. Ian Brown, 200–210. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Kelly, Owen. 1985. In Search of Cultural Democracy. Arts Express. Lewis, Lisa. 2018. Performing Wales: People, Memory and Place. Cardiff: The University of Wales Press. Little, E. 2008. Towards a Poetics of Popular Theatre: Directing and Authorship in Community-Based Work. In Collective Creation, Collaboration and Devising, ed. B. Barton. Toronto: Playwrights Canada Press. McCrae, Julian. 2020. No, Britain Isn’t in the Middle of a Culture War—And Our Discussions with Voters Proved It. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ politics/no-­b ritain-­i snt-­i n-­t he-­m iddle-­o f-­a -­c ulture-­w ar-­a nd-­o ur-­f ocus-­ groups-­prove-­it. McCrone, David. 2005. Cultural Capital in an Understated Nation: The Case of Scotland. The British Journal of Sociology 56 (1): 65–82. https://onlinelibrary-­

58 

M. CROSSLEY

wiley-­com.proxy.library.dmu.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-­4446.2005. 00047.x. Nairn, Tom. 1977. The Break Up of Britain. London: New Left Books. Nairn, Tom, and Paul James. 2005. Global Matrix: Nationalism, Globalism and State-Terrorism. Pluto Press. “National Identity in the Context of the National Curricula of Scotland and England”. 2014. https://nationalismstudies.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/ national-­i dentity-­i n-­t he-­c ontext-­o f-­t he-­n ational-­c urricula-­o f-­s cotland-­ and-­england/. Nicholson, Helen. 2011. Theatre, Education and Performance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Ofsted. 2006. Towards Consensus? Citizenship in Secondary Schools. London: Ofsted/HMI 2666. Pearce, Mike. 2013. Roy Williams. In MODERN BRITISH PLAYWRITING: 2000–2009 Voices, Documents, New Interpretations, ed. Dan Rebellato, 145–168. London: Bloomsbury. Pearson, Mike. 1997. Special Worlds, Secret Maps: A Poetics of Performance. In Staging Wales: Welsh Theatre 1979–1997, ed. Anne-Marie Taylor, 85–99. Cardiff: The University of Wales Press. Rebellato, Dan. 2013. From the State of the Nation to Globalisation: Shifting Political Agendas in Contemporary British Playwriting. In A Concise Companion to Contemporary British and Irish Drama, ed. Nadine Holdsworth and Mary Luckhurst, 245–262. Blackwell. Reid, Trish. 2013. Theatre and Scotland. Palgrave Macmillan. Robert Colls, and Philip Dodd. 2014. Englishness: Politics and Culture 1880–1920. Bloomsbury Academic. Roms, Heike. 2004. Performing Polis: Theatre, Nationness and Civic Identity in Post-Devolution Wales. Article. Studies in Theatre & Performance 24 (3): 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1386/stap.24.3.177/0. Taig, Thomas. 1945. Towards a Welsh Theatre (3). Wales IV (6): 16–21. Welsh Journals—The National Library of Wales. https://journals.library.wales/ view/1214989/1215897/17. Telegraph. BBC. Daily. 2000. What Is Britishness? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ uk/966849.stm. “Time to Listen”. 2018. RSC, Tate, University of Nottingham and Arts Council England. Williams, Kyffin. 2020. About—Cynefin. Open Fund PRS Foundation. https:// cynefinmusic.wales/en/about. Wilson, Nick, Gross Jonathan, and Anna Bull. 2017. Towards Cultural Democracy: Promoting Cultural Capabilities for Everyone. Kings College London. https:// www.kcl.ac.uk/cultural/resources/reports/towards-­cultural-­democracy-­2017­kcl.pdf. Wooster, Roger. 2007. Contemporary Theatre in Education. Bristol: Intellect Books.

CHAPTER 3

Departures: Creative and Cultural Journeys Across Great Britain

Setting the Scene—Post-war to the 1990s The post-war years of education were a paradoxical mix of progression and reaction. The 1944 Education Act, originally envisaged in 1936 but postponed due to the war, saw a radical re-organisation of public education into primary, secondary and tertiary levels and made education compulsory for eleven- to fifteen-year-olds with a tripartite system of grammar schools, technical schools and secondary modern schools.1 Whilst offering some degree of opportunity for emancipation of the working classes the educational reforms of the 1940s through to the 1960s were by no means a series of unending progressive increments. The tripartite system still segregated learners into preconditioned pathways of privilege, profession and relative poverty and the pedagogy and methodology of schooling often remained arcane, as Roger Wooster identifies in Theatre in Education in Britain (2016): ‘It has become accepted wisdom that these post-War years were a hotbed of progressive pedagogic approaches and this view needs to be tempered. There was a real desire for the young to have a better life, accessed through education but new educational approaches were not 1  Important to note, however, that in Scotland the 1944 Act was more of a consolidation of existing provision as compulsory secondary education had been in place for over a decade (Patterson 2001).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Crossley, Contemporary Theatre Education and Creative Learning, Palgrave Studies In Play, Performance, Learning, and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63738-5_3

59

60 

M. CROSSLEY

uniform and most children remained seated in serried ranks’ (p.  19). Wooster refers to the ‘functionality’ of the education system at the time as it demarcated thinkers, designers and labourers: ‘There are those who we are going to train to think, those who will design and craft what the thinkers have thought of, and there are those who will toil at making the things that others have thought of and designed’ (ibid.).2 The creation of the Arts Council in 1946,3 which at that time covered all of Great Britain (hence ACGB) emerged in parallel to these educational reforms but any emphasis on children and young people was not an immediate priority for the new organisation with little if any correlation to the educational reforms of that period. The Culture at Kings report from 2014, entitled Step by Step: Arts Policy and Young People 1944–2014, notes: ‘From the start, young people were a subject of discussion within the Council. Secretary-General Mary Glasgow noted in a 1946 paper on the topic that there was “nothing in the Council’s Charter that limits interest to adults”. However, in the 20 years that followed neither government nor the Arts Council did very much about it’ (p. 10). Anthony Jackson refers to this void in provision as an ‘anomaly’ which wasn’t corrected until ‘increased pressure from many quarters’ (2013, p.  22) resulted in action during the mid-1960s. The government were, to some extent, responding to the growing realisation that the public had, as part of a civic society, a need and a right to cultural recreation and access to and participation in artistic works. In 1964, Jennie Lee was appointed as the first government minister for the arts. Shortly after in 1965 the government produced the white paper entitled A Policy for the Arts: The First Steps. Within this paper were the nascent recognitions of the benefit of the arts to young people and the entitlement they deserved. In the policy Lee wrote: ‘If children at an early age become accustomed to the idea of the arts as a part of everyday life, they are more likely in maturity first to accept them and then to demand them’ (1965, p. 14). As the Culture at Kings report recognises, the white paper ‘set a precedent for all subsequent UK government interventions in the arts. It established that there was a need for government to take an interest in the 2  In 1965, the Labour government sought to extend the comprehensive school system, phasing out secondary moderns and grammar schools in all of Wales and most, but not all, of England. 3   ACGB developed from the Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts (CEMA).

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

61

arts sector, legitimized by a democratic mandate that sought to expand and enhance the benefit of the arts for the widest possible number of people in the country’ (2014, p. 11). However, the interpretation of ‘take an interest’ and ‘expand and enhance’ by subsequent governments is often at the very crux of the matter and similar sounding intentions over the years are often underpinned by radically divergent ideologies and methodologies, fundamentally impacting the curriculum as well as access to and funding of the arts for children and young people. Theatre’s potential in relation to young people and education specifically began to gain profile in the 1960s with the Arts Council launching a Young People’s Theatre Enquiry in 1965. In the same year, Gordon Vallins and the team at the Belgrade Theatre in Coventry initiated what came to be recognised as the first identifiable theatre in education (TIE) programme which ran across the city and quickly gained global acclaim, the significance and influence of which will be revisited in Chap. 4. The 1965 enquiry exposed significant flaws within the sector including an inconsistent offer being made by theatres to young people and a misrepresentation of drama within schools, with poor-quality drama practice often being observed or reported. These findings prompted the creation of a Young People’s Theatre Panel and some funding to support the development of the sector. The Culture at Kings report highlights the significance of these parallel developments in the mid-1960s: ‘The Secretary-General of the Arts Council would later reflect: ‘Two important developments during the 60s and 70s were the Arts Council’s decision to provide subsidy for Young People’s Theatre, and the consequent burgeoning of this together with Theatre-in-Education’ (p. 12). In 1967, separate semi-autonomous arts councils for Wales and Scotland were established by Royal Charter although this did not necessarily result in a greater profile for, or understanding of, drama and theatre in each nation.4 Although there was some lack of consistency within the new Arts Councils strategies, the trend within the comprehensive

4  For example, in Parliament in 1967 Emlyn Hooson, the MP for Montgomeryshire, asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many members of the new Welsh Arts Council had ‘any professional experience of theatre administration or as theatre producers or actors or playwrights’? The answer from the minister was ‘Two’, after which Hooson also asked, with some exasperation if a tone in Hansard can be interpreted: ‘Why the Welsh Arts Council has not had a person or persons particularly nominated as an adviser or advisers on drama?’ (Hansard Dec. 1967).

62 

M. CROSSLEY

education system was more cohesive in its gradual adoption of ‘progressive’5 methodologies of teaching, privileging learner-centred approaches that were influenced by the educational philosophy of John Dewey. This approach, with its emphasis on practical exploration, collaboration, problem solving and the innate knowledge of the child created a fertile environment for theatre and drama to flourish within and in collaboration with the school system. However, the uncertainty, disinterest or animosity towards the place of education within or through the arts persisted throughout the 1970s and beyond and arguably haunts the debates and decision-making of the twenty-first century. For decades, arts education has fallen between several strategic agencies or departments as stakeholders struggle to address where the nexus between arts and education lies—the Departments for Education, the Department for ‘Culture’,6 the Arts Councils and/or their subsidiaries? and in correlation to that—Who is entitled to articulate judgements as to what is of value in the arts for children and young people? An attempt to bring clarity to this obfuscated intersection was the Arts Council’s first education policy published, after three years of consultation, in 1983. Entitled The Arts Council and Education: A Policy Statement, it proposed a variety of action points, the principles of which are still central tenets of today’s Arts Councils educational philosophy, notably the ambition ‘To adopt as a prime assessment criterion “the extent and quality of efforts made to broaden the social composition of audiences, to develop response and to increase involvement in the arts”’ (1983, p. 34). This focus on broadening social composition in the spectatorship, but crucially in the creation of arts has recently found renewed authority and priority, as evidenced in the current Creative People and Places strategy and the latest Let’s Create strategic plan for 2020–30. Looking back at the early 1980s policy statement in isolation there would be a degree of optimism in the direction of travel for the arts and education, as witnessed in the growing number of theatre in education practitioners and many other applied theatre-makers across a variety of contexts including prisons, healthcare, therapeutic practice, community 5  Progressive educational philosophies were practised in certain British schools from the end of the nineteenth century, including Cecil Reddie’s Abbotsholme (1889) and A.S. Neill’s Summerhill, founded in 1921. 6  Culture has resided in a number of manifestations of ministerial departments including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (under New Labour) and currently the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

63

theatre and beyond. But as Anthony Jackson argues in reference to theatre in education during this period: ‘By 1980 the picture was not as bright as it might have appeared on the surface’ (2013: p. 28), citing many losses of practitioners into broader community theatre practice and short-term TIE employment generated by government job creation schemes which were at the mercy of policy shifts. The change in the arts funding ecology during that period set the pattern for many future models and undoubtedly has correspondence with the current reality. In that regard, the Compendium of Cultural Policies & Trends recent retrospective assessment of the 1980s may, in addition, be regarded as a redolent portrait of the present day: While remaining committed to the principle of public sector support, the Government required arts and culture organisations to look for new sources of revenue to supplement their income. In the years that followed, the financing of arts/culture developed from one in which the emphasis was primarily on public sector support to become largely a mixed funding model with public funds representing a diminishing proportion of the income of cultural organisations. (2019)

Despite a certain resistance to progressive educational ideals throughout the 1960s and 1970s,7 advocates for arts education in schools were still notable in the 1980s, including Ken Robinson who, at the Schools’ Curriculum Development Committee authored a draft National Curriculum Development Project in the Arts which set out in detail what an arts curriculum may cover, how it could be taught and then tested. Yet this project never found traction in central government as various white papers and consultation documents in the early to mid-1980s (e.g. the 1985 Better Schools white paper) reflected an increasing focus from the Conservatives on centralising curriculum control. This process eventually culminated in The Educational Reform Act (ERA) of 1988 which 7  A certain resistance to progressive educational ideals had always been in attendance throughout the 1960s and 1970s with regular conservative iterations from within government. It is notable that even as early as the late 1960s the first in a series of ‘Black Papers’ were being published which criticised what the authors believed was excessive progressivism within schools. In 1970, Margaret Thatcher was appointed Education Secretary and in 1975 one of the ‘Black Papers’ proposed a new series of exams at 7, 11 and 14, ushering in the now entrenched mind-set of formal and nationally accountable testing and examinations throughout a child’s school years which continues to this day, certainly within England.

64 

M. CROSSLEY

established the framework for the National Curriculum.8 It was here that the arts became segmented and placed on a lowly rung within a new hierarchy of core and foundation subjects excluding drama, which effectively placed an external, governmental prescription on which subjects had status and relevance to a young person’s life.9 For most of the commentators on theatre education, the ERA is perceived to have had a significantly detrimental impact on the status and consequently the funding of theatre and drama practice within schools and theatre companies working within education. Roger Wooster argued that: ‘For TIE, ERA represented an attack on the pedagogy, funding, relationships with schools and content of the work, both contextual and thematic’ (2016: p. 82). He notes how the facility to opt out of LEA control and the incentive for schools to compete for pupils impacted the co-ordination of projects and tours, reflecting how, ‘for the first time, market forces were introduced into education’ (p. 83). Whilst the curriculum was managed centrally, schools themselves gained greater autonomy under Local Management of Schools provision, a feature which continues to fundamentally impact theatre education strategy and quality in England. Any standard or sustained approach to arts provision in formal education was now under question, as highlighted again in the Culture at Kings report10 (2014, p. 15). Roger Wooster (2016) carefully documents theatre in education’s response to the new National Curriculum at the time. He notes that whilst many TIE companies sought to respond pragmatically to the new curriculum with teaching resources related to learning objectives, to others ‘such a compromise with Thatcher’s behemoth was anathema’ (2016, p.  83). This perspective is echoed by Rob Elkington as he contends, like Wooster, that companies themselves at 8  Resonating with the 1944 Education Act in its somewhat patriarchal ambitions it was underpinned by two principle aims: ‘to promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils, and to prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life’. It was structured within Key Stages and was subject orientated with an emphasis on the core subjects of English, Mathematics and Science. 9  ‘Foundation subjects’ were outlined as secondary to the core, encompassing certain humanities and art and music but crucially not embracing dance or drama. Both these subjects were relegated to sub-strata within Physical Education and English respectively. The curriculum at each Key Stage was now prescribed centrally through a ‘Programme of Study’, which also included a scale of attainment targets to prescribe and measure assessment. 10  Culture at Kings report states, ‘Many concerns related to the fact that under Local Management of Schools, some schools charged pupils for after-hours arts activities, such as visits to theatre or music tuition, while others chose to forgo them altogether’ (2014, p. 15).

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

65

times lacked the agility to change: ‘TIE started to die in about 1992 as soon as the local management of schools came in and there weren’t the LEAs who gave out large sums of money. Many companies went very quickly because they weren’t prepared or equipped to adapt to new situations.’ By the turn of that decade into the 1990s there was a complex and contradictory picture of theatre education in Great Britain. On the one hand GCSEs and the relatively new A Level Drama, created by Gordon Vallins during his time at Stratford on Avon College,11 were established features of the curriculum with well-trained practitioners in place in schools delivering drama and theatre-based curricula. Despite some severe cuts, many theatre in education companies continued to produce programmes of work and tour to schools. Likewise, regional theatres, supported by Arts Councils funding and strategy, had developed sophisticated and well-respected outreach programmes. Many of the practitioners I spoke to who had worked throughout the 1980s and early 1990s also remembered them as fertile times for theatre education. Christopher Davies of Bamboozle recalled his time at the Leicestershire advisory service during that period: I joined it in its heyday in the 1980s when it was led by Bob Staunton. There was eight members of the drama advisory team, four in dance, two in design, with a TIE company at Knighton Fields and over thirty youth theatres in the county. The Leicestershire advisory team even had a venue in Edinburgh every year.

Such positive practices, replicated in many areas of the country, were however slowly overshadowed by the political shift towards neo-liberalism and the alignment of educational and economical imperatives which occurred, as David Davis et al. (2014) note, both under the Conservative and Labour governments of the next twenty years. In George Monbiot’s description, ‘Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers 11  In our conversations, Gordon Vallins recalled the instinct behind the creation of the new A Level Drama: ‘Students said “Gordon can’t we get an A level for this” so I sat down with some colleagues wrote a Drama syllabus and sent it off to AEB and got it accepted.’

66 

M. CROSSLEY

benefits that could never be achieved by planning’ (2017). The impact of neo-liberal global economics is frequently attended to by theatre educators and at its most impassioned the criticism is visceral, with Davis for example writing that it is ‘a culture that is the embodiment of the worship of the market, finance and the commodification of everything. There is a viciousness here, under the thinnest of pretended disguises. It is the voice of globalisation’ (2014). Monbiot goes on to argue however: ‘Neoliberalism’s triumph also reflects the failure of the left. […] This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years’ (2017). Globalisation in and of itself is arguably not the principal culprit in the current crisis of drama and theatre within schools or the financial strains within arts funding across Great Britain. The specific border crossings of cultural forms and knowledge exchange that are inherent within globalisation have unquestionably brought innovations into theatre education, from the European avant-garde of ASSITEJ12 to the intercultural collaborations and dialogues informing the practitioners in this text. The neo-­ liberal economic model has been dominant in Great Britain throughout the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, a period in which the fortune of the arts and arts education has waxed and waned. Therefore, whilst arguments for the systemic dismantling of neo-liberal economic models may be respected, these have a debatable degree of traction in the immediate term when considering how best to re-energise and recalibrate theatre education as there is demonstrably a range of complex factors affecting its status.

The Roads Begin to Part In the mid- to late 1990s, there were two major shifts in the decentralising of authority which are fundamental to the themes of this text. First, there came the decision in 1994 to disassemble the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) and fully devolve decision making and budgetary control to each of the nations within the UK.  As noted earlier, semi-autonomous arts councils had existed in Scotland and Wales since 1967 but now full statutory powers were transferred on 1 September 1995 for separate bodies initially named as the Arts Council of England, the Scottish Arts Council, 12  ASSITEJ: The International Association of Theatre for Children and Young People. See ‘How Did We Get Here?’ section for further discussion of the organisation.

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

67

the Arts Council of Wales and the Arts Council of Northern Ireland. This devolution of arts councils coincided with the instigation of the National Lottery in the UK which has since made a major contribution of funding for each of these national bodies. This decision to create four separate arts councils and the subsequent manifestations of these bodies and their national objectives played a fundamental role in shaping the distinct trajectories for theatre’s relationship to education in each nation. In later years, the Arts Council of England would be merged with the ten regional arts boards to become Arts Council England in 2003 and Creative Scotland was created in 2010 with the amalgamation of Scottish Screen and the Scottish Arts Council. The arrival of the Labour government in 1997, led by Tony Blair, heralded the second major change. In September 1997, referendums were held on establishing a Scottish Parliament and a National Assembly for Wales. Both institutions were approved with majorities (74% in Scotland and 50.3% in Wales) and brought into law with devolution acts in 1998, each parliament taking over legislative control on 1 July 1999. The Scottish Parliament immediately had a broad range of powers including some degree of tax raising, extended in the intervening years with full devolution of income tax powers transferred with the 2016 Scotland Act. The National Assembly of Wales (renamed the Welsh Parliament/Senedd Cymru in Spring 2020) began with a more limited remit of devolved powers but has likewise secured a greater degree of autonomy over the years. The Westminster government however still retains some degree of control over income tax in Wales. What follows from here then is an initial focus on England, its own particular journey from New Labour to the present Conservative administration of 2020, and the fluctuating priorities of creativity and culture. The distinct paths taken by Scotland and Wales will then be returned to in the latter part of the chapter. To untie the political and cultural links entirely at this point would of course be unwise as the Westminster parliament in England still plays a significant role in UK politics throughout the first decades of the twenty-first century and testament to this is the recent Brexit decision made by Westminster, which impacted all of the nations despite distinctly divergent national votes. However, the devolution of governance and arts councils at the end of the twentieth century mark key turning points in the national narratives of cultural policy and arts education and require some discreet attention at this point.

68 

M. CROSSLEY

England—The Semantics of Creativity and Culture The New Labour years, particularly at the end of the twentieth century, have become synonymous with the creative industries and creativity or at least an emphasis on the instrumental and economic potential of creativity, depending on your perspective. The Blair administration of 1997 had been ushered in on a wave of cultural patriotism, badged at the time as ‘Cool Britannia’ due to a famous Vanity Fair article from March of that year. The term was actually first used in 1967 as the title of a minute-long song by the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band and then appropriated in the dying embers of the John Major Conservative government in 1996. In a press release at the time, the Department of National Heritage, led by Virginia Bottomley, stated: ‘Our fashion, music and culture are the envy of our European neighbours. This abundance of talent, together with our rich heritage, makes “Cool Britannia” an obvious choice for visitors from all over the world.’ I pause to recount this blurring of authorial lines as it acts, I would argue, as something of a parallel for the obfuscation of responsibility in the journey of theatre and drama towards curricula isolation. The point being that there is often an assumption that the Labour government of the late 1990s and early 2000s stretched every sinew to advance the cause of the arts and therein arts in education. This demarcation, akin to who coined ‘Cool Britannia’, is a little simplistic in its revisionist desire to align political sentiment with cultural and artistic trends as the sophisticated techniques of theatre education were continuing to be developed in the Thatcher and Major years of the 1980s and early 1990s. Admittedly their ingenuity was frequently propelled by the financial and political constraints of that period yet by whatever means, practitioner creativity still moved on apace. Wooster argues that in the early 1990s companies were ‘increasingly pedagogically sophisticated’ (2016, p. 85), partly in response to the challenges of curricula and funding changes but also because TIE had, by that point, over twenty-five years of development and refinement to draw upon since its inception at The Belgrade Theatre, and theatre education had a broader pool of national and international practices to absorb inspiration from, including the international influence of practitioners nurtured through ASSITEJ. This existing base of skills, knowledge and innovation is acknowledged in the introduction to the oft cited report All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education (1999) in which current (late 1990s) good

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

69

practice in schools and outreach was highlighted. This seminal review, referenced across Great Britain and globally, was led by Ken Robinson on behalf of the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education and set the tone for many of the reviews which followed in the next thirty years as it brought together leading figures from academia with chief executives and directors from the commercial world of performance and entertainment as well as notable cultural celebrities including Dawn French and Lenny Henry. Rob Elkington identifies the report’s dual priorities of creative and cultural education: ‘All Our Futures was creative and cultural learning; it was both things together. It emphasised the importance to practice the arts as disciplines but also the importance to recognise that we need to develop a set of cultural skills and dispositions for the future. It wasn’t an either/or; it was both.’ It made an immediate and explicit correlation between the potential for creativity to enhance cultural development, as it stated in the introduction: ‘The engine of cultural change is the human capacity for creative thought and action’ (1999, p. 6). Its definitions of creativity and culture have become touchstones for much of the ensuing research in this field and are still regularly cited, as will be observed in Creativity and creative learning. Creativity is the first of these two terms which the report articulated and defined. It stated: Our starting point is to recognize four characteristics of creative processes. First, they always involve thinking or behaving imaginatively. Second, overall this imaginative activity is purposeful: that is, it is directed to achieving an objective. Third, these processes must generate something original. Fourth, the outcome must be of value in relation to the objective. We therefore define creativity as: Imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both original and of value. (1999, p. 30)

Creativity was given centre stage within the report’s thematic structure and its applicability across all educational subject areas is carefully foregrounded. It is noteworthy that the findings were unapologetic about connecting creativity to economic imperatives and the business and technological challenges of the twenty-first century (1999, p. 7). Their definition of culture was phrased as ‘The shared values and patterns of behaviour that characterize different social groups and communities’ (p. 47). The report’s social definition of cultural values as ‘the ideas,

70 

M. CROSSLEY

beliefs, attitudes—which the group considers worthy and important, and which it holds in common as a group’ (p. 46) has resonance for the explorations in this book as it emphasises culture’s centrality in forming identity, from personal to civic and national. All Our Futures was quickly followed by, and to some extent influenced Curriculum 2000 which overhauled post 16 A Level qualifications with a shift to a modular structure and the capacity to study a stand-alone AS Level. The number of enrolments on A and AS Level Drama and Theatre rose steadily as a result of this change, climbing to over 14,000 by 2005–6,13 aided in part by the increase in recruitment at Key Stage 4 with new GCSE options within Drama which included Applied GCSEs and a raft of vocational qualifications.14 By this period at the start of the new millennium, as will be considered further in ‘How Did We Get Here?’, there was a demonstrable movement towards a theatrical skills base within drama and theatre qualifications. In the previous decades this approach, notably advocated by David Hornbrook, had in the view of many observers been sublimated in preference for the process drama pedagogy of Dorothy Heathcote and Gavin Bolton. For some, a false dichotomy was created between these two domains of teaching and learning, as Chris Cooper from Big Brum TIE argued: ‘Hornbrook, whilst decrying the practice of DIE developed by Bolton and Heathcote, was advocating the reduction of drama to a subject whose study was theatre arts. In my opinion there is no substance to their argument that DIE neglected the art form.’ (2013, p. 43) Whatever the misunderstandings may have been, the substantive point in terms of shifts within curricula and assessment was irrefutable. The 1990s saw the crucial turn in theatre education within schools as process-­ led enquiry transitioned into a discipline-led, domain-specific curricula. Primary level and Key Stage 3 classes still retained a significant degree of TIE-based practices, often led by teachers trained in Heathcote or Bolton methodologies or informed by the work of more recent pioneers including Cecily O’Neill, but within the plethora of assessments across GCSE, BTEC, AVCE, GNVQ and A Level the momentum was towards the 13  Data from Department for Education and Skills January 2007 report GCE/VCE A/AS and Equivalent Examination Results in England, 2005/2006 (Revised). 14   New vocational qualifications included General National Vocational qualifications (GNVQs) and Advanced Vocational Certificates (AVCEs) in Performing Arts which could be taken at Levels 2 and 3 (GCSE and A Level equivalent).

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

71

learning of and through the téchne of theatre craft. The ‘V’ of vocationality was now in the ascendency, given credence by the economic imperatives attended to in All Our Futures and the rise of the creative industries under the Labour government. Numbers on such courses rose significantly within the first decade of this century, so by all external measures the drama and theatre educational culture was in rude health but, according to Chris Cooper, this masked underlying pedagogical weaknesses. In 2013, citing the unfounded separation created between drama and theatre, he wrote that such an accusation …supported the reductionist thinking behind the present drama curriculum, one that is largely vacuous and almost totally focused on skills paradoxically undermining of the art form of theatre itself. This skills-based approach to examination-level drama in British schools separates form and content. It’s important to note that many teachers recognise that form and content are interdependent and make meaningful drama with their students despite the curriculum, but the constraints it places on teachers are profound. (p. 43)

The National Curriculum at primary level had not changed at this stage but the new Creative Partnership Scheme (2002–10) seemed to offer the same potential for impact through arts-based creative learning across all age ranges. The Culture at Kings 2014 report argued that ‘Creative Partnerships was profoundly significant and very different from what had gone before’ (2014, p. 16) and certainly its scale and ambition suggested that to be the case. Its aim was to pursue specific educational outcomes through creativity in schools by brokering and facilitating partnerships between professional creative artists and education providers. It received large-scale funding amounting to tens of millions of pounds from the Department for Education and Skills and the Arts Council, boosted by National Lottery revenues, and over 1 million children and 90,000 teachers were involved across over 8000 projects. Rob Elkington, who during that time was Director of Creative Partnerships Birmingham, underscores the scale and reach of Creative Partnerships during that time: ‘Creative Partnerships was specifically focused on school improvement, school change, young people’s creative development and building a cadre of artists who could do that. It was a specific programme to deliver some specific policy aims. To enable this it had a whole infrastructure with a national director and top-down management.’ Many of the artists interviewed and referenced in this text acknowledge the importance of Creative Partnerships

72 

M. CROSSLEY

in the development of their practice and the profile of their companies during that period, so when the coalition government cut funding for the scheme in 2010 it was a major jolt to theatre education. The reality behind the decision, however, reveals the fundamental political and ideological shift, at that point, away from an emphasis on creativity with its connotations of New Labour, and likewise raises questions over the Arts Council’s consistency of commitment to children and young people’s access to the arts, as Elkington recalls how ‘Creative Partnerships were the first things that the Arts Council offered up to be cut after the 2010 election. £60 million for young people gone and nobody batted an eyelid.’ Over subsequent years there has been an amalgam of views over Creative Partnerships accomplishments. Helen Nicholson writing in 2011 shortly after the scheme ended, lamented that ‘the British government’s decision to withdraw funding from the highly successful Creative Partnership scheme in 2010 is a retrograde step that will rob young people of the opportunity to develop artistically and acquire cultural capital, particularly in areas of social deprivation’ (p. 103). Conversely, the broad remit of the initiative made it vulnerable to criticism, as the Culture at Kings report acknowledges: ‘Creative Partnerships in effect conflated the concepts of creativity and the arts, and with multiple stakeholders and multiple intended outcomes it was difficult to account for its overall impact.’ (2014, p. 16) In replacement for Creative Partnerships, a number of regional bridge organisations were established, working across England, with a sector support remit, tasked with specific targets aimed at developing a ‘network of cultural provision’, as Arts Council England phrases it. Building this provision is centred around the promotion of Artsmark, the Arts Award15 and creating networks for artists and educators. Currently, the Arts Council funds ten of these organisations to the tune of £10 million per year, including Arts Connect in the West Midlands region (directed by Rob Elkington), We are IVE in Yorkshire and Humber and The Mighty Creatives in the East Midlands. The remit of these organisations and the financial budgets ringfenced for them bring a mixed reaction when in conversation with 15  Artsmark is the only creative quality standard for schools and education settings, accredited by Arts Council England. Arts Awards are a series of qualifications introduced in 2005 and awarded by Trinity College London. There are five levels—Discover, Explore, Bronze, Silver and Gold which are designed to be accessible from ages 5–25 including children within SEN.  Each requires a specific number of guided and independent learning hours and is assessed via a portfolio or arts log.

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

73

artists. Chris Elwell from Half Moon Theatre reflected a number of people’s frustrations over the constraints of Artsmark and Arts Award: ‘If we are not careful, it is very easy to let the requirement by the Arts Council for National Portfolio Organisations like Half Moon to deliver Artsmark and Arts Award in a uniform, tick-box way. It is better that we create our own methodology and way of working through our bespoke programmes with schools and young people, even if it doesn’t always seem as orthodox: we still get the same results.’ Nettie Scriven, one of the co-Artistic Directors of Dragon Breath Theatre in Nottingham, reflected how there were ‘big differences between Creative Partnerships and bridge organisations. The bridge organisations grew out of Creative Partnerships, but their role is different. There was a freedom in Creative Partnerships, and artists felt structurally embedded within it as researchers and makers.’ Scriven’s co-­Artistic Director Peter Rumney noted that the bridge is very focused on ‘young people’s voices, which invites artists to reflect carefully on their practice and methodology, and which might impact on the nature of their work’. Elkington is equally clear upon the bridge’s prioritisation of youth voice, when stating, ‘We’re not tasked to serve the interests of a single cultural organisation, we’re here to put young people first and if what an organisation is doing is not good enough then it is our duty to provide challenge—in an elegant way—and offer ideas, connections and resources to support their development, if they choose to.’ The end of the first decade of the new century and the decline and ultimate demise in 2010 of the Labour government signalled an identifiable recalibration from the promotion of creativity towards an accentuation of culture. This ambition was pursued by the newly elected coalition government, particularly the Conservatives, as a means of creating distance from the previous administration but more specifically as an opportunity to occupy and direct the contested territories of cultural identity and the cultural agenda within the country. It was also notably adopted as a strategy by Arts Council England as evident in Get It: The Power of Cultural Learning, published in 2009 by the Culture and Learning Consortium, comprising Arts Council England alongside a variety of charitable foundations including Clore Duffield and Calouste Gulbenkian as well as the Heritage Lottery Fund.16 The Executive Summary pronounces: ‘The consultation has clearly revealed a shared belief that cultural learning 16   The report’s recommendations led to the creation of the Cultural Learning Alliance (CLA).

74 

M. CROSSLEY

has the potential to transform people’s lives, and that realizing this potential will require changing the way in which cultural learning is valued and practiced in schools and other learning organizations’ (2009, p. 5). In the Preface, they address the amorphous terms culture and cultural learning, offering a more specific, arts-centric definition than All Our Futures: The implied definition of ‘culture’ within this report is the arts and heritage, embracing artefacts and works of art, literature and the performing arts. We are talking about: Culture, in all its richness and diversity, experienced as listening, playing, seeing, watching and interacting, performing and composing, making, writing and doing Cultural learning taking place within and beyond schools and other learning institutions, and within all kinds of cultural and heritage organisations. (p. 3)

It is notable that this report was published after twelve years of a Labour government which has often been credited with supporting and funding arts education and yet the report still highlights significant weaknesses in the relationship between education and the arts sectors. ‘The consultation showed that links between cultural organisations and the learning sector— and particularly with schools—have strengthened over the last ten years. Some go on “a journey of shared vision for culture and creativity”. However, other respondents revealed insufficient understanding of, and empathy with, each other’s interests, priorities, activities and pressures’ (2009, p. 22). Many of the recommendations, from promoting cultural learning within the curriculum, building more cohesive national and regional partnerships between cultural and educational organisations, to developing training for educators, are returned to again and again in subsequent reports and superficially would be enthusiastically endorsed by ministers and in governmental reports including Gove’s 2013 Cultural Education summary. The change in 2010 to the coalition government led by David Cameron and the subsequent Conservative governments which now (as of 2020) enjoy a clear majority in parliament have led, in the view of most commentators, to further curtailments in the scope and status of the arts in the curriculum. The 2010 Academies Act and 2011 Education Act ushered in a transformation of the English education landscape. Greater powers were transferred to the Secretary of State for Education and, as a signal of the

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

75

greater emphasis on regulation and prescription, Ofqual’s chief executive became the ‘chief regulator’. Academies of schools had much greater autonomy over their budgets and their curriculum although most stayed within the prescribed boundaries of the National Curriculum which was overhauled again in 2013 with implementation from 2014 onwards. At an initial glance, drama was given some prominence within this framework, as expressed within the English subject guidance: All pupils should be enabled to participate in and gain knowledge, skills and understanding associated with the artistic practice of drama. Pupils should be able to adopt, create and sustain a range of roles, responding appropriately to others in role. They should have opportunities to improvise, devise and script drama for one another and a range of audiences, as well as to rehearse, refine, share and respond thoughtfully to drama and theatre performances. (2014, p. 15)

Without adequate drama provision within a school, however,17 such aspirations risk becoming isolated to ‘activities’ within an English classroom rather than embodied experiences with a specialist teacher. Drama and dance as discreet subjects were excluded from the ‘foundation subjects’ unlike music and art and design, and even those latter subjects were not compulsory components of any Key Stage 4 curriculum. Closing the door ever further on the arts was the introduction of the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) which worked in tandem with the new National Curriculum. It sought to give even greater status to the core and selected foundation subjects by ringfencing them as the ‘rigorous GCSEs’ (2010, p.  2). A variety of humanities subjects were accepted under the EBacc, including everything from Hebrew to Hindi but neither music nor art and design were admissible. This new initiative hermetically sealed the curriculum around a set of prescribed subjects with an overt hierarchy, at the foot of which sat the performing arts. Sam Cairns is unequivocal regarding the EBacc: ‘It’s like the 1905 curriculum. It’s a very old fashioned, grammar school approach. We asked for the evidence as to why the EBacc subjects were picked but it’s never been produced.’ The message to children, parents and schools was to prioritise the EBacc as this was the key measure 17  Department for Education figures highlight a fall of 20% in the number of drama teachers between 2010 and 2018. Data from National Statistics School workforce in England: November 2018.

76 

M. CROSSLEY

that the ‘regulator’ would focus and report upon and which sixth forms, colleges and universities would value. It is difficult to affirm the precise rationale for the current curriculum design as the government overtly frames it as egalitarian whilst, in diametric opposition, critics alert us to what they perceive as its regressive and utilitarian undertones. Cairns instincts as to its specific influences are however stridently echoed by two contributors to Learning Through Theatre: The Changing Face of Theatre in Education (2013). David Pammenter is clear in his view: ‘Our education system, with some welcome exceptions, has little to do with critical thinking and authentic human development. It has everything to do with the demands of a post-industrial and technological society and the economic imperatives of a neo-liberal New World Order’ (p. 87). Charles N. Adams JR, citing the research of Michael Apple, argues that ‘schools work as machines that reproduce hegemonic and ideological relations through knowledge selection and transmission (and in some cases the withholding of knowledge), ultimately positioning people in society so that cultural control and economic relations, the status quo, are maintained (Apple 2004: 30)’ (p.  289). These perspectives were echoed in recent conversations with practitioners, including Justine Themen from the Belgrade Theatre in Coventry: ‘There are cultural hierarchies reflected in the English education system—they don’t want equality, independent thinking, creative problem solving because it would challenge their autonomy and their place at the top of that hierarchy.’ There is a clear inference of cultural hegemony within Themen’s observation, as notably articulated by Antonio Gramsci in the early twentieth century. Gramsci, an Italian Marxist philosopher, proposed this hegemony as the domination by a cultural elite over a culturally divergent population. Robert Dombroski (1986) wrote that for Gramsci culture had perennially been utilised as a means of perpetuating dominant cultures and suppressing dissonant voices to such cultures: Culture must not be equated with the encyclopaedic accumulation and ordering of knowledge, for people—he writes in “Socialism and Culture”—are not “mere receptacles to be stuffed full of empirical data and a mass of unconnected raw facts which have to be filed in the brain as in the columns of a dictionary.” Such a concept of culture, he adds […] implies that ­intellectual value consists in the quantification of knowledge, thus creating “maladjusted people […] who believe that they are superior to the rest of humanity because they have memorized a certain number of facts and dates” which they invariably use as a “barrier between themselves and others”. (p. 92)

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

77

Culture, within which theatre was central for Gramsci, was equitable with criticism and must therefore be a means of resisting such hierarchies rather than corroborating a cultural stasis. This is clear in Gramsci’s own explication of culture from 1917, which holds within it a nascent articulation of cultural democracy: ‘I give culture this meaning: exercise of thought, acquisition of general ideas, habit of connecting causes and effects […] I believe that it means thinking well, whatever one thinks, and therefore acting well, whatever one does’ (2002, p. 73). A proposition of culture, and therein cultural learning, as a critical and contentious territory, a site of resistance and heterogeneity, offers a resonant counterpoint to many of the current evocations of culture which will uniformly valorise it, emphasise our right to belong to it but perhaps less readily encourage us to resist or reject its current manifestations. It is perhaps heartening to note that in his 2019 blog for the TakeOff children’s theatre festival, Tony Reekie (as guest programmer) invoked the words of Gramsci: ‘The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters’, as he then goes on to conjecture: ‘And if we are struggling, with what little optimism we have left, to a new world, and monsters are afoot, then it seems to me a good time to be talking to those people who will make a new world, telling them stories as we go. And those stories must include monsters.’ The cultural and educational discourse of the current government is unquestionably infused with traditional educational ideologies, historically invoking Matthew Arnold and more recently E.D. Hirsch Jr. Arnold famously wrote in Culture and Anarchy (1869) that the aspiration of learning must be ‘The best which has been thought and said’, although it must be noted that in its original context Arnold’s conception of the arts was as a means of strengthening societal bonds and democratic values. By educating the middle classes he proposed, there would be greater understanding of class inequalities. Unfortunately this hierarchical, paternalistic inclination within Arnoldian philosophy became somewhat calcified over time and now remains as a recurring critique, as Nicholson notes: ‘Arnold thus elevated the study of culture to a form of education for democratic freedom albeit from a position that left this class-bound social order intact’ (2011, p. 25). More recently Hirsch rejects John Dewey’s child-centred experiential pedagogy, instead affirming the importance of acculturated and canonical knowledge, asserting that ‘effective communications require

78 

M. CROSSLEY

shared culture and that shared culture requires transmission of specific information to children’ (1988). Such pronouncements have a direct correspondence to the ministerial speeches and many subsequent policies and assertions of the coalition and Conservative governments. Back in 2008 when Michael Gove was shadow education minister he bemoaned ‘pupil centred learning’ as it ‘privileges temporary relevance over a permanent body of knowledge which should be passed on from generation to generation [.…] We need to tackle this misplaced ideology wherever it occurs.’18 Nick Gibb, the Schools Minister, overtly cited Hirsch’s influence in a 2015 essay for the think tank Policy Exchange entitled ‘How E. D. Hirsch Came to Shape the UK Government Policy’, in which he states, ‘Hirsch’s work in America provided us with a tangible precedent for our thinking on the English National Curriculum.’ Advocates of progressive pedagogy may instinctively baulk at such influences yet woven into the fabric of Hirsch’s philosophy, as his own words suggest, is ‘cultural literacy’, expounded in detail in his 1988 bestseller Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. Whilst there is an emphasis on factual learning within this vision of literacy, there is also an advocacy for the arts to be central to a broad and balanced curriculum. In 2016, Arts Council England interviewed Hirsch for their own online journal Create in which he made clear his view: ‘The arts play a big role in the best national curriculums of the world. […] My thesis is that a broad curriculum, including the arts, poetry, history, civics, is the best means to form good readers and competent citizens’ (pp. 4–7). It is also difficult to superficially identify the difference between defining cultural values as that which ‘the group considers worthy and important, and which it holds in common as a group’ (as stated in All Our Futures) and cultural literacy as the ‘transmission of a shared culture’ in the words of Hirsch. Therefore, delineating between educational perspectives on arts and cultural education is somewhat more intricate than it may initially appear, bound up in the latent cultural politics suffusing the discourse as much as the language itself. This apparent commonality of language and intent can be seen in the government statements regarding their 2013 reforms as they pointed to the freedom they had included in the aims of the new curriculum: ‘The national curriculum is just one element in the education of every child. 18  The original speech was made in Brighton on 8 May 2008 and reported in The Guardian, 9 May 2008.

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

79

There is time and space in the school day and in each week, term and year to range beyond the national curriculum specifications’ (2013, p. 6). This explication of the curriculum enabled the Secretary of State and other government ministers to regularly announce that the arts could continue to play a significant role within schooling without any specific compunction for schools to  facilitate this. This was re-emphasised in the 2013 Cultural Education summary, authored by Michael Gove, then Education Secretary, which drew upon findings from Darren Henley’s 2012 review entitled Cultural Education in England. In the introduction to the document, written by Gove and Ed Vaizey, it is made clear that it is not the government’s place to direct or to specify local provision for arts education, relying instead on ‘great leadership from inspirational teachers […] That is what this Cultural Education document seeks to do—not mandate like some Stalinist dream of a bureau of socialist realist production but encourage and liberate as the best teachers do’ (2013, p. 3). It asserts: ‘It is not the case that time spent engaging with cultural activities is at the expense of the learning of core subjects. They are not mutually exclusive, and should form a holistic approach to the development of a rounded education’ (p. 13). In asserting the responsibility of individual schools to decide, Gove’s report deftly sidesteps or seeks to nullify Henley’s observation and entreaty that in regard to creative subjects ‘there is a growing concern that […] this area of education is no longer valued as much as it once was in our schools or in Further or Higher Education’. Henley goes on to then implore ‘I would encourage ministers in the Department for Education, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport swiftly to take action as a result of this Review to show that these concerns are misplaced’ (2012, p. 13). Throughout the summary document the significance of core subjects, literacy and numeracy, is often revisited with limited detail on how to balance this priority with cultural learning experiences.19 The influence of Henley on the 2013 report also signalled the further movement away from creativity and the legacy of Labour and Creative Partnerships as Henley’s emphasis was firmly centred upon cultural education, as he states: 19  This absence of mandatory specifics is again reflected in the report’s Section 3 entitled ‘A High-Quality Curriculum and Qualifications Offer in Arts Subjects’ which outlines the significance of the core curriculum over several pages without specific reference to the arts subjects themselves. The summary does include a brief explanation of the Creative Employment Programme (CEP) but this focused on employment-based opportunities rather than curriculum (2013: 37–40).

80 

M. CROSSLEY

Fostering creativity in cultural learning is an important part of every child’s education. However, there is a risk that the ‘creativity agenda’ has come to mean a particular style of education, which does not place sufficient value on the development of a child’s understanding of cultural practice, or of fact-­ based knowledge about culture. (2012, p. 18)

Whilst there are some noteworthy discrepancies between the perspectives of Henley and the government,20 there is clear accordance in the diminution of creativity and their affirmation of what constitutes a quality cultural education, as Henley states that it is first and foremost ‘knowledge-based and teaches children about the best of what has been created’ (2012, p. 15), comfortably in accordance with the Arnoldian ethos endorsed by Gove and other ministers within government and in previous years in opposition. It is important to acknowledge, however, that this expression of cultural education is a progression of, rather than a radical departure from the previous Labour government. From the mid-nineties onwards, propelled by a compaction of ERA, the charismatic politics of ‘Cool Britannia’ and the Great British ‘cultural powerhouse’ followed by Curriculum 2000,21 the pendulum of theatre education had consistently begun to swing towards the prioritisation of theatrical skills over content (Cooper 2013), economic justification and domain-specific critical thinking and creativity. This was evident in  Wales and Scotland as well as England as can be seen from the qualification structures of that period from across the three nations. The amendments to drama within the 2013 Scottish examination system,22 for example, were noted to be centred on 20  Henley sought to draw a balance between cultural learning and creativity within the curriculum, but it is arguably his articulation of fact-based and historical cultural learning which the government found most accordance with and extracted into their own strategic reports. 21  It was noted in The Guardian (5 July 2017) that successive Prime Ministers from Blair to Theresa May have courted the creative industries and ‘lauded the UK as a “cultural powerhouse”’. 22  The 2013 overhaul of the Scottish examination system had a noticeable impact upon drama in the curriculum with an increased emphasis on performance skills in the new National and Higher qualifications. Barlow (2013) identified the changes: ‘…we find that they are based on three main elements—creating, presenting and evaluating. Therefore it could be interpreted that the Scottish Qualifications Authority supports a view of drama education that is focused on the final product rather than the process that the pupils have experienced’ (p.  552). Barlow, citing Neelands (1998), expresses some disquiet over this ‘unnecessary divide’ and he goes on to argue that ‘there will always be a problem with the drama curriculum if this imbalance continues. […] The CfE Drama course should strive to develop the connections between the process and product divide’ (p. 552).

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

81

three main aspects—creating, presenting and evaluating (Brown 2013), bearing a close resemblance to Hornbrook’s advocacy for making, performing and responding (1992). With the luxury of time and perspective we may look back on these developments and observe the shifting patterns on the landscape. The devil, and therein the capacity to make an impactful response, has often been in the detail of such statements or rather in the interpretation and implementation of them due to in part to the atomisation of educational leadership with discreet autonomy endorsed and regulated for schools but also the liquidity of the key terminology, notably arts, culture and creativity. Each accommodates capacious interpretation or appropriation as does any definition of quality within each domain.23 The muddying of these waters only multiplies when arts are couched in terms of entitlement as opposed to mandatory curriculum. In a 2017 speech to the UK Music and Drama Exposition, Nick Gibb, conjuring the words of Arnold, reiterated: ‘The government is committed to ensuring that high-quality arts education is the entitlement of every single child. All pupils, whatever their background, should have access to the best that has been thought and said, including a secure grounding in the arts.’ The speech went on to highlight the recent changes that year to the GCSE and A Levels in drama and theatre, with their renewed emphasis on attending live performance, and the Dance and Drama Awards (DaDa) schemes to support access to a range of private colleges. The minister then directly confronted the critics of EBacc and its impact on the arts. Citing a recent Sutton Trust report, he stated that … a particularly damaging criticism of the policy is that it is driving the arts out of education. This is not true, as the [Sutton] report makes clear. The EBacc was deliberately restricted to 5 subject areas to ensure that pupils could take the EBacc and still pursue a number of other subjects, including arts subjects. The proportion of pupils in state funded schools taking at least 1 arts subject has increased from 45.8% in 2011 (when the EBacc was announced) to 48.0% in 2016. (2017)

This particular statistic related to the increased uptake of a single arts subject per pupil is often cited by government sources, but has been regularly 23  See Creativity and creative learning for further discussion of definitions within culture and creativity and the role of arts within these domains.

82 

M. CROSSLEY

challenged by the Arts Council24 and opponents of the EBacc, notably the Cultural Learning Alliance (CLA),25 who highlight the very selective nature of the statistic, masking as it does the overall decline in arts-related examination entries. The revised 2013 National Curriculum did at least allow more innovative academies, schools, headteachers, senior managers and teachers to keep arts at the heart of the teaching and learning if they saw fit, yet the time pressures, changes to teacher education (with less arts-based content) and funding restrictions brought on by the ongoing austerity budgets made such innovation increasingly difficult and reliant on visionary headteachers and school governors as well as skilled and confident teachers. Sam Cairns from the Cultural Learning Alliance addressed this issue in our conversation: ‘The one positive thing was that it was light touch. If you were a skilled arts teacher you could construct a strong curriculum but the problem is that there’s not enough skilled teachers out there. It’s a double edge sword that it’s so light.’ Alongside the updated National Curriculum came examination reform with much greater priority given to ‘rigour’ and timed examinations at the end of the programme of study. This impact was felt within the arts as much as in any other subject area. In drama and theatre at GCSE and A Level, the percentage of written work increased and any practical element was pejoratively referred to as ‘non-examination’, suggesting that such assessments lacked rigour and credibility. From my own perspective I sat on a number of examination board advisory panels for the redesigned GCSE and A Level Drama and Theatre courses within which we found ourselves attempting to shuffle increasingly limited options for creative 24  Arts Council dispute the government figures, pointing to research from the Education Policy Institute showing that the proportion of pupils taking at least one arts subject was down from 57.1% in 2014 to 53.5% in 2016 (Arts Professional website 2019). 25  Cultural Learning Alliance (CLA) plays a particularly significant role as advocate for the arts in education, collating news and research output, government announcements and statistics across the field. In a 2018 response to a Nick Gibb speech they wrote: ‘The bigger picture for the arts subjects in schools is one of a perfect storm of changes in school accountability, and cuts to funding in education and local authorities. These all used to support arts activities for children and young people in and out of school. Up and down the country these activities, including youth clubs, school trips to museums and theatres and summer art projects, can no longer be afforded. (…) We are seeing a decline in the number of arts qualifications taken at GCSE level: the number of arts entries to GCSEs has fallen 28% since 2010; the number of hours arts subjects are taught in secondary schools has fallen 17% since 2010; and the number of arts teachers is down by 16%’ (2018).

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

83

expression as the templates we responded to had already been shaped by Ofqual to fit their new ‘rigorous’ framework. Sam Cairns alludes to the same concerns but adds a pragmatic response: ‘The Cultural Learning Alliance was in on all the discussions for the new curriculum and we fought very hard against the move towards new exams. There was a lot of compromise, an exam structure that wasn’t fit for purpose. But at least it keeps arts in schools.’ A particularly contentious moment came back in 2014, when the then Education Secretary Nicky Morgan made a speech advising young people to steer away from selecting arts subjects at school as, she argued, they limited choice at university and in careers. If you wanted to do something, or even if you didn’t know what you wanted to do, then the arts and humanities were what you chose because they were useful for all kinds of jobs. “Of course, we know now that couldn’t be further from the truth—that the subjects that keep young people’s options open and unlock the door to all sorts of careers are the STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and maths).

Morgan’s comment provoked an outcry amongst teachers’ leaders and supporters of the humanities who retorted that there were excellent job prospects for those studying these subjects. Christine Blower, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said in an interview with The Independent: ‘Downgrading the arts is the wrong message.’ Nigel Carrington, vice-chancellor of the University of the Arts London, added in the same article: ‘This absurd discrimination between “hard” STEM and “soft” arts subjects will damage the next generation of entrepreneurs. The Government needs to recognise that creativity is vital to the economy and should be taught’ (2014). It may be contended that the reason this speech is so vividly recalled and the response to it so vociferous is that it is a relatively rare example of an overt political challenge to the arts in education. In many respects it is an exception which proves the rule that culture wars, specifically when waged through and within arts education and cultural learning, are more often played out by its gatekeepers through the subtler arts of semantics and implementation, steered where necessary by fiscal incentives or constraints. Compounding the hierarchy of subjects, with a relegation of performing arts to the lower echelons, was the principle of ‘facilitating subjects’, developed by the Department for Education in co-ordination with the

84 

M. CROSSLEY

Russell Group of twenty-four universities, including Oxford and Cambridge. This list of selective A Levels (excluding all vocational subjects) included maths, further maths, English literature, physics, biology, chemistry, geography, history and languages. It was announced that these subjects were preferable to ‘top’ universities in their selection processes and hence should inform the decision making of young people when choosing their GCSE and subsequent A Level subjects. It was immediately criticised for the arbitrary nature of the list and the former chair of the education select committee, Graham Stuart, asked the Russell Group to produce evidence for their judgement, commenting at the time that applicants to university should not be ‘short-changed by incomplete or inaccurate advice’.26 In 2019, and to the disappointment of the Schools Minister Nick Gibb, the Russell Group decided to withdraw the list, stating that facilitating subjects had become to be seen as ‘the only subjects pupils should consider to get into a Russell Group university, or that you must take them for any degree. […] This has never been the case.’ The facilitating subjects have now been replaced with an initiative entitled Informed Choices27 but their legacy remains in the perceptions of schools, parents and young people and in the underlying philosophy of the government which undoubtedly retains a preference for hierarchical examinations.

What Direction Is England Travelling In? Who is shaping policy on the cultural learning sector? The number one driver is Arts Council England policy because it will be framed to secure DCMS28 and Government support and is backed by significant resources. Charitable Foundations can be influential in supporting new ideas, practice and ways of working that then become adopted into mainstream policy. There are no shortage of ideas competing for attention but as we live in a pragmatic world, they need political support to be realised. Always follow the money to see what really matters. ‑Rob Elkington 26  Many anomalies were found in the facilitating subjects proposals. Schools Week editor Laura McInerney carried out research for LKMco in 2013, finding that some subjects not on the list appeared to help applicants to get a place ahead of those on the list and for some subjects at Russell Group universities it was in fact essential to have non facilitating subjects to secure a place, such as Music A Level to study Music at the University of Oxford. 27  Informed Choices is an initiative to provide guidance for students wishing to apply to Russell Group universities. 28  DCMS—Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

85

As we travel ever deeper into the landscape of the twenty-first century, certain questions need to be asked: What is the direction of travel for arts education policy in England and who is choosing the route? This may subsequently lead us to wonder what impact any of the research from the past few decades, specifically since All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education (1999), has had on the educational establishment across Great Britain. In 2016, the government produced The Culture White Paper, the first of its kind in fifty years, which reiterated again: All state-funded schools must provide a broad and balanced curriculum that promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils. Experiencing and understanding culture is integral to education. Knowledge of great works of art, great music, great literature and great plays, and of their creators, is an important part of every child’s education’ [...] ‘The national curriculum sets the expectation that pupils will study art and design, music, drama, dance and design and technology.’ (2016, p. 21)

Once again, the divisions are within the semantics which in turn divulges ideological differences over what constitutes ‘valuable’ knowledge, what makes it ‘great’ and to what extent is the definition of greatness dialogic, co-constructed or democratic? The Arnoldian overtones suggest that greatest in the current climate infers canonical and Western, demarcated by particular gatekeepers, raising similar concerns over cultural hegemony as voiced since Gramsci and more recently over Cultural Democracy in Practice, that such prescription reinforces a disenfranchisement for many whose cultural experience is ‘other’ than privileged, canonical or white European. There are, therefore, perennial problems which disguise the divergence of interpretation in response to pronouncement, policy and outcomes. The importance of enriching education with cultural experiences and cultural literacy is instinctively beyond question but finding clarity over what cultural education is or should be and how this may be facilitated is an entirely different matter. In referring to them as our ‘shared values and patterns of behaviour’ as in All Our Futures, most stakeholders from the left or right of politics can coalesce around such a phrase without ever quite addressing its specific place or meaning within a curriculum context. Literacy, numeracy and scientific knowledge are identifiable, demarcated

86 

M. CROSSLEY

sets of knowledge and skills, which can be quantified and tested, whilst arts and culture are far more complicated to delineate. Compounding this ambiguity is the habitual conflation of culture, creativity and the arts. The relationship between these domains has been obfuscated in a plethora of documentation, often seeming to assert that culture and the arts are synonymous and likewise the fact that the arts are the natural hosts of creativity. This latter presumption is only recently finding some resistance and extrapolation in English, Scottish and Welsh research and curricula developments. The recent Durham Commission on Creativity from 2019 alerts us to such historic conflations: ‘There remains a misconception that creativity is solely the province of the arts. This is not true. Creativity exists in all disciplines. It is valued by mathematicians, scientists and entrepreneurs, as well as by artists, writers and composers’ (2019, p. 6). Recent research in arts education has taken a more analytical, quantitative and research-led approach to advocacy. In 2011, then updated in 2017, the Cultural Learning Alliance produced ImagineNation: The Value of Cultural Learning which overtly set out four values as Social, Educational, Economic and Personal. The social value of the arts is delineated in very exact terms as to how it can ‘deliver against social targets’, from its capacity to ‘help young people at risk of offending’ or ‘help tackle mental health issues’. It strongly argues: ‘To limit young people’s access to the full range of cultural experience is to disenfranchise a generation’ (2017, p. 9). Educationally it offers more instrumental arguments, premising that It can improve young people’s cognitive abilities by between 16 and 19%; it contributes to raising young people’s attainment across all subjects and to ‘the development of literacy and numeracy skills, particularly for children from low-income backgrounds’ (p.  11). Economically they highlight the international prowess of the UK’s Creative Industries, ‘contributing more than £84bn a year to our economy and accounting for more than 2.9 million jobs’ (p.  15). To underscore their recommendations, the report cites specific sections of curricula guidance from across the United Kingdom and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Time to Listen (2018) reflects this new direction in the use of data-­ informed research on arts education and the articulation of an argument based on cultural participation and entitlement. Funded by Arts Council England and jointly authored by the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC), Tate and the University of Nottingham, the report was a three-year

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

87

research project involving thousands of student and teacher responses.29 Jacqui O’Hanlon, the director of education at the RSC and one of the principal authors of the report, outlined to me the impetus behind the project: ‘The Arts Council had ring fenced money for arts based research projects. Both the RSC and Tate have long term track records in teacher CPDL and therefore wanted to work with the Nottingham team on a research study that explored what happens when a cultural organisation works with teachers. We had no long term analysis of what difference our work with teachers made to young people or teachers.’ The report makes repeated use of the phrase ‘arts and culture rich education’ and the emphatic third person phraseology is significant as the report makes a point of stating that ‘Young people tell us…’ to emphasise the empirical status of the evidence. O’Hanlon goes on to contend in conversation that ‘teachers noticed the difference of arts rich learning for children. It gave the children a sense of their own agency. It’s where they really discover their own voices and opinions about things. Where they find out who they might go on to be and what kind of difference they want to make in the world. Arts learning helped students appreciate difference and diversity of opinion.’ The report articulates this view with extensive use of statistics which demonstrate how an arts-rich curriculum improves participation and achievement across the school curriculum and in wider cultural activities such as reading outside of school, visiting cinemas or attending live music events. It is worth noting that such a claim was made back in 2012 in the Henley report when he proposed that cultural activity and the value placed upon it ‘in itself creates a culture of learning and behaviour within schools’ (2012, p. 15) but the shift by 2018 was to quantify this impact with longitudinal research. The accent upon an arts-rich curriculum is certainly to be applauded but again such language has been embraced by both sides of the political divide, with Hirsch himself advocating an ‘arts-rich curriculum’ in his 2016 interview with the Arts Council. Therefore, the delineation of the specific and divergent political and pedagogical approaches to achieve the same apparent goal is again not as demonstrable as it would seem. Access for many children and young people to an arts-rich curriculum or an arts-rich cultural life is often variable and inconsistent, dependant on 29  The study cites analysis from over ‘6,000 responses from 14–18 year olds and 63 teachers’ (2018).

88 

M. CROSSLEY

specific school mind-sets, socio-economic variance and national priorities, amongst many other factors. Similar to ImagineNation, Time to Listen uses the UN Convention on Human Rights to reaffirm everyone’s ‘right to participate in the cultural life of their community and to enjoy the arts’. It highlights that in their survey over a third of the students relied on their schools to give them access to the arts (p. 6). There are subtle but clear arguments being made here about the correlation between arts education and civic participation and wider economic benefit, echoing many of the initiatives over the previous fifty years from A Policy for the Arts: The First Steps onwards, but now underpinned by quantitative and qualitative research. Evidence of the nascent impact of Time to Listen can be seen in the recent changes announced by the Russell Group of universities to drop their list of facilitating subjects. O’Hanlon commented: ‘Our research showed that young people felt that the messages regarding arts subjects from university and schools were that they were risky. So we made a call for action, including to the Russell Group to scrap the list of facilitating subjects. We wanted a clear message that these arts based experiences and subjects are meaningful, irrespective of whether you want a career in them or not.’ Substantive reports and manifestos in the last few years have come from Nesta30 as well as The Warwick Commission Enriching Britain: Culture, Creativity and Growth (2015) which framed education as central to the cultural ‘ecosystem’ of the UK, and advocated for ‘an education and a curriculum that is infused with multi-disciplinarity, creativity and enterprise and that identifies, nurtures and trains tomorrow’s creative and cultural talent’, although it solemnly noted that ‘the English education system does not provide or encourage either of these priorities’ (p. 15). The publication of the Durham Commission on Creativity and Education in 2019 signalled, as self-evident from the title, a return of creativity into the forefront of the national discourse. This report was not specifically arts focused although it was funded by Arts Council England. Yet again a new definition of creativity was generated by this report: ‘The capacity to imagine, conceive, express, or make something that was not there before.’ It identifies three key areas of creative value—Identity and community, Mobility and Well-being. The Cultural Learning Alliance welcomed the Commission’s findings, applauding and endorsing a range of 30  Nesta—National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (established 1998). Recent publications include Creativity and the future of work (2018).

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

89

its conclusions, including a national network of Creativity Collaboratives, the need for arts to be mandatory at Key Stage 3 and a National Plan for Cultural Education. Nonetheless, it sounded a note of caution in its reflection: ‘However, we do have concerns that there is currently very little appetite within schools, government or its corresponding agencies for root-and-branch restructure of the education system—something that is pre-requisite for this vision to be truly realised’ (2019). For others, the rekindling or rebranding of creativity, having seen a certain exclusion of the term post Creative Partnerships, seemed perplexing as Rob Elkington articulates: ‘I found the remit of the Durham Commission quite baffling. I couldn’t understand why the Arts Council having spent ten years making a shift from creativity towards the specificity of arts and culture would go back to creativity with barely any reference to what had been learnt already. But that I guess is the usefully malleable nature of “creativity”—it can mean what you want it to and be (re) constructed for different political times and ends.’ Whilst the Durham Commission may be the most recent of the major reports, there is no particular indication, as alluded to by the CLA, that its specific findings and its limited funding will influence policy in England. On a broader scale, however, the report finds accordance with the ambitions of Scotland and Wales who are increasingly invoking creativity within national discourses and educational objectives as will be considered later in the chapter. Both of these nations are markedly more receptive to fostering overt creativity agendas in the pursuit of economic, educational and well-being objectives, as well arguably as nationalistic intentions. This receptivity reveals some incongruous missed opportunities for the Durham Commission and the scope of its research. Diane Hebb, the director of Participation and Engagement from the Arts Council of Wales, was disappointed that the Commission did not seek the input from them, particularly as the Arts Council of Wales had recently funded and researched a major project on creativity in education, entitled the Lead Creative Schools programme. She reflects: ‘We were invited to attend one of the conferences in Durham and Steve Davis, the Director of Education in Wales was invited to talk. But they wouldn’t talk to us. Wales isn’t represented in that report. I don’t have much faith that it will make much difference.’ This reflects a theme voiced by contributors and commentators, often with exasperation or perplexity, as the disconnections between England, Scotland and Wales over education and specifically arts education policy seem close to incomprehension, particularly on such a small island with a

90 

M. CROSSLEY

shared language and a significant degree of shared cultural history. The reasons for such divergences are to be found in the complex interplay of both deep-rooted historical fissures and injustices set alongside, and in flux with, contemporary political and ideological fault lines. Akin to the original seal of the Arts Council from 1946, a unicorn set in a magical forest, it is beguiling yet defies logic. For many justifiable and understandable reasons there is an impetus to review and articulate the significance of creativity, culture and arts within education but this dynamism and subsequent frequency of output must be tempered by the realisation that this volume of quantitative and qualitative data is of itself part of the difficulty as it is often pointed to as the ‘white noise’ concocted by academia and other ‘interested parties’. The Durham Commission itself lists no less than seventeen cultural and creative learning reports and initiatives, fourteen of which were published in the twenty-­ first century.31 In 2013, Michael Gove was able to quickly brush off criticism of the Cultural Education summary and the new National Curriculum proposals of that year by referring to such critics as ‘enemies of promise’, invoking the term from Cyril Connolly’s early twentieth-­ century text of the same name. On many occasions, he referred to intellectuals and other left-wing activists as he perceived them as ‘The Blob’, which The Independent in 2014 defined as ‘an army of bureaucrats, academics and teachers’ unions they see as thwarting the changes that have to be made if we are to have a world-class education service’. Gove replied at the time by stating: ‘We believe children will flourish if we challenge them but the Blob, in thrall to Sixties ideologies, wants to continue the devaluation of the exam system.’ Predictably the news media divides on partisan lines with the Daily Mail challenging The Blob head on in 2013: ‘We have abolished the quangos they controlled. We have given a majority of secondary schools academy status so they are free from the influence of The Blob’s allies in  local government. We are moving teacher training away from university departments and into our best schools. And we are reforming our curriculum and exams to restore the rigour they abandoned.’ A year later The Independent pointed the finger at Toby Young, (a major advocate for free schools) in his accusation of left-of-centre education writer Fiona Millar for being, in his words, ‘the blobbiest member of the Blob in the history of blobbery’ (2014). Many of those accused of 31  Reports summarised in Durham Commission on Creativity and Education Appendix pp. 75–85 (2019).

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

91

‘blobbery’ declared they were happy to be associated with such a name-­ tag, given the source of the criticism and were equally forceful in their attacks on Gove’s reforms. Such polarisation, whilst offering a frisson of excitement to political observers and journalists, is counter-productive to arts advocacy as it dissipates the impact and clarity of the arguments. This is exacerbated by the volume of material published by diverse advocates for theatre education. This is not a criticism of such publications or their authors but such high frequency, whilst arguably creating a weight of critical discourse, inevitably decreases the impact of the transmission. Sam Cairns from CLA offers a frank assessment of such dispersions in the argument, particularly when seeking coherence in the face of ministerial discussions: ‘If you can’t present a strong unified argument when your subject is under attack everyone thinks that you’re not worth taking seriously which I think is something that drama has suffered from at times.’ There is some indication that evidence-based research such as Time to Listen is having an impact on policymakers and major institutions such as the Russell Group but evidence is only persuasive if it correlates with the ideological mind-set of the recipient, as Cairns also noted: ‘That’s my worry that people in government say its evidence based policy but people will choose the statistics they want to deploy.’ Arts Council England, whilst contributing to many other reviews, author their own ten-year strategic plans. Education has had an increasingly significant status within these, with far-reaching consequences for how theatre companies seeking funding align themselves to the strategic goals. As of 2020, Arts Council England are just coming towards the end of their current ten-year plan 2010–20 originally named Achieving great art for everyone, and commonly referred to as ‘the pink book’, but later renamed Great Art and Culture for Everyone, as the Arts Council took on a wider remit which included museums and libraries. This widening remit has, as will be considered later, expanded the potential for theatre for children and young people to engage new communities. In marked contrast to the initial post-war priorities of the Arts Council of Great Britain, one of the five central goals of Arts Council England 2010–20 stated: ‘Every child and young person has the opportunity to experience the richness of the arts, museums and libraries’ and they explicitly refer to children and young people as ‘a prioritized strand of our mission’ (pp.  39–40). The impact on artists and institutions of this goal 5 was often very explicit as it meant many National Portfolio Organisations (NPOs) were required to have specific targets related to it but as these outcomes were

92 

M. CROSSLEY

predominantly focused on Artsmark and Arts Award they were often seen as restrictive parameters by artists, as voiced by Adel Al-Salloum, the Director of The Spark in Leicester: Arts Council England talk about supporting theatre for and by young people but quite often it’s through the lens of participation and not through the lens of art. If you look at their last ten years strategy 2010-20, the conversations around children and young people would tend to fall under goal 5. When I talk about work for young audiences I want to talk about goal 1— great art and great artistic experiences that are not bound in participation.

The framework was also alert to a theme which resonates within this text; the slippage of borders between disciplines and the sites of cultural production. It states: ‘Boundaries and categories are being eroded; this is apparent in arts and culture where the roles of creator, curator and consumer are being redefined, where libraries are often exhibition spaces and museums host performances’ (p. 27). After a lengthy consultation period,32 the full strategic plan for 2020–30, entitled Let’s Create was published in early 2020 and is now arguably the most significant document shaping strategy within English arts education, partly due to the funding which flows through the strategy but also due to the positive reception it has received since publication. The three central outcomes are Creative People, Cultural Communities and A Creative and Cultural Country, heralding the re-balancing of creativity and culture, initially muted in All Our Futures, as equal but distinct domains and apparatuses within arts strategy. The interrelationship between both fields is clarified in the strategy: We believe that creativity and culture are deeply connected, but different. Creativity is the process by which, either individually or with others, we make something new: a work of art, or a reimagining of an existing work. Culture is the result of that creative process: we encounter it in the world, in museums and libraries, theatres and galleries, carnivals and concert halls, festivals and digital spaces. (2020, p. 15) 32  Shaping the next ten years was the consultation document for the next decade long strategic plan. The initial findings report moved one step further than the previous framework in its intention to embed children and young people across all of its outcomes and principles, rather than a discreet goal and there is also a more overt reference to pre-school children and their families. These findings were embedded within Let’s Create.

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

93

Children and young people from birth upwards are woven into all three of these outcomes and ACE makes the unambiguous statement that they are ‘ensuring that children and young people are able to fulfil their creative potential, and access the highest-quality cultural experiences where they live, where they go to school and where they spend their free time’ (p. 19), conceding that ‘for most young people, access to high quality creative and cultural opportunities outside of the home is too dependent on their social background and their postcode’. The theme of community- or place-­ based cultural education is given a priority in line with the Durham Commission (2019, pp. 30–31), as the Arts Council seeks to harness the potential of local community partnerships as well as funding national flagship programmes and organisations. The thematic emphasis of place is heavily influenced by the perceived success of the Creative People and Places strategy which for the first time connected the Arts Council’s funding to communities first rather than through cultural organisations, as Rob Elkington notes: ‘It put the commissioning power into localities.’ The democratising agenda of the strategy is stated poetically in Sir Nicholas Serota’s introduction to Let’s Create, in which he embellishes the original Arts Council mission for ‘growing “few, but roses”’ when declaring ‘the surest way to fill the future with every variety of flower is to recognise that we can all be gardeners’ (p. 6).33 Many commentators have noted that arts specifically have limited coverage in the document, with culture and creativity taking centre stage. Arts are framed within the broader territory of culture, which they define as all the activities of the Arts Council (including museums and libraries) as ‘we aim to be inclusive of the full breadth of activity that we support’ (p. 12).34 This spirit of inclusivity in Let’s Create is informed by an acknowledgement ‘that members of the public tend to use the words “the arts” and “artists” to refer specifically to classical music, opera, ballet or the fine 33  In reference to the 1951 mission statement from the Arts Council of Great Britain, John Holden writes: ‘…when it came to culture, the post-war welfare-state settlement was unabashedly metropolitan and patrician: ballet, opera, theatre, and old masters were the order of the day. In 1951 the Secretary-General of the Arts Council could say with pride that the Arts Council was interested in funding “few, but roses”—and the rose garden was located pretty much within walking distance of Trafalgar Square. Indeed in the 1950s concern for the regions went backwards, as the Arts Council gradually closed its few regional offices’ (2007: 8). 34  Such a definition of culture is not new, however, as Get It: The Power of Cultural Learning (2009) envisaged culture as ‘embracing artefacts and works of art’ (p. 3).

94 

M. CROSSLEY

arts’ (ibid.), therein signalling an implicit intention to dismantle such perceptions of elitist bias. In relation to these new calibrations, the Cultural Learning Alliance note: ‘The language of this strategy is different to that of its predecessor, with “the arts” rolled into “culture” and “creativity”— to express the emphasis on individuals’ personal engagement’ (2020). Generally, practitioners have welcomed the strategy although the limited emphases on arts causes some concern, as noted in Adel Al-Salloum’s reflections: Let’s Create is important as it’s something I can hang my ideals from the last twenty years on. It articulates what I understand to be my own journey. It’s not necessarily ground breaking as I’m at a grass roots level doing this already. I think there’s a nervousness about where arts sit within it, because arts are not often mentioned and for me it should always be about high quality artistic output as well as process.

In bringing this section to a close it is critical to consider the recent changes to the Ofsted Education Inspection Framework (EIF) announced in 2019. The proposals, referred to as ‘an evolutionary shift’ by Amanda Spielman, the current Chief Inspector, foreground a more ‘holistic’ approach to education, advocating a ‘broad and balanced’ curriculum. For the first time inspectors will assess ‘cultural capital’, with no school achieving ‘good’ unless it can evidence a curriculum providing ‘all pupils, particularly disadvantaged pupils […] the knowledge and cultural capital they need to succeed in life’. Overtly appropriating Matthew Arnold’s well-­ trodden phrase, the framework informs schools that such capital is ‘the essential knowledge that pupils need to be educated citizens, introducing them to the best that has been thought and said and helping to engender an appreciation of human creativity and achievement’. From an optimistic standpoint these modifications may re-balance school curricula and their engagement with arts practitioners. Rob Elkington suggests, ‘Ofsted might be a bit of a saviour. Schools want to demonstrate a broad and balanced curriculum. They know they should have been providing more arts and creative opportunities. So if there is hope it doesn’t lie in central government, it lies in the inspection frameworks, it lies in the moral civic values of the headteachers.’ Many observers have found succour in the framework’s use of the term ‘expert-led’ curriculum, offering some hope that artists, including theatre-makers, may find more receptive partnerships with schools going forward. Conversely, there is disquiet at the

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

95

government’s use, or appropriation as some perceive it, of the term ‘cultural capital’. Diane Reay, a professor of education at the University of Cambridge, was quoted in The Guardian (2019) as stating: ‘This new requirement is a crude, reductionist model of learning, both authoritarian and elitist. The key elements of cultural capital are entwined with privileged lifestyles rather than qualities you can separate off and then teach the poor and working classes.’ It has been noted by several commentators that in Pierre Bourdieu’s original conception of cultural capital, education was identified as perpetuating hierarchies of culture and devaluing working class and popular expressions of cultural identity. Helen Moylett (2020) wrote that ‘such cavalier use of this term is likely to perpetuate deficit models of working-class children (and many other children who are not white, British and middle class)’. The enshrinement of ‘the best that has been thought and said’ is certainly a difficult premise to reconcile when set alongside an understanding of cultural democracy as our ‘substantive social freedom to make versions of culture’ as articulated in Towards Cultural Democracy (2017). In response to this tension, the Cultural Learning Alliance (2019) emboldens schools to ‘define the cultural capital that their children need and to think more widely than existing “legitimate culture”. This will ensure that their pupils are confident creators, able to be the “cultural omnivores” that can make informed decisions about what culture they consume and participate in, and can articulate why it has value.’ Whatever these changes may bring, they will only directly impact England due to the separate inspection regimes across Great Britain. In Wales and Scotland, the inspection frameworks are markedly more attuned to the centrality of Expressive Arts within the curricula. In Wales, the inspection body Estyn explicitly references Donaldson’s Successful Futures report (2015) in identifying best practice in schools with direct correlations made between expressive arts and innovative curricula.35 In one primary school report (2017) they highlight how ‘drama, strategies such as “Observe, Wonder, Infer”, “Thought Tunnels”, “Mantle of the Expert” and “Tableaux” have enabled pupils to become increasingly confident, as well as helping them to develop critical and creative thinking skills’. In Scotland, the Experience and Outcomes for Expressive Arts inform the inspection framework of Education Scotland, as do the four core creativity skills of curiosity, open-mindedness, imagination and problem solving. Education Scotland announces on their website that ‘Creativity can be  For example—Creating an innovative curriculum using the expressive arts (2017).

35

96 

M. CROSSLEY

thought of as the colour that brings Curriculum for Excellence to life’. Notably, advice on fostering creativity is foregrounded in the latest edition of the Scottish school self-evaluative system How good is your school? (2019). All of these inspection processes are in their infancy, even within Scotland, so the full impact of curricula and inspection processes is yet to be known; however, the divergence of approach and linguistic tone between England and the Celtic nations is striking. This is where the road disappears over an uncertain horizon, in terms of political and stakeholder strategy. It is almost impossible to divine exact correlations and influences between all such pronouncements and publications but we may be mindful of Elkington’s earlier observation that we live in a pragmatic world and the current English government has shown little sign of deviating from its present doctrine of overtly valorising the arts and an arts entitlement whilst instrumentally encouraging a marginalisation of arts subjects and arts-based learning within the curriculum. The Arts Council meanwhile, evident in Let’s Create and the bridge organisations, seek to grasp and upturn one of the great arts paradoxes, by asking how may we facilitate creativity and culture directly within communities rather than through the conduit of cultural organisations. Their re-balancing of community- and place-based art-making alongside professional practice seeks to tread a careful path between access to and influence of ‘great’ art and culture and the democratisation of arts-making and participation. The aim of building ‘cultural communities’, hybridising the best of democratic and civic art alongside canonical and professional practice is a worthy aim, perhaps to be realised in the next decade. In consideration of theatre educations place within this new landscape it may be apt to appropriate the horticultural metaphor invoked in 1951 and half a century later by Nicholas Serota. If we are all gardeners now then it may be argued whether, historically, children and young people have had full access to the tool shed or even a key to the garden gate itself. Theatre education has certainly always been in the cultural plot of each nation, but for some it has been overlooked for other blooms or lost in the undergrowth.

The Roads Divide There’s a very specific ideology at work in England. In Scotland and Wales they’ve looked at the evidence base and clearly realised we need creativity. There’s all this evidence to say that’s what children will need to navigate the 21st century, whereas in England there’s an ideology around teaching them

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

97

knowledge mastery and then they’ll be able to do everything. This ideology has been embraced and it feels like conservatism with a small ‘c’ approach. ‑Sam Cairns, CLA

As our story of each nation unfolds, wider divergences appear between governmental policy on education and the arts. Over time a much greater dislocation emerges between English policy in opposition to Arts Council England and other arts and education agencies, whilst in Scotland and Wales there is a noticeable shift towards greater synergy between the strategies of the devolved governments and their national Arts Councils and arts agencies. To place this divergence in to some sharp relief, let us consider recent curriculum developments and respective reactions in England and Wales. In England in August 2019, Rick Haythornthwaite, the chair of the Creative Industries Federation, felt compelled to write to the new Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson, in which he stated: We are deeply concerned by the falling numbers of young people studying creative subjects at school. While Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland recognise the importance of creative education by ensuring it remains on the school curriculum, the English system continues to sideline it by excluding creative subjects from the EBacc. (…) For the benefit of the whole of the UK, we urge government to incentivise a broad and balanced curriculum within schools. This should incorporate strong representation of creative subjects, creative and cultural engagement through the wider curriculum and opportunities for all young people to take part in creative activities. We call for either the discontinuation of the EBacc, or its broadening to include creative subjects, and for government to ensure that schools are well resourced to deliver these subjects.

Contrast this with the response from Diane Hebb, the director of Participation and Engagement, from Arts Council of Wales to the new Curriculum for Wales announced on 30 April 2019 by the Education Secretary Kirsty Williams: We are delighted that the National Curriculum for Wales, announced today, so closely reflects the Arts Council of Wales’ and Welsh Government Creative learning through the arts programme—in operation since 2015. It has focused on improving and increasing opportunities to experience the arts, and develop

98 

M. CROSSLEY

creative skills to transform teaching and learning across the whole curriculum. This has improved attainment in literacy and numeracy. (…) We hope that the new curriculum, as we’ve seen with the Creative learning through the arts programme, will contribute to closing the gap between the best and least well performing pupils. We look forward to continuing to contribute to the curriculum’s development in the months and years to come.

Such disparities in relationships and attitudes between protagonists within each nation are a constant theme over recent years although no organisation has found themselves above criticism as will be discovered. The development and current strategic outlooks of Creative Scotland and Arts Council of Wales have some correlations with Arts Council England but they now have distinctive and divergent priorities built upon national and nationalistic objectives, within which culture, creativity and arts education play a vibrant role in defining difference with England.

Scotland—In Culture We Trust In 2003 Jack McConnell, the First Minister of Scotland at that time, made a speech on St Andrews Day in which he declared culture to be at the ‘core’ of Scottish government and that Scotland ‘should make the development of our creative drive the next major enterprise for our society’. David Stevenson contends that such an impulse is understandable and expectable in post-devolution Scotland, as it seeks to forge a distinct identity: The relationship between culture and identity, both individual and collective, makes it an attractive area for new governments trying to solidify the collective sense of the society that they govern. In this regard, the promise offered by cultural policy is possibly even more important for a nation that finds itself within the structures of a larger state, and whose national identity is predicated upon the promotion of a civic, rather than ethnic, nationalism. (2014, p. 133)

Quite rapidly after devolution, the Scottish government sought consultation on a new curriculum for Scotland, with a 2002 National Debate on Education, which evolved into a 2004 document entitled A Curriculum for Excellence. This new curriculum was eventually implemented in schools in 2010–11 with several ‘refreshed narratives’, to use Education Scotland’s

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

99

term, since then. The curriculum is built around four capacities: Successful learners, Confident individuals, Responsible citizens and Effective contributors with the intention of creating a ‘coherent curriculum’ which enables children and young people ‘to develop the knowledge, skills and attributes they need to adapt, think critically and flourish in today’s world’ (2019). There are eight curriculum areas including Mathematics and Sciences, but crucially Expressive Arts is one of the eight. To inform the new curriculum, the Scottish government published Education and the Arts, Culture and Creativity: An Action Plan in 2010 aimed at ‘developing the role and impact of creativity within and across the curriculum’ (p. 2). The outcomes of this plan immediately required Creative Scotland and Education Scotland to work in partnership to develop a strategic approach to creative learning, a marked contrast to England in which the Arts Council has often been, and remains, in clear opposition to central government policy through its research and arts advocacy (e.g. Time to Listen 2018). An Expressive Arts Excellence Group was established as a result of the action plan and this group were guided by two central aims, to find ‘ways in which the school experience gave pupils skills development in the expressive arts alongside gaining knowledge’ and ‘to embed the use of expressive arts as pathway to creative teaching across the curriculum’ (McNaughton 2013, p. 480). Of significance to professional theatre-makers in Scotland was its recommendation in 2011 that primary schools should develop links with professional creative partners (ibid.). From the outset, the optimism of the new curriculum was tempered by criticism however (e.g. Priestley 2012, Bloomer 2019, Grant 2019) over the speed of the rollout and the lack of support for teachers having to deliver this radically new curriculum, hence the ‘refreshed narrative’ last year, led by John Swinney, the current Scottish Education Minister, that sought to simplify the curriculum.36 Despite these efforts, criticism has continued to dog the Curriculum for Excellence with claims from political rivals to the Scottish National Party (SNP) that it has widened the attainment gap and reduced choices at the Higher level (BBC 2019). Creative Scotland have been at the heart of the strategic direction of cultural and creative learning over the last decade. In 2013, they produced the National Creative Learning Plan What Is Creativity? authored with a 36  As of summer 2020, there is an ongoing independent review of Curriculum for Excellence led by Andreas Schleicher from Education Scotland.

100 

M. CROSSLEY

series of partners including Education Scotland, Scottish Government, the General Teaching Council for Scotland and the Scottish Qualification Authority (SQA). Such collaboration with key stakeholders and policymakers distinguishes this period in Scottish educational history and indicates the centrality of creativity and arts to curriculum development. Therefore, the statements within such documentation, whilst replicating much of the sentiments from England, are rooted in a crucially different reality—an agreed determination and shared vision of policymakers alongside arts funding bodies and advocates. Many commentators have attributed this recent synergy in Scotland to what they refer to as the long-standing progressive nature of Scottish politics and education policy. In recent decades, Scottish politics has certainly been dominated by left of centre political parties as already noted, partly fuelled by Margaret Thatcher’s opposition to devolution. Since devolution the Scottish Labour Party and then the Scottish National Party (SNP) has held the majority of seats in the parliament. It’s worthy of note that one of the first things Gordon Vallins stated during our interview was that ‘it’s generally socialist governments that pursue a radical view of education’. This is a firmly held view within much of the theatre and theatre in education communities and of course the word radical is predominantly deemed synonymous with progressive, social democratic values. Some, however, would arguably see current Conservative educational policy in England as radical and progressive, redressing the ‘slide’ of standards (PISA37 tests are often cited as a measure) in literacy, numeracy and science. So we have to be careful over assumptions with such terminology, as ownership is fluid and contested. The 2010 Action Plan, for example, was applauded as ‘progressive’ in its synthesis of arts and creative learning with Marie-Jean McNaughton, in the 2013 review of Scottish Education, writing: ‘The Education and the Arts, Culture and Creativity action plan has moved the arts further up the educational agenda and CfE seems to be particularly conducive to the idea of the arts being central to balanced, progressive learning’ (p.  480). In contrast, some argue, such as in The 37  PISA—‘PISA is the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment. PISA measures 15-year-olds’ ability to use their reading, mathematics and science knowledge and skills to meet real-life challenges’ (oecd.org). It is a world-wide measure used by governments to make comparisons of educational achievement but it only refers to certain statistical measures and is criticised for its lack of holistic measurements. In Scotland, the 2018 PISA results reflected small improvements in reading and minor falls in maths and science but these may all be attributable to statistical margins of error (Priestley and Shapira 2019).

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

101

Economist article ‘A Costly Promise’ (2015), that current SNP policy in Scotland (free university tuition fees specifically) is as much driven by nationalistic objectives as progressive ideals, even if the results are not dissimilar. The vision statement for What Is Creativity? (2013) married these dual objectives of national identity and ‘progressive’ creativity, as the plan declared: ‘At the heart of our Creative Learning Plan is this, our vision for a more creative Scotland: to shape our future as a country, we need to create and be creative.’ It goes on to state: To achieve this, we need to be creative. We need to generate the ideas that will allow us to rise to the challenges of a global economy and an endangered environment. We need to be able to invent and develop our science and technology. We need to be able to write the poems and stories that reflect and enrich who we are. We need to express that through the visual arts, music, through theatre and dance, through film. And in doing so, we need to eradicate the false demarcation lines between the expressive arts and every other subject. Creative learning and teaching are the most fulfilling route to both deep learning and a rounded adulthood. (2013, p. 9)

Such a shared vision is given even greater traction by the smaller scale of the nation. Joan Parr, the interim director of Arts Engagement at Creative Scotland underlines the effect of this: ‘The big difference is that we’re a small country and so we still have a collective ethos, as one as a country. It’s easier to make decisions in a smaller country, and easier to get access to politicians and easier to get people around the table.’ Often ministers have experience of related roles in government which aids their understanding and empathy towards the recommendations of reviews, as Parr highlights: ‘We got to a position where the education minister had been the culture minister and the culture minister had been the education minister so they knew each other’s roles which was very helpful as they both just got it.’ Shared strategic thinking is made easier by the fact that there is only one examination body, the SQA, to consult with. The school system is also relatively streamlined which enables policies and initiatives to have a more immediate and deeper impact, as Parr acknowledges: In Scotland we have one school system. We have state schools and we have private schools but in Scotland very few people go to private school. The vast majority go to state schools and state schools have one system around them which is Curriculum for Excellence. The Academies system in England

102 

M. CROSSLEY

has taken away some of that capacity to reach nationally. We’ve only got thirty two local authorities which are being reorganised into six and education has very easy routes into those so there are structures we can use to disseminate ideas. We can’t deal with every school but we do have a champion in every local authority as part of the Creative Learning Network. So we can do stuff—we can set stuff running, there’s a system and it will ‘hit’ everyone.

The interlinking of policy and practice on creativity was further strengthened with Education Scotland producing its fourth version of its inspection guidance documentation How Good Is Our School? in 2015, which included the four quality indicators of creativity and then the revision of the Creative Learning Plan in 2019. Creative Scotland, as with the Curriculum for Excellence, has not however been immune to criticism in its approach to arts education and funding policy. Stevenson (2014) identifies the tensions arising within the Scottish cultural community as to the prioritises of the organisation such as its commitment (or lack of) to traditional Scottish arts and to what extent they were perceived as ‘tools of governance’ by which the Scottish government engineered cultural policy. More recently in 2018 they received severe criticism by a range of stakeholders including theatre-­ makers for the removal of regularly funded status or reduction in funding for a number of theatre organisations, notably disabled performer-led companies like Birds of Paradise and theatre companies making work solely or partially for young people, including the long-established Catherine Wheels and Stellar Quines. Core funding for many regularly funded organisations (RFOs) was replaced with specific but limited touring funding. Creative Scotland and their chief executive at the time Janet Archer38 were immediately lobbied by arts organisations in protest to what was seen as a specific targeting of theatre provision.39 Dougie Irvine, 38  In February 2018, Janet Archer and Ben Thomson, the chair of Creative Scotland, were called to the Holyrood Parliament in Edinburgh to explain what was then referred to as the ‘cover up’ of the decision making behind the funding cuts. It was revealed that the decision was not the unanimous agreement of the Creative Scotland board, as Archer stated to the select committee: ‘The board has reflected on the use of the word unanimous on the minutes of the meeting in January and has now amended it to say it was a majority decision’ (2018). Later in 2018, Janet Archer stepped down from her role and was replaced by Iain Munro as the chief executive of Creative Scotland. 39  A group referring to itself as ‘the community of technicians and theatre production staff across Scotland’ wrote to protest against the funding cuts for Catherine Wheels, stating: ‘The

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

103

Artistic Director of Visible Fictions based in Glasgow, recalled this period in which their own RFO funding was also cut before a successful appeal reversed the decision. It seems that the theatre department was treated differently to other artforms in the decision-making process, it felt like the sector was being de-­ structured and de-professionalised, which felt like such a political act. This new touring fund seems to be moving artists and organisations in to that category. Other companies had core funding kept but nothing to make work with. We met with senior members of Creative Scotland and they seemed to acknowledge that they may have got something wrong. I hope this understanding is still held within Creative Scotland though at the moment there’s no clear strategy and I fear in two years’ time we could get cut again.

In the last few years, as evidenced in the 2013 changes to the Drama Higher qualifications, there was clearly a centralisation of theatrical processes and performance modes. In correspondence to this trend, there has undoubtedly been a renewed emphasis on children experiencing live theatre as evidenced by the Theatre in Schools Scotland initiative begun in 2016 by Imaginate and National Theatre of Scotland, with backing from the Scottish Government. Imaginate began in 1989 and is the national organisation in Scotland which ‘promotes, develops and celebrates theatre and dance for children and young people’ and is funded partly by Creative Scotland and the Scottish Government. Alongside the Theatre in Schools initiative they also support artist development and produce the Edinburgh International Children’s Festival every summer. Speaking at the launch event for Theatre in Schools, the Scottish Culture Secretary Fiona Hyslop stated: ‘We’re working hard to enrich young people’s lives through arts and creativity and Theatre in Schools Scotland acknowledges that.’40 In the same speech, Hyslop also highlighted Time to Shine, Scotland’s Youth Arts Strategy, another of the major initiatives given impetus by Curriculum for Excellence: ‘I recently outlined my ambition of establishing Scotland potential loss of employment, vital network and support system awarded by Catherine Wheels is too important for the Scottish cultural sector to risk losing’ (2018). 40  The Theatre in Schools project initially toured 25 local authorities in Scotland and enabled 15,000 children to see live shows by Catherine Wheels and Visible Fictions. It continues to be funded partly by donors and partly by schools and tours shows by Scottish-based theatre-makers, which in 2020 included Curious Seed and Shona Reppe.

104 

M. CROSSLEY

as an international leader in youth arts, and Time to Shine, Scotland’s Youth Arts Strategy, is helping to enable Scotland’s children and young people to flourish in and through the arts.’ The language of this, echoing many Scottish ministers’ speeches in recent years, underlines the affinity being cultivated between nationhood (with an undeniable subtext of Scottish independence) and a renaissance in creative endeavour. The creative learning schema is having to thread a very intricate path through a number of agendas that simultaneously extol arts for their own aesthetic sake, encourage participation for its benefits to citizenship and well-being, acclaim creativity for its economic potential and its capacity for defining national identity. Whilst in England an argument could be made that all these agendas are also in play, they are not propelled to anywhere near the same extent as they are in Scotland by the combined energies of government ministers, arts policymakers and funders. Joan Parr from Creative Scotland seems currently at ease with these competing demands, stating: ‘I’m quite comfortable with that tension between agendas—artistic and instrumental.’ Parr is clearly positive when asked how artists are responding to these new agendas: ‘How much are arts community on board with this notion of creativity? Creative learning was already a strand for us but we’d never defined it or had this discussion and they’d been applying for funds to this strand without a clear articulation of creativity. So I went on a road trip around the country with a view to getting a consensus and we had a steering group—they were fabulous. Very engaged.’ From many of the artists I spoke to there was certainly enthusiasm for this consultation process and the action planning that came from it. However, as the Curriculum for Excellence has unfolded there are some artists who are less persuaded by the reality behind the vision. Guy Hollands, Associate Director at Glasgow Citizens Theatre with responsibility for Citizens Learning,41 commented: ‘We were part of the consultation for the new curriculum. We were part of a cultural co-ordinators scheme looking to make connections in arts companies. We are told it’s ground-breaking, trailblazing and that people are coming from all over world to learn about it but now there’s no money and we’re still being told it’s exemplary.’ In February 2020, the Scottish government produced A Culture Strategy for Scotland. As with such documentation in Wales, the strategy is 41  Since publication, Guy Hollands has left his post at Glasgow Citizens Theatre and is currently working freelance.

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

105

overtly supported from the top of government, with a foreword by Nicola Sturgeon MSP, First Minister for Scotland, who emphasises that ‘culture is a cross-government priority—one which all ministerial portfolios in the Scottish Government contribute towards’. Sturgeon is clear that such a strategy is an investment in ‘the future cultural, social and economic success of Scotland’ (p. 4). The nationalistic significance of the First Minister’s words is reiterated on the next page of the document by Fiona Hyslop MSP, now the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Fair Work and Culture, who states, ‘Our culture defines who and what we are: it is the way we talk, the way we think and the way we treat one another.’ The minister goes on to announce the establishment of a National Partnership for Culture ‘to take a comprehensive view of our cultural landscape’ (pp. 5–6). Education’s role in this strategy is clearly identifiable across all the key aims, as it aspires to ‘place culture as a central consideration across all policy areas’. Within the aims, the strategy pointedly intends to ‘value, trust and support creative people’—arguably a retort to the mistrust towards ‘The Blob’ and the diminution of the arts that is perceived to dominate the south of the border. Creative Scotland have welcomed this report but as yet the impact of the strategy is yet to be known. What is clear, however, is that the yoking of cultural and artistic endeavour with national status continues to gather pace, emboldened by post-Brexit fervour and general election results, which in December 2019 saw the Scottish National Party win forty-eight seats, up from thirty-five in the previous election. On the night of the vote count in Glasgow, Sturgeon confidently announced, ‘Boris Johnson has a mandate to take England out of the EU but he must accept that I have a mandate to give Scotland a choice for an alternative future.’ The Culture Strategy of 2020 clearly enunciates this vision of an alternative future.

Wales—Stepping Forward, Taking a Bow When powers are devolved they make big decisions because they can. Tim Howe, Sherman Theatre Cardiff

Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, since the 1944 Education Act, there was an increasing convergence of the English and Welsh education systems, far more than had ever existed between Scotland and England. Previous legislation such as the 1889 Intermediate Education Act had established Welsh Grammar Schools but following the 1944 Act,

106 

M. CROSSLEY

‘the distinctive Welsh system of secondary education coalesced with that of England’ (Jones and Roderick 2003: p. 147). The English education system had in fact sought to dominate the Welsh model for centuries as a means of political and cultural control. The Welsh language, for example, had been subjugated and excluded from teaching in schools since the eighteenth century and the practice continued into the mid-twentieth century. Diane Hebb from the Arts Council of Wales told how people would recall, from their living memory, the practice of the Welsh Not: ‘There were no Welsh language schools and if they were caught speaking Welsh in schools they were made to wear, as punishment, a wooden board around their neck which said “Welsh Not” as they were not allowed to speak it in school.’ In the mid-twentieth century, such draconian measures led to concerted resistance from a number of organisations including Cymdeithas Yr Iaith Gymraeg (The Welsh Language Society).42 Jones and Roderick highlight the impact of this campaign: ‘Perhaps the greatest success of the movement for the perpetuation of the language was the dramatic change it wrought in the position of Welsh in the education system’ (2003, p. 174). The Educational Reform Act of 1988 prompted further consideration of how distinctive the Welsh curriculum should be and over a number of years the Curriculum Council for Wales developed the distinctive Curriculum Cymreig in 1993. Jones and Roderick affirm the significance of this by stating, ‘The creation of a statutory curriculum unique to Wales is an educational achievement to compare with the political achievement of devolution’ (2003, p. 210). Undoubtedly, this break from the English curriculum model in the 1990s enabled the current Curriculum for Wales to develop more fluently and radically. With the instigation of the Welsh National Assembly, the Welsh government sought to take more affirmative action to counter what Diane Hebb referred to as a ‘deep concern about arts disappearing from Welsh schools and the overemphasis on literacy and numeracy’. In 2013, Professor Dai Smith, who was at the time chair of Arts Council of Wales, was tasked with reviewing arts education in the nation’s schools. His report was published in September of that year, entitled An Independent Report for the Welsh Government into Arts in Education in the Schools of Wales. The findings of this report had a fundamental impact on the next 42  The Welsh Language Act of 1967 stated that ‘Welsh should enjoy equal validity with English for official, governmental and legal purposes’.

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

107

stage of curriculum review and the Curriculum for Wales which followed. In the introduction to his report Professor Smith quoted the late Gareth Elwyn Jones, from his detailed co-authored text A History of Education in Wales (2003). The quote Smith selects is a clear indication of how he envisages the role of arts in framing and cultivating national identity: Encapsulating many of the internal tensions and contradictions of change and development in Wales … has been education policy. At various moments in Welsh history, education has assumed an importance well beyond its normal parameters… and… since 1979, education has once more been central to discussion of Wales and Welshness. (p. 2)

The report outlined twelve recommendations, the first of which was an unequivocal call to action: ‘The Welsh Government should formally assert the central role which it envisages for arts education in the schools of Wales by making a commitment to the provision of high quality arts education and access to the arts’ (2013, p.  4). The second challenged the government to ‘promote the use of the arts in helping to deliver improved numeracy and literacy’, and the third placed ‘creativity, alongside numeracy and literacy as a core theme across all the subject disciplines and in both primary and secondary education’ (ibid.). In a section entitled ‘The Claim of Wales’, Smith sets out his passionate argument for a distinctive Welsh curriculum, guided by creativity which he affirms ‘is, in essence, the basis of lifelong learning’. His prose is at times as much a rousing national call to arms as it is a review of arts education: We are faced, today, with a series of social and cultural problems which are a compound of our fragmented geography and fractured history. Nor is there an obvious economic counter-balance—of coal and steel, of tin-plate and slate—that can act as an indigenous Welsh touchstone to pull things together in a world of work. We can wear, variously, the identity cloaks of sporting triumph or linguistic distinctiveness but, as a people, we do not live in a single skin. It is time to recognize this as the means towards a more openly civic, less narrowly branded Wales. The arts validate both our distinctive identity and our common humanity. (p. 8)

Throughout the document, Smith outlines many ideas which became central elements for future planning on Curriculum for Wales and the Creative Learning Action Plan of Arts Council of Wales including

108 

M. CROSSLEY

Creative Learning Networks and a greater emphasis on funding arts to create ‘equitable provision’ for young people (p.  5). In his conclusion, Smith is explicit in his conviction that arts are paramount to the Welsh self-actualisation of nationhood: ‘Arts in education is the best instrument we (potentially) possess for a small nation’s (confident) future to be played out on a global stage. Only if we step forward, can we take a bow’ (p. 50). Diane Hebb alluded to this Welsh national instinct and its impetus: ‘This notion of Welsh culture and identity have been growing for years and it’s a reaction to Welsh culture having been repressed by English imperialism.’ The very fact that it was Dai Smith, chair of the Arts Council of Wales, who was tasked by the Welsh government with this review engendered a sense of hope and renewed energy within the arts education community. Sarah Argent, a prominent freelance theatre-maker based in Cardiff, felt assured that Smith ‘fundamentally believed that arts should be woven through the curriculum and you could teach everything through arts and creativity’. To the relief and surprise of many, Huw Lewis, the Culture Minister at the time, accepted all of the report’s recommendations and asked the Arts Council to develop their five-year action plan. During the same period, Professor Graham Donaldson, who had previously worked on some of the educational reforms in Scotland,43 began an overarching review of the curriculum in Wales which was finally published in 2015, entitled Successful Futures. This report consulted teaching staff and pupils from across Wales and the feedback signalled that teachers wanted ‘more power to make decisions’ and children and young people thought the current curriculum to be ‘out-of-date’. Donaldson’s review set the template for the Curriculum for Wales in establishing the four ‘purposes’ for the new structure: ambitious capable learners, ethical informed citizens, healthy confident individuals and enterprising, creative contributors and the six Areas of Learning and Experience, one of which was Expressive Arts (pp. 4–5). Notably, the review suggests that between fourteen and sixteen years of age, young people should be encouraged to take subjects (and therefore assessments) across all six areas which has implications for future examinations in the arts which are yet to be revised in response to the Curriculum for Wales. In the lead up to the publication Arts Council of Wales were significantly involved in informing the 43  Donaldson authored Teaching Scotland’s Future: Report of a review of teacher education in Scotland (2010).

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

109

discussions on the role of arts in the curriculum and there was regular consultation between Smith and Donaldson. Diane Hebb recalls that their own action plan was ‘ready to be published but we couldn’t as Donaldson was about to publish, so we were holding our breath for two months and fortunately Expressive Arts was one of the six areas of learning and creativity one of the four core purposes. We were like WOW yes—couldn’t be better.’ With the publication of Successful Futures, Arts Council of Wales could press ahead with their own initiative, Creative Learning Through the Arts—An Action Plan for Wales 2015–20. By 2015, Huw Lewis was now the Minister for Education and Skills, echoing the situation in Scotland as identified by Joan Parr earlier where ‘the culture minister had been the education minister’ and this empathy with the arts is clearly transmitted in the ministerial foreword he wrote for the action plan in which he restated the Welsh government’s commitment to facilitating ‘a sea change in the way that the arts and education sectors work together to deliver benefits for our learners’ (2015, p.  3). What is immediately striking about the action plan is the focus on three instrumental priorities—improving literacy, numeracy and reducing the impact of disadvantage (p. 4). In these ambitions, it was directly responding to the low levels of ‘aspiration and low levels of engagement and achievement amongst disadvantaged learners’ (p. 6). Key initiatives announced within the plan were a Lead Creative Schools Scheme to ‘improve attainment through creativity’, a scheme referred to as ‘an intensive intervention’ as well as an All-Wales Arts and Education Programme to develop partnerships between schools, artists and cultural organisations.44 The evolution of the action plan was by no means frictionless however as Diane Hebb recalls: Through the year of development of the action plan, senior education officials did not want to engage on this so it was a tough year, a constant battle. Two things made a difference in the end, Huw Lewis had a teacher advisory group. We pushed for a meeting with the Education minister and that advisory group, also with Paul Collard from CCE45 who we commissioned to work on the plan. In that meeting the teachers were telling us how important creative practice was, so those voices were in the room, so he heard 44  To improve access for children and young people to see and experience professional practice and collaborate with artists, an ‘Experiencing the Arts’ fund was also established. 45  CCE—Creativity, Culture and Education is a UK-based international consultancy advising on creative and cultural engagement. Paul Collard is the chief executive.

110 

M. CROSSLEY

them talking about needed to be in the curriculum and from that came a sense of “OK, we need to be listening to this”.

There was still resistance at this stage to a national action plan with a capacity to impact a significant number of schools. ‘We kept being asked for a pilot project,’ Hebb explains. ‘But I was adamant—the days of doing pilot are past—this has got to be something which fundamentally shifts and transforms education and learning for the future and it needs to come in with the new curriculum, so it has to be big and Wales wide.’ This insistence was rewarded in the end, as a commitment of one million pounds made by Dai Smith on behalf of Arts Council of Wales was matched by the minister ‘to the shock of his civil servants’, as Hebb recalls. The action plan was launched across the country in March 2015 with the Lead Creative Schools Scheme, centring on creativity and creative learning. The underlying approach to this, which built significantly on the Creative Partnerships model, was the interaction between educators and artists, as Diane Hebb outlined: ‘The best way to develop a creative approach to teaching and learning is to bring creative practitioners in to the schools and the best creative practitioners are artists.’ Over the last five years this initiative has demonstrably had a significant impact across the country, and according to Arts Council of Wales it has reached over a third of schools in Wales. To underpin the work in schools, a set of creative learning principles was introduced and disseminated, based on ‘Creative Habits of Mind’, a philosophy and methodology developed in a partnership between CCE and the Centre for Real World Learning (CRL) at the University of Winchester led by Professor Bill Lucas.46 This initiative is notable in demonstrating the extent to which the Arts Council of Wales connected and strategised the relationship between their practice and the impact of creative learning, facilitating an overt methodology shared between practitioners and teachers, no longer reliant on the intrinsic and undefinable capacity of the arts to nurture creativity. The intention was for the educational targets of government (articulated then through the arts council strategy in relation to numeracy, literacy and reducing the impact of disadvantage) to have a clear through-line of action, measurement and accountability. The current plan is reaching the end of its five year period with further funding secured for 2020–2, and 46  See Creativity and creative learning for further reference to Bill Lucas and the Centre for Real World Learning.

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

111

Diane Hebb is evidently proud of the success of its flagship strategies, particularly the Lead Creative Schools Scheme: ‘The building blocks are all there now. We are hearing from headteachers who have understood what this programme is about and embedded this in their curriculum, secondary as well as primary. The schools who have had the opportunity to do this are better placed for the new curriculum.’ What’s so exciting about the new curriculum in Wales is that it’s designed by teachers and education practitioners, not curriculum designers. Diane Hebb, Arts Council of Wales

Both of the initial reports, Smith and Donaldson and the Arts Council of Wales action plan, fed directly into the development phase for Curriculum for Wales. Tim Howe, the Creative Engagement Manager from Sherman Theatre Cardiff, succinctly commented, ‘When Donaldson came out they didn’t just say thank you very much, they said we really have to make a change here.’ There is also unquestionably a sense, when talking to stakeholders across Wales including artists but also teachers,47 that the voices of the arts community and educators were valued in this phase of development although as Hebb, who worked on the Expressive Arts consultation group, concedes, there were some initial doubts: ‘It’s been a really interesting journey. It took a lot of convincing that this would happen—saying just go with it. Teaching morale was at rock bottom due to issues around attainment, the passion for teaching was knocked out of them. Also Heads of drama, music and dance were quite protective of their subjects—anxious about the interdisciplinarity of creativity and expressive arts.’ This acknowledgement of stakeholder voices and research is directly cited in the presentation material during the consultation phase. The Expressive Arts documentation specifically lists Dai Smith’s report, Lead Creative Schools, the teacher consultation groups as well as previous research including that of Ken Robinson. The Expressive Arts draft also recognises the impact that the Foundation Phase developments had upon the curriculum design. The Foundation Phase is the statutory curriculum in Wales for three- to seven-year-olds, with creative development as one of its seven areas of learning. In its 47  During the research process I attended a number of Curriculum for Wales consultation events including the Curriculum 2022 event at the Principality Stadium, Cardiff in May 2019.

112 

M. CROSSLEY

outline the first statement reads: ‘It encourages children to use their imaginations and to be creative, making learning fun and more effective.’ Creative practitioners were central to its evolution under the new Welsh government. Sarah Argent attributes this to some key factors: ‘Under the devolved powers, Jayne Davidson was the first education minister and she had been a drama teacher. She looked to where children had been succeeding. She found it was in the countries where they didn’t start formal education too early, so she got rid of SATs for seven year olds and focused on play and creativity.’ The direct influence of creative practice on the shaping of policy is again attributable in part to the small scale of the nation, as Kevin Lewis, freelance theatre-maker and previously Artistic Director of Theatr Iolo, alludes to: ‘It’s part of being part of a small country, it’s much easier to access the politicians and being in Cardiff we’re near the Arts Council and the Assembly.’ During the development of the Foundation Phase curriculum Sarah Argent recalls: ‘We were invited to present work at conferences to which five ministers, including the First Minister came. He said his proudest achievement post devolution was to introduce the foundation phase. It was a real shared commitment rooted in a very passionate belief that changing early years education could change society.’ Lewis, who collaborated with Argent on these Foundation Phase projects, enthusiastically endorses this view in his recollection of that period at the end of the last decade: ‘When I started in theatre I wanted to change the world and when we were doing these conferences we were talking to the First Minister and they were seeing our work and it felt like we were up there being heard.’ The Expressive Arts area of learning emerged directly out of the Donaldson report, although Hebb noted that ‘he wishes he’d called it Creative Arts’. The Arts Council of Wales along with many representatives from the Lead Creative Schools and Pioneer Schools48 fed into the curriculum design in this area. Some of the disquiet previously mentioned was centred on the potential for hierarchy within the six areas of learning. Hebb accepts that ‘there was concern in schools, some anxiety over the six areas of learning and whether Expressive Arts will be equal to the others. So I kept saying that it is its own area of learning, but at the same time keep in mind what it can contribute creatively to the other areas of 48  The Welsh government identified 120 ‘pioneer schools’ in 2015 to lead on the design and implementation of the new Curriculum for Wales. Many of these were also Lead Creative Schools.

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

113

learning and those other areas need to recognise its importance. Interdisciplinarity is crucial to the new curriculum.’ It is perhaps for this reason that Hebb is happier than Donaldson to retain the title of Expressive Arts as it delineates its discreet arts identity, whereas as Hebb contests: ‘Creativity is across the curriculum. It’s not the same thing as the arts.’ Currently, the Expressive Arts curriculum has coalesced around three key elements—Exploring, Responding and Creating, with an emphasis that progression is based on deepening knowledge and understanding and independence in these areas. The structure and content bear a clear resemblance and influence from the Scottish model of creating, presenting and evaluating. With the full implementation of the curriculum in 2022, including the teaching of Welsh to all pupils up to sixteen, there are already many schools, notably the ‘Pioneers’, beginning to deliver the new design. Anticipation is still tinged with anxiety in how it will unfold and how schools will interpret expressive arts and engage with theatre-makers. Time Howe from Sherman Theatre seems unequivocal in his support, ‘This new curriculum is brilliant, its children led, it aligns with a lot of my own beliefs,’ whereas Catherine Bennett from Volcano Theatre company echoes some of the teachers’ concerns that were voiced in Cardiff: ‘If we label someone as the expressive arts teacher then they are going to have to teach drama, art, music and so on, then schools may cut some teachers and just have one expressive arts teacher.’ Within national organisations, including Arts Council of Wales and teaching unions, there is a concern over funding, what Hebb refers to as ‘the elephant in the room’. In 2019, the Culture, Media and Sport select committee produced a report entitled Changing Lives: the social impact of participation in culture and sport (2019) in which they highlighted that ‘there is also evidence from Wales that, with pressure on schools budgets, it is not just in England that down grading of arts subjects in schools has occurred’ and in January of 2020, BBC Wales posted that ‘teaching unions said the current state of school funding did not match the aspiration of the new curriculum’. Within the teaching profession there remains uncertainty over how this interdisciplinary curriculum, with six areas of learning, translates into examination assessments at sixteen and beyond. There is still much to be discovered as we approach 2022.

114 

M. CROSSLEY

Creativity and Creative Learning Now, the development of creativity is a difficult task and cannot be taught in the conventional sense. A mind cannot be made to produce creative thought; it can only be shown, and given practice in the conditions which are likely to produce creativity. (K. (boy), 17 The school that I’d like 1969, p. 90)

K’s fifty-year-old observation may be an invaluable beacon to navigate back to during this section as creativity and creative learning are notoriously difficult territories to traverse. Much has been written on both subjects with equal measures of consensus and variance. Creativity is, understandably, a charged and febrile domain, implicitly and often explicitly interconnected with culture and the arts. Creative learning, as a mode of creativity, is therefore in the path of similar contention. Across Great Britain, both creativity and creative learning have found themselves at the heart of political, cultural and educational agendas and as the twenty-first century progresses their role in defining nationhood, cultural and economic status and selfhood has never been more conspicuous. Creativity? Mihaly Czikszentmihalyi put our modern perplexity over creativity quite succinctly: ‘The problem is that creativity as commonly used covers too much ground. It refers to very different entities, thus causing a great deal of confusion’ (1996, p. 25). In the space available here, it is impossible to encapsulate the full spectrum of discourses on creativity but what is feasible is an identification of the debates and definitions that currently have a degree of pre-eminence and therefore some impact on national agendas. In this regard, it is always worth remembering that articulations of creativity are affected by political turns as much as they are by cultural or pedagogical insights, as Rob Elkington earlier noted, creativity has a malleable nature that may be ‘(re)constructed for different political times and ends’. There are multiple definitions of creativity,49 a plethora within the last twenty or thirty years, but what may be acknowledged in such definitions are their prevalence and usage within strategy and methodology. At a granular level there is some distinction to be found between definitions of  Bill Lucas (2016) notes that Treffinger (2002) found 120 definitions of creativity.

49

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

115

creativity, but in the context of this text it is actually more noticeable how these classifications have clear correspondence. First, there is the conception of creativity as a set of attitudes, aptitudes and skills, often referred to as ‘creative capabilities’. The most recent and high profile articulation of this to be found in the ‘Creative Habits of Mind’ model (2011 onwards) as researched and advocated by Guy Claxton, Bill Lucas and Ellen Spencer from the Centre for Real World Learning at Winchester University. This model has to some degree been placed in contrast to an advocacy for domain specificity which stresses the need to site creativity in precise fields of enquiry as its affordances and expressions will be particular to that domain and therefore it is argued, when applied within a learning context, have the greatest resonance and applicability for a child. The CRL approach identifies a five-dimensional model of creativity, the five ‘core habits’ being inquisitive, imaginative, persistent, collaborative and disciplined. Each of these five has identifiable sub-habits such as wondering and questioning under inquisitive. The very nature of it being a model resists some of the more reductive or essentialist explications of creativity. The importance of the domain meanwhile is clearly in evidence back in 1999  in All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education (1999), principally authored by Ken Robinson, and its articulation of the term has resonated ever since: Creativity carries with it the idea of action and purpose. It is, in a sense, applied imagination. The imaginative activity is fashioned, and often refashioned, in pursuit of an objective. To speak of somebody being creative is to suggest that they are actively engaged in making or producing something in a deliberate way. (p. 31)

This model has its roots in the work of a number of scholars, including Margaret A.  Boden’s principle of ‘creative productions’ occurring in ‘structured social contexts’ which are ‘useful or appropriate for the situation in which it occurs’ (1994, p.  159) and Mihaly Czikszentmihalyi’s proposal that creativity is observed in the interrelations of three elements: ‘Domain—made up of a set of rules and procedures; Field—individuals/ gatekeepers of a domain; Individual—working to create something novel to be accepted into this domain’ (1996, p. 28). In terms of recent directions of travel there has also been an increasing emphasis on localised, community and personal expressions of creativity. It was twenty-five years ago in 1996 when Czikszentmihalyi referred

116 

M. CROSSLEY

(amongst a variety of theorists) to creativity with a capital C, the ‘the kind that changes some aspect of the culture, is never only in the mind of the person. […] To have any effect, the idea must be couched in terms that are understandable to others, it must pass muster with the experts in the field, and finally it must be included in the cultural domain to which it belongs’ (p. 27). More recently, however, this high benchmark of creativity is being recalibrated, with greater attention to localised ‘little c’ creativity.50 Craft (1996) and Lucas (2016) attend to the attainability of little ‘c’, as Lucas proposes it is ‘the kind of ordinary creativity that we can all show across a range of domains’ (2016, p. 279). John Hegarty, a renowned marketing executive, in Hegarty on Creativity: There Are No Rules (2014) accords with this view when offering ‘there are many ways to define creativity but the one I like the best is “the expression of self.” It’s a definition that captures my belief that we’re all creative—though naturally some are better at it than others’ (p. 11). He goes on to reconsider originality, the often used benchmark for creativity: ‘Does something have to be original? So rather than original I use a much better word: FRESH’ (p. 21). The prevalence of this perspective can be seen in the Let’s Create strategy which refers to the ‘growing support for and celebration of everyday creativity’ (2020, p. 10). When talking to theatre educators there is often a vociferous debate both on and off the record about divergent approaches to creativity and therein how or even if creative learning should be articulated. It is not the remit of this book to question or contradict the personal rationales of each practitioner although it may be suggested that often disagreement is centred on the specific political and strategic manifestations of creativity rather than on theoretical or pedagogical differences. However, on closer inspection, the CRL model readily advocates a domain-based exploration of the habits of mind, but not as an exclusive methodology. In his own explanation of the five-dimensional model, Lucas, citing Craft, states: ‘Creativity can be an individual or collective phenomenon and can be viewed as domain-specific or domain-free’ (2016, p. 279).

50  Big and little C creativity has been nuanced by a variety of theorists including Kaufman and Beghetto (2009, 2017) who proposed Mini-C for personal, novel creativity and Pro-C for professional levels of expertise which do not change the domain as big C (or capital C) require.

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

117

Theatre and Creativity Amongst many practitioners, the importance of domain is very evident. This outlook runs in correspondence to the revalorisation of a theatre-­ centric pedagogy and the ‘place’ of theatre as a potent learning environment which is revisited throughout this text. For Jacqui O’Hanlon, at the Royal Shakespeare Company, the rehearsal room and the interrogation of text are foregrounded as ‘powerful and empowering’ domains for learning: I think the kinds of creativity we develop and practice within an arts environment are different to a science environment. Both depend on a deep knowledge of that subject area to then have the confidence and ability to be creative. If we define creativity as bringing something into being that didn’t exist before, then to make something that didn’t exist before we have to know something. I’m much more in the domain specific part of that dialogue. I find the notion of creativity divorced from the thing we are being creative about impossible. I believe in arts based learning and through that I can learn about a whole lot of other things. There is also a very unhelpful dichotomy between traditional and progressive methodologies because Shakespeare is a really good example of something that requires knowledge but we use very progressive ways to teach it.

Rob Elkington, Director of Arts Connect West Midlands, is similarly assertive in his advocacy for domain-specific creativity: In order to think outside of the box you’ve got to know what’s inside the box, the dimensions of the box. How can you think outside of the box if you’ve got no expertise or know of what’s in it. I do reject the notion that it’s a weightless sets of skills you can apply randomly to problems. I’d ask what’s the problem you need to solve and what’s the sort of knowledge, skills or teams you need to solve it? You can only apply that in a domain. I don’t see how it can make sense any other way.

Theatre and the arts are unquestionably and unsurprisingly seen as particularly potent domains for creative learning yet a common thread running throughout the conversations has been an anxiety that the arts overstate, or are misrepresented as overstating, their ownership of creativity. Darren Henley highlights this unease when stating, ‘In the public mind the arts may epitomise creativity, but I think this can create a misleading impression of what creativity is and what we can do to encourage it’ (2018, p.  11). Sam Cairns, the co-director of Cultural Learning

118 

M. CROSSLEY

Alliance, also attended to this in our discussion, referring directly to the CRL model: I think it’s quite dangerous to conflate arts learning and education with creative learning because actually creativity is an approach, as researched by Bill Lucas at Winchester, that you can break down into different areas. There are five areas but it’s not exclusive to arts subjects. The risk is that if you just apply them to arts subjects and then you claim it for arts but you can teach it just as effectively in science. It can cut away the value of the arts. You have to understand the intrinsic value of the arts subjects that contribute to a broad and balanced curriculum.

In the context of this book it is therefore important to note that theatre education and creative learning are in a close correspondence but are not considered one and the same thing. Theatre education is a remarkable and potent domain within which creative learning can be facilitated and so for the purposes of the text I will often use the shorthand of theatre education as a means of encapsulating the creative learning pedagogies and methodologies it can also enfold. The Politics of Creativity As explored in ‘England—The Semantics of Creativity and Culture’, creativity is somewhat at the mercy of political trends. In the era of Creative Partnerships (CP) (2002–10), creativity was a flagship of New Labour’s economic, educational and cultural strategy. The broad remit of its strategy is noted in a ‘critical review’ of its practice which stated that ‘CP always understood its mandate to be wide-ranging. Because of its focus on creativity, CP did not see its outcomes as being about arts learning, but about learning more generally’ (Thomson et  al., 2015, p.  2). With the arrival of the coalition and then the Conservative governments, there was a marked inclination towards cultural rather than creative learning, rooted both in ideological and political differences. The machinations which appeared to lead to its marginalisation for a period and then its resurgence are dealt with at other points in Departures but its resurgence within Let’s Create is worthy of acknowledgement here. Elkington reflected, somewhat wryly, on the resurrection of the term: ‘Within the Let’s Create strategy the arts council have made a policy shift again. In that document the arts are mentioned about twice I think as it’s all about personal creativity

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

119

again, so just when we thought we had it all sorted we’re now allowed to talk about creativity again.’ This emphasis on the personal imperative of creativity was attended to by Helen Nicholson in 2011, who referred to the contemporary trend of ‘self-cultivation’ (p.  98). In this model, she considers if such an emphasis on personal growth inculcates us within the ‘soft control’ exercised by the ‘social forces of capitalism’, proposing that ‘one of the implications of this way of thinking is that the process of creative innovation is not confined to designing goods and services, it also extends to a theory of subjectivity that emphasizes personal transformation, self-reflexivity and self-regulation as an “executive function” even in early years education’ (ibid.). From this analytical standpoint, Nicholson argues how This suggests that there is a need for further analysis of the cultural and social implications of creative learning, and calls for a more nuanced understanding of the political debates that inform education policies. Personalized and creative learning may seem to offer a contemporary alternative to systems of learning that sought to divide the professional and labouring classes, but without a secure set of pedagogic principles and social values it is simply replacing an ideology based on disciplinary structures of power with another that favours self-regulation. (p.97)

In the political reality of 2020, such concerns are not readily or identifiably finding their way into the national discourses of any of the three nations, although this is not equivalent to stating that these issues are not embedded within practitioner methodologies or strategic ethics. Instinct and experience would indicate that practitioners and policymakers are, for the most part, attentive to the personal and collaborative agency of children and young people beyond a model of self-regulation. Many are very conscious of the political potency of their work with young people, whilst others are perhaps less observant of or concerned by the neo-liberal context within which such agency is exercised. In Wales, there has been an enthusiastic commitment to the CRL’s Habits of Mind framework and the Arts Council of Wales have placed it at the forefront of their Creative Learning Through the Arts Action Plan (2015–20) and the Creative Learning strategy, all of which underpinned the Pioneer and Lead Creative Schools schemes. Diane Hebb from the arts council reflected on its implementation and impact within Lead Creative Schools which exclusively used Welsh-based artists as creative

120 

M. CROSSLEY

agents and practitioners: ‘Teachers were used to companies coming in and delivering a project but this involvement in the process is so different. They go on the journey of transformation with their students. A lot of schools are measuring creativity using this model of creative habits of mind.’ This approach is overt about its instrumental capabilities and aligns creative learning against targets within the school improvement plans. Objectives may include attainment gaps between genders, socio-economic groups and ethnicities. In 2019, for example, at Mountain Ash Comprehensive School in Rhondda Cynon Taf, learners from Year 8 worked with Creative Practitioners Tracy Pallant and Amy Peckham (both film makers) in collaboration with their drama teacher to produce a two-­ part soap opera. The practical project, which culminated in a red carpet premiere targeted the gender gap in oracy skills with ‘notable improvements’ recorded as a result. At Bryn Primary School in Caerphilly a group of Year 5 boys worked with drama practitioner Louise Osborn alongside three teachers from the school in a project designed to use drama to impact upon standards of creative writing for boys. The report on the project explains that ‘the learners explored a range of drama-based workshops to create a story of a missing boy and his quest into a magical world, encountering “The Leaf Master”. Out of this, the boys formed their own theatre troupe, “The Brotherhood”’ (2016). The report goes on to quote one of the class teachers judgements on the project: ‘Claire Jones observed a “huge leap forward in their attitude to writing”. All of the learners involved made gains in their writing attainment across the project implementation period, with 64% making gains of 2 or more sub-levels. 79% of learners concluded the project working on or above their End of Key Stage target level.’ I draw attention to this latter quote and my specific use of the word judgements as this interest in statistics reminds us of the increasing use and significance of data in contemporary theatre education advocacy. Diane Hebb is clear that such positive and demonstrable data makes a determinable impression on policymakers and led directly to the extension of funding for the Lead Creative Schools project.51 The impact and wider potential of this Welsh creative learning strategy has been noted by the OECD52 which in 2019 produced a report entitled Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking, offering a spectrum 51  The case studies of projects initiated under the Creative Learning through the arts action plan are compiled in Let’s Celebrate: Creative learning through the arts (2019). 52  OECD—Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

121

of research on creative learning across the curriculum including the arts. The Lead Creative Schools initiative was one of the case studies, and the Welsh project team who were cited indicated that teachers and headteachers reported ‘Improvements in students’ academic motivation, engagement and enjoyment’ and students experienced a range of improvements including ‘Augmented self-perception of creativity’. This narrative is bolstered by statistical data demonstrating increases in a range of creativity indicators such as teachers ‘understanding of what it entails to develop students’ creativity and critical thinking skills’ (2019, pp. 323–324). In Scotland, the Curriculum for Excellence marked a turning point in the profile of creativity but its status was not always certain, as Julia Fenby, the Education Officer for Creativity at Education Scotland, notes: ‘In the original Curriculum for Excellence documentation creativity wasn’t talked about and we thought it was absolutely fundamental. But over time John Swinney began to talk about it as a creative curriculum.’ By 2013, Education Scotland had stated that ‘Creativity is very clearly at the heart of the philosophy of Curriculum for Excellence and is fundamental to the definition of what it means to be a successful learner in the Scottish education system’ (p. 3). Subsequent plans reinforced this centrality, including the Creative Learning Plan (2019), significantly influenced by Ken Robinson’s vision of creativity in All Our Futures, but including a revised definition in two parts: Creativity is: The capacity to generate ideas; things that have value to the individual Looking at things with a fresh eye; examining problems with an open mind; making connections; learning from mistakes; and using the imagination to explore new possibilities (2019, p.6)

Joan Parr from Creative Scotland explained the rationale for this recalibration: ‘The consultation group quite liked that [Ken Robinson definition] but wanted their own, which is what is used in the creative learning plan. So that was great, but then the question is “what does that look like in my classroom?”—so we then wondered what are the creativity skills, the component parts?’ Diverging slightly from the core habits espoused by Wales, Scotland (informed by the work of Eric Booth) posited four creativity

122 

M. CROSSLEY

skills: curiosity, imagination, open-mindedness and problem solving. Resonating with the concerns over siloing creativity within the arts, Parr is keen to highlight that ‘the arts are absolutely creative and are the best tool for developing creativity but they’re not the only tool and other subjects such as science can be very creative, all kinds of things can be. We have to be very aware of that’. Julia Fenby proposes that there is a ‘linguistic barrier around creativity as people think you mean the arts. People put it in that box and we wanted to get over that. We found that if you could get to the four key attributes of creativity you could quickly get into a conversation.’ The centrality of creative learning as a national strategy for economic and cultural achievement is underscored in the Scottish government’s A Culture Strategy for Scotland (2020) which states, in vibrant pink: ‘We will collaborate together, and with practitioners, on ways to inspire, empower and support learners to develop important skills for the 21st Century “in” and “through” the arts and creative learning across the curriculum’ (p. 38). Looking back on the journey of creativity within education, Julia Fenby is evidently contented with the progress made: I’m very glad Scotland has gone in that direction. There was a recognition of creativity in the global economy even back then [2013] with a lot of focus on preparing young people for the world of work. Our argument is that creativity is an important life skill. Our intended outcome is that creativity skills are recognised, articulated and valued. We have stuck with that aim for the last five years and its very consistent.

The NASUWT53 teachers union reported in 2017 what they proposed as a noticeable distinction between, on the one hand, the Welsh and Scottish approach to creativity in schools, in contrast to England. They suggested: Whilst the creative learning plans for Scotland and Wales seek to develop all learners as creative individuals and to embed creativity and the expressive arts across the curriculum, the cultural education plan [England] places the greatest focus on initiatives that promote excellence in the arts, including programmes to support the most talented artists. (p. 46)

This observation again intimates that in England there is a prevalence within government to accentuate arts learning as discreet and, arguably, rarefied, rather than a necessary opportunity throughout the curriculum  The National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers.

53

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

123

and age ranges. Having a creativity plan does not of course immediately equate with an equitable and dynamic methodology on the ground, as the NASUWT report also notes that research identified how Scottish provision was often ‘patchy and that, generally, there was insufficient planning for the development of creativity in schools’ (p. 46). In England, there still remains some debate over the prevalence of cultural as opposed to creative learning. Rob Elkington suggests that ‘cultural learning has greater currency within England’ and this is reflected in its explicit referencing in recent research, from ImagineNation: The value of Cultural Learning (2017) to Time to Listen (2018).54 Sam Cairns offers clarification between the two terms: Arts learning and creative learning are definitely different things. In a Venn diagram they definitely overlap but they’re not the same. Cultural learning is the term we use as a shorthand for arts and heritage education work and we use it as a shorthand because it’s the least-worst term that we could find, because if you talk about arts education then people in museums feel it excludes them and if you talk about museum and heritage then arts organisations don’t recognise that so cultural learning is a term that people can coalesce behind.

As noted earlier, however, creativity through the Durham Commission and Let’s Create is finding renewed traction in England but its transition into national strategies and its subsequent impact upon national outcomes is still a step behind, or a prudent step to the side (depending on your perspective), of Wales and Scotland. On the Ground Whilst the skirmishes over culture, creativity and creative learning are played out on the national stages, practitioners across the country carry on. Unlike national agendas, there is a shared sanguinity yet pragmatism towards creative learning within their practice. Dougie Irvine from Visible Fictions expresses the view of many: ‘Creativity always involves learning. You’re always taking something you sort of know and putting it together with something else you sort of know to make something that you don’t know. That involves experimentation, that involves analysis. You can’t 54  In contrast, there is no mention of cultural learning in A Culture Strategy for Scotland (2020) which notably references creative learning.

124 

M. CROSSLEY

help but learn when you’re being creative. But creative learning is different to educational outcomes.’ This is echoed by Romana Flello from the Royal Court who, like many theatre educators, recognises theatre’s potency for creative learning but resists any notion of exclusivity: ‘Creativity should be across all education. All learning experiences should be creative.’ The term, creative learning, is met with a variety of opinions. For some practitioners, it’s a useful hold-all, as James Yarker from Stan’s Cafe explains: It actually describes exactly what we do, we do work with departments like Maths on their learning and we do add a creative flair to what they do. It’s not the arts trying to colonise the term. We’re across these territories and it’s helpful for us. It’s a short hand as if you use the term ‘school work’ then that misses out also universities or adults, and ‘education work’ has dusty connotations. It serves our purposes—it’s also about us learning, it’s about trying to find a creative solution to a learning problem.

The embodied, experiential engagement within performances themselves is often cited as a fundamental mode of creative learning rather than an adendum to a detached learning event or process, as Laura Penny from Visible Fictions articulates, ‘I would argue that The Hidden is a creative learning experience in itself. Participants are learning about how to use a library, referencing, fact checking, but they are doing it whilst taking part in the experience.’ In framing the theatrical experience in this mode, the company may precurse the event with creative learning materials for a school, as Sophie Ochojna from the company explains: ‘We tend to do the learning product before the show because we want them to think about what’s on the stage—it plants that seed at an earlier time, it invests that teacher at an earlier time, invests the school and then afterwards it encourages the teacher to carry on with their own learning.’ Some practitioners are impartial over the term, including Kevin Lewis who reflects that ‘I’ve never used the phrase creative learning so I don’t have any great objection or attachment to it. I have no ownership over it. I wouldn’t have used it,’ whilst for others there is some unease, such as indicated by Justine Themen from the Belgrade Theatre: ‘I don’t particularly like creative learning. Participation I like as it describes what we do. Creative learning always felt a bit functional. It felt too much like it was shaped in that dichotomy between instrumental and extrinsic. It felt instrumental.’ Paul Fitzpatrick from Imaginate in Scotland is somewhat

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

125

pithy in his response to the term creative learning: ‘Do I like it—No, is it useful—Yes.’ However, this brevity conceals a more complex and ongoing challenge within their practice to have the act of spectatorship recognised as participatory and therein a creative learning experience as defined by Creative Scotland. Fitzpatrick explains: ‘I sat on Joan Parr’s advisory group and I pushed really, really hard for the experience of being an audience member to be a creative learning experience but this was refused point blank so in terms of Creative Scotland they don’t view the experience of the child being an audience member as a creative learning experience, but that’s the majority of what we do, putting children in front of theatre, but that’s not within their definition.’ It is notable that the private sector has also embraced the creativity agenda, informed by customer research. Stagecoach Performing Arts have promoted a Creative courage for life initiative across its schools which, in its eight indicative attributes reflects the habits of mind model, with behaviours including imagination, social skills and the ‘importance of practice’. Louisa Roberts, the Head of Educational Programme Development and Training from Stagecoach, outlines the rationale: ‘Seventy percent of families choose Stagecoach because they want their children to develop confidence and that feeds into our training for teachers. We don’t talk about discipline—we talk about positive behaviours for learning. We like the phrase—Courage to be yourself, meaning confidence in their own decisions and imagination. The opportunity to invent things, amend things, make them their own.’ Fundamental to all the creative practice explored in this text is the integrity of the experience, underpinned by genuine collaborative intent.55 The validity of the theatrical domain as a learning environment is pivotal for Jacqui O’Hanlon from the RSC: What I see young people take seriously is the knowledge that this is what a professional theatre artist has to do to make sense of this work and create the kind of productions they see on our stages. So there isn’t a shortcut, we haven’t made things up for young people, we haven’t invented a language for them. That is why they invest because it has a gravitas, it’s part of real world working and for teachers we find it’s essential because they feel connected to something bigger than themselves.

 See ‘The Art of With’ for further analysis of collaboration and co-authorship.

55

126 

M. CROSSLEY

In conversation with Gordon Vallins about creativity, he was clear that during his time at the Belgrade, the theatrical idea with its inherent dramatic tensions was paramount in tempting an imaginative response, rather than cajoling: ‘Our emphasis was on raising curiosity and then creativity in response to that curiosity.’ Vallins’ observation brings us back to K’s initial instinct that in the end, no matter what strategic direction or nuance of terminology you follow, creativity and creative learning are predicated not on instrumental or pedagogical will power, but on an invitation to participate, which in itself stands or falls on the richness and integrity of the experience that artists, teachers and children create.

So Where to Now? As we enter the third decade of the century, indeed the millennium, there are some clear divisions which have already appeared and some that are undoubtedly emergent. It is still too early to say what the full implications of the Curriculum for Excellence will be in Scotland as it reflects and remodels its initial methodology. These are uncertain times as national governments, having fashioned ‘empowering and enabling’ frameworks, hand over the detail of the curriculum design to the teaching profession. This autonomy creates opportunity but also apprehension, already prompting ongoing revisions to the Scottish model. Julia Fenby, from Education Scotland, concedes: ‘There’s a lot of work to help schools see that they can make their curriculum unique, linking it to their own context. We need to remind people of some of the intentions which may have got lost on the way.’ Likewise, Joan Parr from Creative Scotland accepts that although ‘there is a lot of pride in this creative philosophy we haven’t yet fully developed mechanisms for delivering it in a holistic way so we’re still battling old siloed attitudes and peoples way of doing things and the fact that budgets are split, culture and education, it’s not conducive to this holistic way of working’. These concerns may well be echoed in Wales over the next few years. In England the National Curriculum and EBacc are still firmly ensconced in the school system. However, political and cultural resistance and research that counters this ideology is increasingly in evidence, as arts companies and artists alongside academia and schools organisations attempt to present a rigorous evidence base to support the case for arts within the core curriculum. So there is some confidence that the body of research which is building may, at some point, impact on policy and the reintegration of performing arts to the centre of the education system.

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

127

Jacqui O’Hanlon, the Director of Education at the RSC, reflected on what the future may hold for theatre education: We won’t know if we’ve got anywhere with it for some time but what we do have are  the voices of young people. Time to Listen feeds in to Durham Commission and Arts Council England strategy. We have also sent it to the education select committee, but the Department for Education will need a radical change in rhetoric and action for those changes to be realised. The fact that there is an education system that does not mandate building cultural capital through arts experiences is a travesty. It means the inequalities in our society will continue. We need policy makers to change.

There may also be a glimmer of optimism to be found in the recent Changing Lives cross-party report (2019) which, in response to the Ofsted changes, strongly stated: We are deeply concerned by the evidence we received around the downgrading of arts subjects in schools, with all the consequent implications for children’s development, wellbeing, experiences, careers and, ultimately, life chances. It is not enough for the DCMS and DfE to simply expect schools to provide a ‘broad and balanced curriculum’; they need to take action to ensure that this is actually happening.56

The impassioned declaration from O’Hanlon and the frustration of the select committee resonate across the decades to the words of Jennie Lee, who in 1965 in A Policy for the Arts: The First Steps asserted the right for young people to have access to, and opportunity to make great art. In 2015, on the fiftieth anniversary of this white paper, Lyn Gardner reflected on Lee’s ambition and the miles still to be travelled: … she recognised that the arts needed to be embedded in the education system, that they had to be valued as highly as any other industry, that it was crucial that the population had equality of access to the arts wherever they lived, that new ventures needed to be supported as much as established institutions, and that participation was essential. If that all sounds familiar then so it should. Fifty years on, we are still fighting for arts policy changes that Lee considered as crucial to our everyday lives and wellbeing as the NHS.  Taken from Section 74 of Changing Lives: the social impact of participation in culture and sport (2019) published by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. 56

128 

M. CROSSLEY

Bibliography “A Policy for the Arts: The First Steps”. 1965. House of Commons. Barlow, Will. 2013. Drama Education. In Scottish Education Fourth Edition: Referendum, ed. T.G.K.  Bryce et  al., 549–554. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Boden, Margaret A. 1994. Dimensions of Creativity. Cambridge: MIT Press. Brown, Ian. 2013. Scottish Theatre: Diversity, Language, Continuity. BRILL. Cooper, Chris. 2013. THE IMAGINATION IN ACTION: TIE and Its Relationship to Drama in Education Today. In Learning Through Theatre: The Changing Face of Theatre in Education, ed. Anthony Jackson and Chris Vine, 41–59. Abingdon: Routledge. “Culture at Kings: Step by Step: Arts Policy and Young People 1944–2014”. 2014. Kings College London. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/cultural/resources/ reports/step-­by-­step.pdf. Czikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Collins. Davis, David, et al. 2014. Imagining the Real: Towards a New Theory of Drama in Education. Institute of Education Press. Dombroski, Robert S. 1986. On Gramsci’s Theater Criticism. Boundary 2 14 (3): 91–119. Duke University Press. “Durham Commission on Creativity and Education”. 2019. Durham University. https://www.dur.ac.uk/creativitycommission/. Henley, Darren. 2012. Cultural Education in England. Department for Culture, Media and Sport. “ImagineNation: The Value of Cultural Learning”. 2017. Cultural Learning Alliance. https://culturallearningalliance.org.uk/about-­us/imaginenation-­the-­ value-­of-­cultural-­learning/. Jackson, Anthony, and Chris Vine, eds. 2013. Learning Through Theatre: The Changing Face of Theatre in Education. Abingdon: Routledge. Jones, Gareth Elwyn, and Gordon Wynne Roderick. 2003. A History of Education in Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. “Let’s Create. Our Strategy 2020–2030”. 2020. Arts Council England. https:// www.artscouncil.org.uk/letscreate. Lucas, Bill. 2016. A Five Dimensional Model of Creativity and its Assessment in Schools. Applied Measurement In Education 29 (4): 278–290. https://doi. org/10.1080/08957347.2016.1209206. McNaughton, Marie-Jean. 2013. Expressive Arts Education. In Scottish Education—Fourth Edition Referendum, ed. T.G.K.  Bryce et  al., 476–481. Edinburgh University Press.

3  DEPARTURES: CREATIVE AND CULTURAL JOURNEYS ACROSS… 

129

Moylett, Helen. 2020. Guest Blog from Helen Moylett. Thinking on Cultural Capital—Some Concerns and Questions | Early Education. https://www. early-­education.org.uk/news/guest-­blog-­helen-­moylett-­ofsted%E2%80%99s-­ thinking-­cultural-­capital-­some-­concerns-­and-­questions. Nicholson, Helen. 2011. Theatre, Education and Performance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Stevenson, David. 2014. Scottish Cultural Policy. Cultural Trends 23 (3): 133–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2014.925277. Wooster, Roger. 2016. Theatre in Education in Britain: Origins, Development and Influence. London: Bloomsbury.

CHAPTER 4

En Route to a Twenty-First-Century Theatre Education

You’re very lucky if you work with young people because they come to you with no luggage, no preconceptions and if you present it honestly then it will be accepted. What they are always asking for is adventure, another way of thinking, how the world is and how it can be changed. —Gordon Vallins

My ambition in this chapter finds itself in tune with Helen Nicholson’s proposition: ‘The education of young people is always orientated towards the future, but it also builds on the knowledge of the past’ (2011, p. 12). As with Nicholson, I will acknowledge and appreciate the depths of the interrelationships and recurring patterns of pedagogy and methodology that exist and have existed within theatre and drama education over the past fifty years or more. However, we are in radical times at the beginning of this third decade of the century and it’s imperative to articulate and critique the new nexus of theatre and education, fashioned by the diverse national agendas which in turn shape new cultural strategy and curricula. These transformations are also wrought into new shapes by the theatrical evolutions in performance, participation and spectatorship over the past few decades. As quoted in detail in ‘Map Reading’, Nicholson (2009) indicated a clear interconnection between twenty-first-century theatre-making © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Crossley, Contemporary Theatre Education and Creative Learning, Palgrave Studies In Play, Performance, Learning, and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63738-5_4

131

132 

M. CROSSLEY

and theatre education and the intent of this chapter is to articulate this symbiosis in greater detail. This new hybridity of course has its own origins so acknowledgement has to be made of the notable practitioners and practices that have emerged to define and nurture the extant domains of theatre and drama education. An understanding of these traditions and their own radical instincts enables us to appreciate the contemporary complexity within a historical context. As already highlighted in ‘Map Reading’, many of the key movements in theatre education have already been expertly documented in multiple texts including Bennett (2005), Jackson and Vine (2013), Nicholson (2009, 2011) and Wooster (2007, 2016). Such texts sit alongside an inundation of journal articles as well as manifestos, provocations, case studies and reviews that add to the considerable knowledge base of theatre education. My aim is not to cast a net across the entire breadth of this field, to re-tell its histories at length or indeed to reaffirm its importance. My intention is more of a recalibration as I consider the diffusion, reconstitutions and sometimes dislocations occurring in theatre education today. To understand what is present in the here and now, however, we must begin by reflecting on the journeys made from theatre in education (TIE) in the post-war years to today’s shifting landscape of hybridity and interdisciplinarity in which methodologies are merged, appropriated or concocted. It is regularly assumed that these methodologies are more akin to experimental European or global practices than British TIE traditions yet this perception is often built upon an incomplete understanding of TIE and some of the changes in practice that were adopted following funding cuts in the 1980s; a misconception which requires redress.

How Did We Get Here? TIE has been a slightly dirty word. I think there needs to be a resurgence of the term and that way of working. —Romana Flello, Royal Court Theatre

In my journey across Great Britain, I talked to a wide variety of theatre-­ makers who make work for and with children and young people. Often this work is set alongside or integrated into a wider context of professional practice as companies and artists manage a portfolio of projects and funding priorities. Consciously or unconsciously, TIE is woven deep into the fabric of these traditions, but my experiences with practitioners and policymakers reflected the fact that TIE occupies a respectful but precarious

4  EN ROUTE TO A TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

133

position within the attitudes and outlooks of many in theatre education. For some it is a misunderstood methodology, in need of re-energising, whereas for others it is a legacy to be noted but at a distance, partly due to the weight of its traditions which brings with it a degree of anxiety and partly because many are not trained in its methods and feel more at home constructing their own methodologies. The dynamism of TIE, responding as it was to the demands of post-war austerity and the idealism of civic engagement, was arguably the source of both its strength and its vulnerability. TIE was a political response to the times in which it initially found itself, allying itself to progressive notions of education and social mobility. But the centrality of its political and educational outlook exposed it to the changing mores of governments, both national and local, and the redirections of Arts Council policies which at times made strategic decisions to reduce funding for TIE. At the fiftieth-anniversary celebrations of TIE at the Belgrade in 2015, entitled ‘Inspiring Curiosity’, Michael Boyd, former Artistic Director of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre unequivocally declared that ‘theatre in education is at the absolute epicentre of what makes theatre—theatre, and a distinct and cherishable art form’. Boyd’s endorsement is echoed by Justine Themen, currently the joint Artistic Director of the Belgrade as it prepares for its central role within Coventry’s year as UK City of Culture in 2021.1 Themen’s enthusiasm for TIE is irrefutable, but her support, conversant as it is with current debates, is indicative of TIE’s recent crisis of identity: I’ve been in to theatre spaces where people have said “Don’t ever let me hear that term again”. Extraordinary vehemence against it. I think that’s because there’s been plenty of poor TIE practice. There are many live conversations about what TIE is. It’s become synonymous with infotainment— didactic. And it’s not understood, we’ve lost so much of the nuance of the practice, the extraordinary coming together of theatre practitioners and teachers with their understanding of pedagogy. It’s misunderstanding, it’s

1  UK City of Culture is an accolade awarded to a UK city every four years by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The official GOV.UK website outlines its objectives: ‘The UK City of Culture title is designed to use culture as a catalyst for economic and social regeneration and raise the profile of arts and creativity locally and across the country. It also helps cities develop a broader high quality arts and culture sector, as well as attract increased business investment and boost tourism’ (GOV.UK 2017).

134 

M. CROSSLEY

ignorance in a lot of cases because my engagement with it has been nothing but enriching. It’s fundamental to how we engage with our communities.

The theatre-makers and theatre educators who contribute to this book at times recognise the significance of TIE, and aspects of some of their practice undoubtedly draw upon those traditions, but there must also be an acknowledgement that for many practitioners, particularly those who have emerged out of an experimental theatre background, their pedagogy and methodology is equally, if not predominantly, informed by this alternative legacy, as alluded to by Ogden (1997). Kevin Lewis spoke directly about the transitions made in recent years whilst as Artistic Director of Theatr Iolo and beyond: ‘The days of classic TIE, working with thirty children in role over the course of a day or longer, as profoundly valuable as this was, lost momentum over time as we became interested in pursuing other approaches. Theatr Powys did that, chose to do that classic mode. But we had changed and wanted something different.’ The influence of TIE is central to the story of contemporary theatre education across all three nations but its legacy, or the impression of it, has waxed and waned. However, there is evidence, as indicated by Themen, to suggest a resurgence of TIE practices within this new hybrid culture, particularly in an acknowledgement of its original theatrical experimentation and its radical participatory model. Paul Fitzpatrick is unequivocal in his recognition of this innovation on theatre and theatre education: ‘What they were doing at the Belgrade was a radically socially inclusive practice before such work was embraced by the mainstream adult theatre world.’ We gave them fun, pleasure, recognition they existed. —Gordon Vallins

In appreciating the theatrical significance of TIE, there is no better place to start than with Gordon Vallins who many see as the progenitor of theatre in education during his time at The Belgrade Theatre in Coventry from the mid-1960s onwards. Whilst TIE now has a well-established global reputation and a well-documented methodology, its beginnings were somewhat more haphazard as Vallins explains: ‘I phoned the Belgrade and got a job. I hadn’t realised when I had been appointed, what I was appointed to do. The development of something called theatre in education. All that was accidental, it wasn’t thought through philosophically.’ Such an admission serves to remind us that in this territory of theatre education, rooted as it is in interaction, ephemerality and subjectivity, we

4  EN ROUTE TO A TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

135

are as practitioners both open and simultaneously vulnerable to happenstance. The development of one practice responding instinctively to its circumstances brings with it intuitive possibilities but over time, as occurred at The Belgrade, it also leaves it exposed to the unpredictable whims of political, economic and financial decision making as well as the constant developments of theatre practice and shifts in theatrical and educational trends. Its openness to influences brings a vitality but that openness then makes it susceptible to appropriation, revision, misunderstanding or simply to change. Many have sought, quite understandably to protect the legacy of TIE, but this has, at times, created a degree of myopia to the need for adaptation and evolution. Over time, misunderstandings or mis-­ readings of TIE have also emerged and arguably been incubated by funders who wish to redirect or reduce financial outlay in this sector (as the Theatr Powys example illustrates) or by politicians seeking to agitate and redirect educational policy and funding. The cuts to TIE in the 1980s and early 1990s are well documented and the years of austerity from 2008 onwards saw an extra swathe of closures of TIE companies and projects across the country. Justine Themen’s experience when arriving in her new role at the Belgrade only a decade or so ago offers an insight into the vulnerable state of TIE at the time: Within a couple of months of being here I was asking—“Why is nobody celebrating that we’re the home of theatre in education?” Nobody seemed to know. All these students phoning about TIE but nobody in the building to talk about it. I myself was taught by Gordon Vallins. We had one TIE show left when I arrived called Big School. So there was a journey in reclaiming it.

TIE, as Vallins is always still eager to point out, has a lineage of its own, owing a debt to many British pioneers in the fields of drama education and theatre for young audiences. ‘Brian Way for me was a God. He was wonderfully fluent and persuasive. Visiting his Theatre Centre in London was an inspiration.’ Way, along with Margaret Faulkes, opened Theatre Centre in London in 1953, dedicated to making theatre for children. Roger Wooster states that ‘Brian Way, Peter Slade and, a little later, Dorothy Heathcote share a particularly honourable mention in relation to the emergence of TIE’ (2016, p. 31). Peter Slade was Birmingham’s first advisor on drama, pioneering the field of dramatherapy and writing the influential text Child Drama (1954) in which he constructed a methodology

136 

M. CROSSLEY

for observing and facilitating child’s imaginative play, referring to ‘projected play’ in which children play out a situation with fictional roles and settings. Heathcote was at the forefront of developing drama as an educational methodology, notably the use of process drama and teacher in role. She documented and theorised her own practice in detail, in texts including Collected Writings on Education and Drama (1991) and Drama for Learning (1996), co-authored with Gavin Bolton. These mid- to late twentieth-century innovators were themselves part of a longer tradition of drama and theatre education in Britain. Harriet Finlay-Johnson’s innovations in the early twentieth century are often cited as a significant early development in drama education as she brought radical new methods into the Edwardian Sussex school in which she was teaching. She advocated practical, experiential learning for the children and sought to bring history, geography and literature to life through dramatic re-enactments. Referring to her own text, The Dramatic Method of Teaching, published in 1912, Finlay-Johnson set out a clear vision for her methodology, reflecting an advocacy for participation and holistic learning: It seems to me that children trained on the lines indicated very inadequately in this book will be well fitted to take their place in the world. They will at least have had a fuller childhood than some of their predecessors, and, having acted well their parts in school, we will send them forth confidently, remembering that “all the world’s a stage.” (p. 196)

Helen Nicholson states that Finlay-Johnson ‘favoured active approaches to learning and considered drama to be the most appropriate medium through which children’s natural curiosity might be stimulated’ (2011, p. 44). Nicholson goes on to argue that ‘her dramatic method anticipated Dewey’s child-centred approach to artistic learning’ (p. 45). The reference here to the American philosopher and educational reformer John Dewey is worth underscoring as his writings in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries offered a radical new approach to teaching and learning which heavily influenced progressive educational thinking, including theatre education as Nicholson alludes to. Whilst there were a range of global innovators in theatre pedagogy in the twentieth century, notably the Brazilian Augusto Boal, Britain was unquestionably the epicentre in innovating theatre education, particularly in school-based practice, and the development of theatre in education as a specific pedagogy and methodology is testament to that.

4  EN ROUTE TO A TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

137

For those who developed theatre in education, and for those who still regard it as an essential mode of experiential learning, it is important to distinguish, at least at this stage, TIE from related forms of theatre education. Gill Ogden, in her 1997 History of Theatre in Education in Wales 1979–1997, was clear in her assertion that Theatre in Education is a form of theatre that possesses its own body of theory and practice (…) Unlike young people’s theatre, which may set out to entertain or to educate and entertain, TIE always has an educational aim, which is carried out through the medium of theatre. It may entertain, and it may, as in drama in education, ask children to act out roles and improvisations, but always as part of a structure that is carefully planned to contain a fully integrated learning process. (p. 51)

Participation has often been delineated as the most distinctive feature of drama in education and theatre in education. In 2007, Roger Wooster affirmed the active contribution of the children: ‘TIE has been defined in a variety of ways, usually centring on the use of theatrical and educational techniques and especially the use of participation. […] The participants, or percipients, will normally be expected to engage with the drama in ways that encourage them to observe, feel and respond in a safe context’ (pp. 64–65). Similarly, Chris Cooper identified participation as fundamental to the kinship of DIE and TIE (2013, p.  45). The constitution of participation is undergoing a degree of re-evaluation in recent years as innovative modes of immersivity and spectatorship are conceived of and experimented with in contemporary practice. Its distinctiveness to TIE and DIE therefore requires some reappraisal as will be addressed later in this chapter. The importance of discourse and response was reiterated in my conversations with Gordon Vallins who emphasised a key distinction: ‘What’s important is what do the children get out of it. Reflection after the incident is so important. It’s not children’s theatre, this is more interactive.’ The invitation for critical thinking, situated within a fictional dilemma, firmly situates TIE as a pedagogy first and foremost in the view of Anthony Jackson who concisely argues: ‘Its raison d’être lies in its function, first, as a method of education and therefore with a justifiable claim to be seen as an educational resource within the school system, and, second, as an art form in its own right but one that is peculiarly suited to its specific audience and age range’ (2013, p. 22).

138 

M. CROSSLEY

Helen Nicholson identified two distinct movements in post-war Britain: drama-in education and theatre in education. Drama in education, she writes, is ‘built on principles of play and collaborative learning rather than teaching children about the theatre as a cultural practice’ (2009, p. 14). Drama, as a curriculum subject and cross-curricula method, began to gain popularity throughout the post-war years and continued to retain a strong presence in schools up until the financial crash of 2007–8 and subsequent educational reforms, including the EBacc. TIE’s principal ambition was not to instil theatre skills, but as Ogden notes, its central learning medium was theatre. The distinction between the two methodologies is not, however, always easy to distinguish as drama in education strategies were often rooted in theatre traditions ranging from Brecht to commedia dell’arte and likewise theatre in education often incorporated workshop strategies founded on instinctive child’s play and structured role play, as Wooster notes: ‘It has been TIE’s ability to hybridize the worlds of play, reflection, personal development and self-education together with theatrical constructs that gave it its value’ (2007, p.  65). This hybridity has perhaps enabled TIE to survive and thrive in broader theatre education methodologies, often though without recognition. In contrast, as the twenty-first century has progressed, it is in fact drama in education within Great Britain which has found itself particularly marginalised. The politics and curricula, from Curriculum 2000 to the raft of reforms and strategies stressing canonical cultural knowledge, have curtailed many of the progressive, experiential modes of enquiry and the examinations in theatre and drama have centralised the theatrical domain and its media-specific skills and knowledges. This has been compacted by the loss of drama teachers across the country2 and the shifts within drama teacher and primary-level teacher training in which access to process drama methodologies, including in-­ role strategies has been significantly limited over recent years in response to the curricula demands of core subjects.3 This movement from learning through drama to learning within or in response to theatre has found increasing momentum within the work of contemporary practitioners and in the new creativity agendas across the country. Throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s TIE enjoyed a profile within arts education which many regard as its zenith, Wooster refers to as its  Reductions in drama teacher numbers evidenced in Acting Up (2017).  Arts Professional (2018), for example, reported on lack of training on arts subjects during primary teacher training programmes. 2 3

4  EN ROUTE TO A TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

139

‘halcyon days’ (2007, p.  67), with many companies attracting funding from the Arts Councils as well as local councils and local education authorities. The influence of the Belgrade on national TIE practice was accelerated by the dispersion of the team across the country as Jackson and Vine identify: ‘When many of the early members of the Coventry company left to set up new companies in Bolton (Roger Chapman and Cora Williams), Edinburgh (Gordon Wiseman) and, later, Leeds (Roger Chapman again) and Nottingham (Sue Birtwhistle), not surprisingly it was the Coventry model on which those companies were based’ (2013, p. 23). The Thatcher administration from 1979 through the 1980s is then often determined to mark the decline in the national profile and support for TIE, fatally undermined, it is argued, by the Educational Reform Act of 1988, the devolution of power to individual schools and the start of the National Curriculum. The significant reduction of Arts Council funding from TIE in this period prompted many of the companies to turn to diverse funding sources in order to survive, often moving away from experimental, open-­ ended programmes to more instrumental, objective-led projects, responding to the specific needs of schools and their devolved budgets. Paul Fitzpatrick, the chief executive of Imaginate in Scotland, identifies this shift as central to the misunderstood legacy of TIE: ‘It happened in the Thatcher years. Cuts were made in the mid-Eighties but companies still existed so they had to find their funding from somewhere and so they started doing the instrumental rather than the intrinsic theatre making, addressing curriculum aims. TIE became attached to poor quality, non-­ radical, didactic teaching.’ Prescient of the landscape that this book seeks to investigate, Wooster in 2007 was cognisant of these shifts. Reflecting on the TIE practice he had researched he contended that: ‘It is clear […] that a discernible change in attitude towards the nature and function of TIE has taken place. Broadly, these changes can be categorized into two key areas. First of these is the blurring of distinctions between TIE and Children’s Theatre’ (pp.  65–66). He goes on to argue: ‘The second area of philosophical change […] can be broadly characterized as a move from progressive, heuristic and child-centred learning to a more utilitarian and proscriptively tested system within the National Curriculum’ (ibid.). Wooster accedes that ‘we cannot expect that TIE will not change for that would make the genre sterile and unresponsive’ (2007, p.  65), from which he reflects, ‘Early TIE can be seen as both the product and instigator of “progressive” educational values, but since these values have ostensibly changed, the

140 

M. CROSSLEY

question thus arises to what extent the function and approaches of current TIE should also change’ (pp. 65–66). Theatre for children developed significantly in the same period as TIE, sometimes discreetly but increasingly overlapping and hybridising with it. Theatre for and by children and young audiences as well as children’s theatre, including young people’s theatre (YPT), found a similar momentum to TIE in Britain in the post-war years, as educators and theatre-makers began to recognise and validate the distinct personal and civic contribution of children and young people. David Wood underlines this distinctiveness in Theatre for Children, first written in 1979 and revised in 1999, when writing: ‘Theatre for children is a separate art form with qualities that make it quite distinct from adult theatre. It is not simplified adult theatre; it has its own dynamics and its own rewards’ (1999, p. 5). The importance of recognising and developing this ‘separate art form’ has unquestionably nurtured a superfluity of innovative practices, but as earlier noted by Paul Fitzpatrick, it may have inadvertently led to a practical, conceptual and analytical separation of disciplines which has hampered development and recognition in recent years. Wood notes the proliferation of children’s theatre companies post-war including John Allen’s Glyn debourne Children’s Theatre, John English’s Midland Arts Centre, George Devine’s Young Vic Players and Polka Theatre founded by Richard Gill. According to Wood, the validity of children’s theatre is in the quality with which it is produced: ‘Quality is the keynote. We must give children the best we can. We must fight the offhand attitude “It’s only for kids.” Production values and the quality of writing and direction must be high’ (p.  7). This affirmation, written originally over forty years ago, has an acute resonance with the values of today’s practitioners who make a direct connection between the validity and impact of the learning experience and production values, as Romana Flello from The Royal Court insists: ‘I really believe that youth and community work should have the highest production values. It should be on the main stage.’ There is also a clear distinction made in the text between theatre in education and children’s theatre, yet Woods concern, contrary to Wooster, is that the former is becoming a substitute for the latter: Some people believe that drama for children is best employed as an educational tool. Certainly drama classes can develop communication skills, instil confidence and encourage teamwork. And Theatre in Education can bring to life all kinds of curriculum topics and, through participation, make

4  EN ROUTE TO A TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

141

l­earning more palatable and fresh than constant reference to a textbook. But, however educationally valuable such work is, it should not be seen as a substitute for a visit to the theatre to see professional actors performing a quality piece of theatre. (1999, p. 6)

Stuart Bennett offers a detailed account of the developments in children’s theatre in Theatre for Children and Young People (2005) and I attend to this text in some detail as it offers a number of insights into the theatre education ecology of England, Wales and Scotland, written as it was to document and celebrate fifty years of post-war practice across the UK. For clarification, the text defines children’s theatre as ‘performance for children under 11’ and YPT as ‘performance for over 11 to 18’s’ (p. 244). Within the text, Bennett identifies the importance of the work of Peter Slade, and this recognition underlines Slade’s significant influence on the development of drama in education in the UK and globally. Alongside a recognition of Peter Slade, Bennett identifies two key pioneers of theatre for children, first Caryl Jenner and the Unicorn Theatre for Children which she formed in London. Bennett writes, ‘She reacted against the limited quality and range of the children’s theatre on offer. She set about developing a company which would have a level of truthful playing as authentic as any adult theatre.’ Second, he acknowledges Brian Way and the Theatre Centre, which toured small-scale work to schools. ‘To ensure a close involvement the actors were trained to act the situation— then guide the audience in “seated participation”’ (2005, pp.  13–14). These initial references, cited by both Vallins and Bennett, illustrate the shared traditions and interconnections between forms of theatre education and highlight the spectrum of interpretations of active participation, ranging from physical ‘projected play’ in role through to audience intervention in discussion and decision making. The notion of what constitutes participation, particularly for those framed as ‘audience’ has particular relevance and meets with some contention in today’s theatre education debate in Scotland as Paul Fitzpatrick highlights: Participation is seen as vital to us but they (Creative Scotland) don’t really see the value in the child just sitting and watching. Watching is a way in to participation. You wouldn’t expect a child to write a novel before reading a book so I don’t understand what the difference there is in terms of a child sitting and ‘reading’ a piece of dance and then getting up and making a piece of dance.

142 

M. CROSSLEY

The impetus for Bennett’s text initiated from ASSITEJ UK, the national arm of the International Association of Theatre for Children and Young People (ASSITEJ). The significance of this organisation is acknowledged by many of the artists within this book, including Sarah Argent, Kevin Lewis and Paul Fitzpatrick, as it enabled and encouraged a sharing of practices across the world via World Congresses, global gatherings and practitioner workshops as well as the establishment of networks which nurtured festivals and company collaborations. Paul Harman wrote of the organisation that despite its small, voluntary structure, its very existence ‘enabled practitioners to make contact with colleagues overseas, to travel and develop exchanges’ and as a result ‘it is rare now to find a UK Artistic Director who has not travelled abroad to see shows, or to take part in an exchange’ (2005, pp. 54–57). Kevin Lewis attested to the importance of ASSITEJ to his own practice which, in his words, ‘forged a keen interest from me in European texts for young people’. In contrast to such enthusiasm for the organisation, it is noted by Harman that for a time it lost direction with a ‘fierce ideological battle’ (p. 55) which as Wooster notes was partly fuelled by a divergence of opinion on participatory practice, such as process drama, which some viewed as ‘non-professional’ (2016, p. 157). The organisation was also slow to embrace work for children with special educational needs (SEND) as noted by Christopher Davies from Bamboozle Theatre Company who highlighted the ‘omission of a learning disability strand within its work up until 2011’. Specific criticism to one side, ASSITEJ in indicative of a clear momentum behind international cross-pollination of practice, which manifests itself within the UK with events including the Edinburgh International Children’s Festival, Opening Doors Festival—Wales’ International Theatre Festival for Young Audiences and TakeOff Festival in the North East of England, the latter showcasing work in 2019 from Denmark, Norway and The Netherlands as well as from across the UK. Paul Fitzpatrick from Imaginate reaffirms the influence of European practitioners who came into Scotland to perform at the festival: ‘A lot of people were making experimental work in Scandinavia, more experimental than in the UK. A lot of work in Scotland was very text based and from a literary tradition whereas the work coming out of northern Europe was devised, often with very little text and was visually and physically driven.’ Wales and Scotland (along with Northern Ireland) are given their own consideration in discreet chapters within Bennett’s text. Eirwen Hopkins, in a chapter entitled ‘Theatre for Young People in Wales’, identifies the

4  EN ROUTE TO A TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

143

impetus to create distinct Welsh theatre forms ‘without the cultural baggage that English forms brought with them. We experimented with stylised work, non-narrative and physical theatre. We welded these elements with indigenous forms to bring into being a new kind of popular theatre’ (2005, p. 30). This observation by Hopkins resonates with Mike Pearson (1997) and others who celebrate the non-conformist traditions of Welsh theatre, detached as it was from an English textual tradition. Correspondent to this, Wales has a rich tradition of theatre for children, youth theatre and theatre in education. Emyr Edwards, in 1959, cited the impact of the Children’s Theatre for Wales as established by Raymond Edwards, which he noted at the time ‘has toured and displayed its drama to thousands of school children throughout the principality’ (p. 45). The non-conformist ethos and aesthetic is evident from Action PIE TIE Company to Theatr Powys and in the current practice of Volcano. Hopkins chapter and others (including those by Ian Yeoman and Jain Booth in the same text4) that focus on Welsh theatre education are also a window into the fluctuating circumstances of TIE in Wales, as at the time of writing in 2005, Hopkins noted the existence of eight regional TIE companies and in 2007 Roger Wooster proposed that in Wales ‘TIE has been more strongly nurtured by the artistic establishment, possibly because of the advantage of having a range of small touring companies as a means of creating theatrical arts provision in a predominantly rural country’ (p. 3). Yet times change rapidly and in the last decade major structural shifts  have taken place in Wales across arts policy and finance as well as educational reform. As of 2020 Arts Council of Wales reduced funding down to only a handful of companies focused on theatre for young people, including Arad Goch5 based in Aberystwyth and Cwmni’r Frân Wen, based in Bangor. Diane Hebb sets out these changes: ‘We used to support a number of traditional theatre in education companies, through our regular funding but over the course of two Investment Reviews (2010 and 2015) we reduced the number of companies we were funding and also worked with them to move from a TIE model to a theatre for young people model.’ 4  Ian Yeoman’s chapter (2005) on Theatr Powys now stands, as noted in the Introduction, as a record of a company lost to the pressures of funding in 2011 and Gwent Theatre in Abergavenny, as discussed by Jain Boon, now has a reduced remit under the title Gwent Young People’s Theatre. 5  Cwmni Theatr Arad Goch was founded in 1989  in Aberystwyth, as two of the oldest theatre companies in Wales at the time, Theatr Crwban and Cwmni Cyfri Tri, joined together.

144 

M. CROSSLEY

In another chapter, Jeremy Turner, the Artistic Director of Arad Goch, reflects on ‘Young People’s Theatre in a Minority Language and Culture’. He observes that ‘Wales almost lost its own language, and this may be why there is now an increasing awareness of its importance as a key to cultural heritage and a sign of contemporary identity’ (2005, p. 32). For Welsh-­ speaking children therefore ‘theatre based on their own heritage (legends, stories and history), is a way to reinforce their own identity. But caution is needed: the use of such material can lead to a perpetuation of sentimental cultural stereotypes. More fruitful is the use of traditional source material—but within a non-traditional or de-constructed style’ (p.  34). This caution resonates with Emyr Edwards alertness to the perpetuation of ‘brythonic’ myths which may stultify creative and national ambitions. In correspondence with Hopkins, Turner identifies the instinct in Welsh theatre to resist English tropes: ‘Many theatre practitioners in Wales in the 80’s and 90’s, purposely avoided contemporary English influence, turning to the work of European practitioners’ (p. 33). Citing the inspiration of Ray Nusselein of Paraplyteatret in Denmark, amongst others, he goes on to propose: ‘We found a freedom of expression and creativity in the experimental, physical and visual trends of theatre in continental Europe and in other cultures’ (ibid.). This theme of European influence remains a common thread through many of the practitioners, particularly Welsh and Scottish artists. In the following chapter of the book, Tony Reekie, then director of Imaginate (now Artistic Director at Catherine Wheels), offers an honest account of the development of Scottish children’s theatre. He wrote that, with some exceptions, ‘prior to 1990 (…) the quality of work in Scotland was poor. The work was cheap, under-produced, under-rehearsed, variations on pantomime with enough audience participation to keep the audiences from catching breath to realise what rubbish it all was’ (p. 38). The notable exceptions he refers to are TAG Theatre, which was the young people’s outreach company from Glasgow Citizens Theatre and the Imaginate Children’s Theatre Festival itself, in reference to which Reekie writes, ‘For the first time in Scotland we could look at the best the world had to offer—work of the highest standard, that time and time again made us gasp with its passion, skill and daring’ (pp. 38–39). He identifies a move away from curriculum- and issue-based theatre practice which freed up artists to ‘tell the stories they wanted to tell’ (p. 39). This outlook continues to hold in 2020 with policymakers and Scottish artists affirming the centrality of the festival in galvanising national initiatives and the

4  EN ROUTE TO A TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

145

importance of theatrical ideas leading the practice, ahead of any curricula restraints. Julia Fenby, the Education Officer for Creativity at Education Scotland underscored the fact that Imaginate ‘played an instrumental role’ in the national profile and development of arts education and creativity across Scotland. In terms of ideas-led educational practice, Sophie Ochojna, the Marketing and Development Manager for Visible Fictions in Glasgow, is definite that ‘the idea comes first. Dougie (Irvine) will say “I have this idea”. It’s not about will Creative Scotland like this, it’s “Do we as a company want to do this?” We want to creatively do things we’ve never done before. And our aims tend to fit in with Creative Scotland’s objectives as they are quite broad.’ Laura Penny from the company underscores this when stating: We never go—“We want to make a show for under-fives, five to ten, ten to fifteen and so on”, that’s never the way we work. What we do is say—“right we’ve read this book and we’ve worked with this author and we think this would be an incredible show”. Or we would workshop an idea, Dougie might start to flesh out a script or work with a scriptwriter and then we start to think, its feeling like a little ones’ show. We know it’s going to be from one to seven and then after some development we say it’s for three to six year olds.

Reekie’s brief chapter concludes with the proposition that as a result of the festival and the high quality of work being produced at that time by Visible Fictions, Catherine Wheels and Shona Reppe, amongst others, ‘children’s theatre in Scotland is perhaps the success story of the past decade’ (p. 42). The national and international status of children theatre within Scotland has continued to build since 2005, hence its significance in 2020 to shape cultural and national identity. It is worth noting that Bennett’s Theatre for Children and Young People (2005) and therefore all the chapters therein were written predominatly before the creation of national theatres in Scotland in 2006, and in Wales in 2003 with the formation of Theatr Genedlaethol Cymru and in 2009 the English-speaking National Theatre Wales. The development of these, as already noted, has not been without some criticism but they arguably helped to galvanise the principle of national theatrical identities, distinct from England. Perhaps more significantly, however, is that most of the above analysis and observations came before the financial crash of 2007–8, and the subsequent austerity measures ushered in by the coalition

146 

M. CROSSLEY

and Conservative governments. The educational policies embedded within this ideology have had a seismic impact on arts education and undoubtedly hastened the divergence of educational strategy by the Welsh and Scottish governments. The introduction of the EBacc and new academically focused GCSEs has correlated with, many would say resulted in, the diminution of drama in education within schools with a rapid decline in GCSE Drama candidates and a subsequent knock-on to A Level Theatre Studies and BTEC Performing Arts. Theatre in education has found it similarly hard to survive in a financially and educatively restricted landscape in which schools seek to closely align expenditure to specific goals within the School Development Plan and likewise arts councils have re-­ prioritised away from TIE, as noted earlier by Hebb. In contrast, theatre for and by young people has proliferated due to a number of factors including the reorientation towards theatrical domain-specific learning in tandem with the decline of provision in schools prompting many parents to seek out alternative private providers including Stagecoach, Razzamataz and Pauline Quirke Academies, amongst many others. This flourishing of theatre, as opposed to drama, education is also testament to a sustained development of practice both by long-standing exponents of children’s theatre and the opportunity to share and proliferate this practice through national and international festivals but also new theatre-makers entering the field from an experimental background. There are anxieties swirling within these new realities however, as some envisage a dilution of TIE pedagogy, crowded out by children’s theatre: Without the pedagogic analysis underpinning the work, TIE is in danger of mutating into a completely different creature. Crucially, TIE must respond to the needs of children rather than educators. It is upon this criterion that any judgement must be made. Without the rigour of sound educational theory, the product will become an adjunct to Children’s Theatre, and it is notable that already some directors admit to finding it hard to separate the forms. (Wooster 2007, p. 65)

It is arguable as to whether separation is either feasible or necessary for theatre education at this point in time. The dichotomy proposed between the pedagogical rigour of TIE and its inferred absence from children’s theatre may have had some historical basis, but as theatre pedagogy develops and a greater synergy and recognition is found between theatre education and broader theatrical analysis, the complexity of practice and

4  EN ROUTE TO A TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

147

pedagogy in this field is, I would contend, growing exponentially. The concerns over the estrangement of form and content in the drama and theatre curricula, as voiced by Chris Cooper (2013) amongst others, still remain but this is being countered within the best practice of theatre education and creative learning and where there is separation, the argument is made by some that in the current climate any representation of theatre within education is better than none. In relation to that, the separateness of forms (TIE/theatre for children) as advocated previously by Wood, Wooster and others undoubtedly had validity in the nascent developmental stages of these practices in the mid-twentieth century but has a diminishing rationale in 2020 as innovation and practicality redraw the boundaries. At times theatre in education has struggled to re-interpret itself for the twenty-first century and on occasion, as a number of practitioners attested to, been its own worst enemy with poorly executed practice created and facilitated by in-experienced practitioners plugging ad-hoc curricula goals. In recent years, however, TIE, in line with the rest of the sector has developed a more overt evidence-led approach to its practices. For example, the long-standing Big Brum TIE company based in Birmingham, have recently released a number of evaluative case studies (2018, 20196) authored by a university researcher and an educationalist, seeking to make a detailed case for theatre in education and its potential to stimulate, amongst many aspects, deep learning, self-expression and emotional engagement. Chiming with the words of Paul Fitzpatrick, Ben Ballin who wrote the 2019 report for the company advocated that TIE was ‘radically inclusive, providing time and space for young people’s learning in a way that cuts through established ideas about “ability” (and “disability”) and has value for all learners. This builds young people’s confidence and sense of agency’ (p. 8). A renewed appreciation of TIE pedagogy is certainly in evidence as can be seen from the 2015 celebration at the Belgrade Theatre. Many contributors to this text referred to TIE as a cornerstone of their practice or organisation, from Chris Elwell at Half Moon, Nettie Scriven at Dragon Breath and Justine Themen at the Belgrade itself. Part of this new appreciation is grounded in a recognition that TIE had its roots firmly 6  Big Brum case studies—Human Spaces—An Evaluative Case Study (2018) authored by Chris Bolton and Engaging, Exploring, Expressing: The Case for Theatre in Education (2019) authored by Ben Ballin.

148 

M. CROSSLEY

embedded in experimental theatre practice as can be readily seen in the form and ambition of many of the early Belgrade projects such as Rare Earth (1973) and Ifan’s Valley from the same year which included a school trip to the countryside during which the children met and interacted with a variety of characters, both examples of what today may be considered as immersive practice. Vallins recalls that in one project ‘we were doing a Norse legend and we got the children chopping down imaginary trees, making imaginary planks, making an imaginary boat, and this girl said to me afterwards—“You should have seen it!” Of course, there was nothing there. The level of absorption was often extraordinary.’ Co-creativity which is at the heart of so many of today’s strategic plans was fundamental to the emergent TIE methodology but over time and in the face of political, curricula and financial pressure became lost in an impression of instrumental, thematic and at times didactic and politicised practice, as Vallins himself lamented, ‘TIE became less creative and more political.’ Recently, however, the optics have shifted regarding TIE, particularly as its decline has sharpened minds on what we may lose. Chris Cooper’s reassertion of the pedagogy resonates with many of the practitioners contributing to this text as they acknowledge its original theatrical vitality and seek now, not to calcify its form, but hybridise it within new methodologies: ‘TIE is not a theatre of instruction for the transmission of a “message” to the audience. There is no message. The aim is to use the dramatic art of theatre to explore values, by dramatizing the human condition and behaviour so that the audience makes meaning through experience’ (Cooper 2013, p.  44). In accord with this, Helen Nicholson described TIE’s primary objective as ‘to develop a vigorous theatre of ideas that would encourage young people to learn actively and think dialectically’ (2011, p. 67). I doubt any theatre educator would disagree with these ambitions for their practice.

In the Folds of the Map If Nobody Speaks of Remarkable Things. —Jon McGregor (2002)

What is striking when you look to explore the correspondence between contemporary theatre practice and theatre education is how infrequently this relationship is acknowledged or analysed in any depth. Often when the interrelationship is considered, theatre education is compartmentalised and perceived as something in parallel with, but rarely integral to,

4  EN ROUTE TO A TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

149

theatre as a whole. If we rekindle our cartographic analogy, the synergies of contemporary theatre practice and theatre education seem to be obscured in the folds of the map. Throughout scholarly publications on post-war British theatre, there are multiple texts examining theatre in education and children’s theatre discreetly. However, there is a conspicuous absence of books, articles or even just references to theatre education within a broader context of theatrical development in Great Britain and even less concession of its parity with other theatrical forms. When theatre’s impact on national identity and cultural prosperity is considered, whilst discreet texts on theatre education pay this due attention, such as Nicholson (2011), the majority of writers seem captivated by the contributions to adult theatre, both mainstream and experimental, by known playwrights, established companies and avant-garde practitioners. In Post-war British Theatre by John Elsom (1979) there is no reference at all to any form of theatre education. Two decades later in Contemporary British Theatre (1996) edited by Theodore Shank, considerable analysis is given to experimental theatre and national identity in Scotland and Wales and yet there is no mention of children and young people within such chapters or any other part of the text. In Dominic Shellard’s British Theatre Since the War (1999), theatre in education is in fact mentioned but only within a couple of pages, with concise reference to the Belgrade and other pioneers, whilst children’s theatre has no substantive mention at all. This habit of ignoring, forgetting or marginalising British theatre’s relationship to children and young people seems to be an obstinate habit within academia into the twenty-first century as exemplified by Aleks Sierz’s Rewriting the Nation: British Theatre Today (2011). New writing from across England, Scotland and Wales is charted in the book from The Royal Court in London to the Traverse Theatre in Glasgow but without consideration of writers such as Mike Kenny or Mark Storor working in contemporary children’s theatre. The significance of children is reflected upon in Helen Freshwater’s chapter in Contemporary British Theatre: Breaking New Ground (2013) but only in the context of how they are represented in the adult work of Tim Crouch, when by this point in time Crouch had written a piece for children to perform entitled John, Antonio and Nancy (2010)7 which explored the promises adults make to the next generation, often too glibly. 7  Freshwater refers to John, Antonio and Nancy but the chapter analyses My Arm, An Oak Tree and The Author. See Theatre of Place for further analysis of the production.

150 

M. CROSSLEY

In the same year as John, Antonio and Nancy, Crouch premiered his solo work I Malvolio at the Brighton Festival, with two versions aimed at eleven plus and eighteen plus. The version for a younger audience made very few adjustments and included a hanging scene for the central character. Bella Todd from The Guardian, on seeing the show reflected that Crouch presentational framing enabled him to elicit emotion within the dramatic frame but also step outside of this parameter to mediate the children’s responses, stating that ‘Crouch’s work for children presents the adult world, and the guide too. So, on stage, when the girl started crying, Crouch was able to step out of character, smile and say: ‘It’s alright, it’s OK, I’m not really going to go through with this’ (2010). I Malvolio signals the potential for contemporary theatre for young audiences to navigate into uncomfortable and vulnerable territories, with the incumbent, yet potent, risks for performers and audience. Theatre-makers for young audiences have consistently taken these creative risks but their innovation has frequently been overlooked. On that point, Adel Al-Salloum wonders, ‘When do you ever see a theatre review about a piece theatre for children?’ It is certainly an underrepresented field within theatre criticism, although Lyn Gardner amongst a select few national critics has regularly reviewed work, so perhaps it may be more pertinent to ask—How often do we take notice of the reviews or the analyses that do exist? There are many examples of major contemporary practitioners making work for or with children. Recently Forced Entertainment worked with Junction Young Company in Cambridge to create Loud Speakers (2018) and, in the same year at the Southbank Centre, That Night Follows Day8 using child actors for an adult production. Frantic Assembly collaborated with Hijinx and Teatro La Ribalta (Italy), alongside Sherman Theatre and Danza Mobile on Into the Light (2019) and Akram Khan Company has been working on young people’s adaptation of their own work Xenos, entitled Chotto Xenos which explores the stories of WWI colonial soldiers. Just prior to Crouch’s experimental practice for children in 2010, Lyn Gardner reviewed her most memorable productions of 2009 and highlighted For the Best by Mark Storor, writing: ‘For me, it was the best show of year by far—and one largely ignored

8  The text for That Night Follows Day was written ten years earlier by Tim Etchells. See Theatre of Place for further analysis of the production.

4  EN ROUTE TO A TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

151

because it was for children.’ The show, meticulously researched,9 was an immersive installation meditating on the impact of illness and death for children and their families. Utilising the backstage spaces of the Unicorn Theatre, dressing rooms were filled with washing machines and drip-­ drying teddy bears and a princess from the Land of Sick vomited scrabble tiles on to the floor, evoking the mundane and the visceral reality of long-­ term sickness. Nicholson reflected upon the affective power of the piece, writing ‘to see the family’s final, painful battle with death, we knew we were witnesses not only to an extraordinary theatrical event, but to the everyday story of lives that are lived in the shadow of a child’s illness’ (2011, p.  188). Andy Lavender, in his consideration of contemporary ‘felt’ experiences, crafts the term mise en événement10 to describe such experiential events, in which ‘the work of the theatre practitioners is no longer to realize a text or “complete” a staging, but to oversee the audience’s engagement with the production in its several spaces’ (2016, p. 81), and the production encapsulates both the innovative immersivity within contemporary theatre for children and its neglect within theatrical discourse. The devising practices of theatre education are often compartmentalised for many of the reasons already discussed. Recently in Devising Performance: A Critical History by Deidre Heddon and Jane Milling (2016) there is some specific inclusion of theatre in education within a chapter entitled Devising and Communities but their analysis frames it predominantly as a parallel form, rather than an interconnected field with other theatrical genres upon which it may have had an impact itself. One of the more sustained attempts to interconnect TIE pedagogy and methodology with contemporary theatre is to be found in Gareth White’s Audience Participation in Theatre: Aesthetics of the Invitation (2013). In the introduction, he foregrounds the significance of TIE in broader practices when he states: ‘As a teacher of applied theatre and a maker of Theatre in Education (TIE), I declare an interest: as someone who has taken audience participation for granted throughout my career, and who is determined to think and write about its application in community and educational contexts at the same time as in more conventional contexts’ (p. 14). This intention is followed up in chapter one entitled Process and 9  Storor was artist-in-residence at the dialysis unit at the Evelina hospital school, London, and researched the stories of children being treated there. 10  From the original French term événement meaning event.

152 

M. CROSSLEY

Procedure which overtly ‘takes a theorisation of TIE practice as a starting point: the terms appropriate for this kind of process-based practice can, with some modification, provide a basis for others not normally associated with it’ (p. 30). Such manifest associations are not widespread, however, even when it might seem appropriate to recognise innovation and interconnections more thoroughly. For instance, immersive theatre, as will be explored later in the chapter, is arguably more integral to theatre for children, particularly those with special educational needs, than it is to any other type of theatre-making and has regularly been researched in this latter context, yet there is very limited reference to such practices or practitioners in wider publications. Experiential modes are given a degree of attention in Josephine Machon’s Immersive Theatres: Intimacy and Immediacy in Contemporary Performance (2013). Machon attends to the educational enrichment work of Punchdrunk with contributions from Pete Higgins, the company’s Enrichment Director, and references Oily Cart (a company which specialises in theatre children with SEND) but predominantly in terms of its influence on Punchdrunk. Later on in the text there is a lengthier, although singular, explanation of Oily Cart’s practice which indicates just how experimental their work has been: Oily Cart’s multi-sensory, interactive practice over the years has employed various approaches to experience in alternative mediums, such as actual immersion in water in hydrotherapy pools or airborne activity, using trampolines, involving states of suspension and upward momentum. Oily Cart’s sensory explorations also prioritise smell and touch through the use of aromatherapy and physical contact with performers, puppets and other sensory stimulation. (p. 64)

In her introduction to Oily Cart: All Sorts of Theatre for All Sorts of Kids (2012), Lyn Gardner makes a clear case for the company’s significance yet voices dismay as to why this has not been acknowledged to date: ‘It is not just a key player in the grossly undervalued Cinderella sector of children’s theatre, where superb companies such as Fevered Sleep, Theatre-Rites and artists such as Mark Storor also go unsung and under-­ appreciated. Like those very best companies working with children, it is a pioneer on the wider stage of contemporary UK theatre’ (p. x). Similar observations of multi-sensory, interactive innovation could be made about Bamboozle Theatre Company, amongst several others in the field of

4  EN ROUTE TO A TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

153

special needs performance,11 and so it is ostensibly difficult to discern why innovation in theatre education is detached or made submissive to other professional practices. I would also confess that my own work on intermedial theatre (e.g. 2016, 2019) has often disconnected the educational and other professional contexts of these practices, so my intention here is not accusation but acceptance that there is regular detachment between domains which in actuality, on the ground, coalesce and reciprocate on a perpetual basis. In many instances the rationale for siloing practices is a prosaic mix of publisher preferences and deadlines as well as the understandable limitations of academic knowledge but I think there are more fundamental issues at play here, a coaction of hierarchical bias and apprehension. The bias, already alluded to earlier by Chris Elwell, is also succinctly captured in Anne Wood’s reflection, ‘It is a sad fact that the epithet “children’s” seems to diminish the artform’ (2016, p. 7). Wood, a notable children’s television producer, wrote this comment as part of her article entitled ‘Children and the Arts—A Hidden Culture’, the title speaking for itself in terms of the often unseen or ignored complexity and vibrancy within artworks made for, with and by children. An apprehension exists for many theatre scholars to navigate into the heterogeneous realms of theatre education, leading to a perpetuation of siloed academic discourses. Anthony Jackson registered his own concern over this dissociation when arguing that ‘we must be wary of seeing theatre and education as totally different commodities who’s mingling together is surprisingly suspicious and even damaging’ (2013, p.  33). There is undoubtedly a complexity to articulating the intersections of theatre education as encapsulated by Helen Nicholson, who sought to construct a ‘critical genealogy of theatre education’ which inherently ‘draws attention to moments of rupture, observes counter memories, questions the gaps and absences and considers how established patterns are disrupted and why orthodoxies are disturbed’ (2011, p. 10). To engage in such a discourse requires an attentiveness to ‘the dynamic between the materiality of learning and the ephemerality of performance’ as Nicholson puts it (ibid.). The difficulty of articulating this symbiosis, which is in correspondence with, but distinct from other frames of performance, spectatorial and participatory analysis, is perhaps the greatest impediment to sustained interconnected recognition and critique. This disjuncture is 11  See ‘Immersion and Intimacy’ section for further analysis of immersive practice within theatre for special needs children.

154 

M. CROSSLEY

exacerbated by the fact that in Great Britain, theatre education practice is so often made in very specific and transitory local contexts, overlooked or unseen by analytical or curatorial attention. This fact is exemplified in Andy Kempe’s Drama, Disability and Education (2012) in which he indicates the omission of certain companies, including Oily Cart and Graeae, from his detailed analysis, stating: ‘I have chosen not to discuss these programmes simply because to do so would be to draw on material that is not readily available to all in the way that published play scripts are’ (p. 8), an understandable but problematic fact which inhibits much of the discourse on contemporary, devising led theatre education. When looking to specific texts on Welsh and Scottish theatre, this pattern of dislocation is repeated. A Concise Companion to Contemporary British and Irish Drama (2013), with its focus on national identities, has no reference to theatre in education or theatre for children or young people within that context and neither in the specific chapters devoted to Scottish and Welsh theatre. In Performing Wales: People, Memory and Place (2018), Lisa Lewis thoughtfully considers four ‘cultural areas’ and how they ‘contribute to a shared sense of identity’ in Wales. As already identified in Britishness, the text offers a rich insight into Welsh identification through theatre, yet the emphasis is on adult productions. Even when a company that creates work for young people as part of their portfolio, such as Theatr Genedlaethol Cymru, is mentioned, the attention is away from their educational work. The ‘stylistic dialogue’ between theatre in education in Wales and broader experimental practices is however touched upon by Gill Ogden within a chapter in Anna-Marie Taylor’s Staging Wales: Welsh Theatre 1979–1997 (1997). Ogden identifies that ‘TIE incorporated aspects of the innovatory physical theatre of companies such as Brith Gof’ and the ‘parallel development of experimental theatre forms derived from the European and Scandinavian models’ (pp. 57–59). Such an overt, if fleeting, connection is rare though and in this instance is now over twenty years old, since when there have been significant developments in contemporary theatre practice, from digital to immersive and beyond. Likewise, in Scotland, the recognition of theatre educations’ place in the history of the nation’s theatre culture and its experimental impact on the theatre ecology at large is hard to ascertain in major texts. In Theatre and Scotland (2013) Trish Reid deftly summates the relationship between Scottish identity and theatre-making but without any reference to children or young people. The innovators of Glasgow Citizens and The National Theatre of Scotland, amongst others, are acknowledged

4  EN ROUTE TO A TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

155

within the ‘rich tapestry’ that Reid outlines, but the educational work of these companies, the symbiosis between mainstream and education or indeed the significant priority of young people within Creative Scotland’s agenda is omitted. This seems a strange oversight as the author’s stated intention is to consider ‘how the theatre of small nations can respond to global pressures and make a distinctive contribution in the current era’.12 It might be argued that the work, over many decades, of Catherine Wheels, Stellar Quines, Visible Fictions, Imaginate and others are central to such an inquiry. Paul Fitzpatrick from Imaginate is clear however in his conclusion as to why children’s theatre continues to be disregarded in certain circles of cultural discourse: It’s a political thing. Children aren’t often viewed by many decision makers to be valuable until they are an adult, so anything they consume can’t be of merit and respected as valuable art when we’re talking about the wider canon of Scottish theatre. But also there are very few artists making work for children and adults. I’m still trying to get to grips with why that is. Partly it’s due to organisations like Imaginate because we really want people to be expert, take this seriously and that has maybe been misconstrued to mean this is all you can do which isn’t the case.

Such omissions or misconceptions bring with them their own impetus for change however, as Fitzpatrick highlights: The thirtieth anniversary of the Edinburgh International Children’s Festival was last year, 2019. Thirty-one years ago there was no offer for children at the Edinburgh International Festival. It was founded in the belief that children have the right to access theatre that is made specifically with them in mind, for their age and also responsive to them as an audience member. Edinburgh wasn’t offering children anything at that stage.

At a glance then you may be forgiven for thinking that theatre education and all its component forms from theatre in education, young people’s theatre, youth theatre, children’s theatre and so on are enclaves unto themselves, recognised by and partially relatable to other contemporary theatre forms in Great Britain, but essentially discreet. Even when the lens is reversed to find evidence in academic writing of theatre educators identifying correlations with contemporary theatre, examples are growing but  This quote is taken from the back cover of the text.

12

156 

M. CROSSLEY

still relatively limited. Stuart Bennett, one of the pioneers of TIE and theatre for young people, made some connections in Theatre for Children and Young People (2005), highlighting that many of the new writers in young people’s theatre came from the Alternative Theatre Movement. Bennett stated: ‘There was a need for writers who could write high quality plays for touring to schools which related to ethnic minority groups, the equal role of women in society—and the culture and rights of the working class’ (p.17). Paul Harman, in the same text, cites the significance of European theatrical influences on the UK, often informed by its membership of, and contribution to ASSITEJ, The International Association of Theatre for Children and Young People. However, Harman also notes how so much of theatre for young people is devised and written in very specific local contexts ‘pertinent to the lives of their young audiences’ (p. 56), which in part explains why theatre and theatre education often co-habit geographically and methodologically but without realising or recognising this reality. More recent and notable examples13 which offer a sustained analysis of the correlation between theatre education and contemporary theatre practice in Britain are Helen Nicholson’s Theatre and Education (2009), Theatre, Education and Performance (2011) and Applied Drama (2014) and Nicola Shaughnessy’s Applying Performance: Live Art, Socially Engaged Theatre and Affective Practice (2012). In 2009, Nicholson identifies a number of theatre-makers who blur divisions between contemporary experimental practice and theatre education, such as Mark Storor, Stan’s Cafe, Blast Theory, Third Angel, Frantic Assembly and Lone Twin (p. 74). Storor’s practice is a recurring theme for Nicholson who considers his work across all three texts. In Theatre and Education attention is placed upon Storor’s 2007 site-specific project Boychild, which explored notions of masculinity and involved groups of boys from primary and secondary schools as well as young offenders. Likewise, some of Stan’s Cafe’s14 educational practice is attended to, including Plague Nation (2004), a small school version of their large-scale installation Of All the People in All the 13  Imagining the Real: Towards a New Theory of Drama in Education by David Davis et al. (2014) is also one of the latest interventions in the domain of theatre education and offers a radical recommittal to drama in education, but its resonance and pertinence in the context of my text is limited as its attention lies on a reaffirmation of Edward Bond’s practice and its correspondence to Heathcote and Bolton. 14  For further reading on Stan’s Cafe, refer to Devising Theatre with Stan’s Cafe (2017) Crossley, M. and Yarker J., Bloomsbury Methuen.

4  EN ROUTE TO A TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

157

World (2003 onwards), in which rice grains are used to represent individual humans and therein the piles of rice signify statistics of population from economic wealth, mortality rates and so on. The school version allowed the children to focus on local, school-based issues as well as areas of global interest. Fruit and Veg City (2006) is also referred to, a project in which pupils in Birmingham schools created fruit and vegetable models of the city as a means of engaging with the urban environment, which for many children living in working-class suburbs, miles from the city centre, was rarely visited. Accompanied by an original soundtrack, composed by the pupils, the models were exhibited in the city’s main market. Nicholson’s observations on the project capture the potential of the nexus between experimental theatre and theatre education: ‘The installation captured the poetic qualities that characterise the work of Stan’s Cafe; there was no linear narrative, no naturalistic characters and no explicit message, but it is evident that the performance of images, textures and cityscapes captured the children’s imagination and encouraged them to look at their world from different points of view, both literally and metaphorically’ (2009, p. 78).15 Nicola Shaughnessy (2012) attended to a number of experimental projects for children and young people, considering the methodological correlations between applied practice and contemporary theatre-makers. In particular, she refers to Mark Storor’s The Fat Girl Gets a Haircut and Other Stories, Stan’s Cafe’s Plague Nation (2004), as discussed by Nicholson amongst others, and a project entitled Moving Lives facilitated by Sue Mayo and Magic Me which saw a collaboration between elders from the London Jewish community and pupils from London’s Mulberry School for Girls which at the time was 98% Bangladeshi.16 The practices of Mayo, Storor and Stan’s Cafe amongst the several others  addressed by Nicholson and Shaughnessy offer us some of the most articulate yet scarce glimpses into the documented correspondence of contemporary theatre and theatre education and remind us of how limited the investigation has been and how much more there is to discover. There are signs from new Artistic Directors within high profile producing theatres that there is a growing understanding of the synergy between 15  In Applied Drama (2014) Nicholson reflects on A Tender Subject (2012), centred on the experiences of gay prisoners and prison officers, of relevance in the context of this text as it included teenagers at risk of offending. 16  See ‘The Art of With: Co-creativity and Co-authorship’ section for further analysis of intergenerational theatre education.

158 

M. CROSSLEY

the ecologies of theatre and theatre education. In 2019, The Guardian profiled seven of the newest and youngest Artistic Directors taking the helm at theatres such as the Donmar Warehouse and the Birmingham Repertory Theatre. All the Artistic Directors were asked what single thing would improve British theatre and Lynette Linton from the Bush Theatre in London replied: ‘Understanding that community work and “professional” work on the stage are the same thing. The community should be feeding the work on the stage, and vice versa. I always have an open rehearsal room. I invite young people to sit in and learn and be part of it and give their opinions. Who are you making it for otherwise?’ Charlotte Bennett from Paines Plough likewise emphasised the importance of young people’s access to, and engagement in, the arts: ‘Placing more value on arts in education. With arts subjects going out of the curriculum in schools across the country, it’s sending a message to young people that the arts are not an important part of their lives or career prospects’ (2019). These correlations have been articulated by writers on theatre education, including Helen Nicholson who wrote that ‘theatrical experiments in educational settings have always been interwoven with the dramatic and educational innovations of their day, and this means that the practices of theatre educationalists offer insights into how it spoke to the culture and society of the period’ (2011, p. 73). However, the tendency, as already noted, is for those in the field of theatre education to occasionally alight upon these interrelationships with very limited conversation from outside of this domain. There is certainly a sense from some within the children’s theatre community that long-standing biases have impeded a more open dialogue and reciprocal respect. Chris Elwell from the Half Moon reflected how ‘there are hierarchies to overcome. Some people still think it’s better to perform for one man and his dog to audience demographics of ABC 1s on the fringe or mainstream theatre. Our numbers are massive. We engage somewhere between forty seven and fifty thousand people a year but that doesn’t always translate into recognition.’ This sentiment is echoed by Jo Scalpello, Group Marketing Director, Stagecoach Performing Arts, when reflecting on the lack of recognition or influence afforded to stage schools within the contemporary theatre ecology: To be honest I think the reason why people don’t always consult with us is that they don’t think we are particularly big. Our business is run using a franchise model. We actually have 325 franchisees, 3,000 teachers and fifty thousand kids in our business with 90% of our students spread across the

4  EN ROUTE TO A TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

159

UK and the remaining 10% in eight other countries. When you register this it suddenly takes us to an entirely different platform with regards to people’s understanding of our consumer engagement and impact and perhaps we just haven’t talked enough about our scale in those forums.

Dislocations and marginalisations are still clearly persistent within the relationship between theatre and theatre education and even between fields of practice within theatre education—TIE/YPT, public/private and so on. Interdisciplinary and intermedial dialogues and recognition are however vital to advancing the profile and practice of theatre education. Specifically in relation to this text, the confluence of contemporary theatre practice and theatre education needs much closer examination so that it might offer us fresh paradigms for exploring theatre with current and future generations, so that they might speak to, and in counterpoint of, their culture. In order to frame these new modes of theatre education we need to consider it in the context of key paradigm shifts both in the economy of theatre education and in contemporary performance. In the next chapter, I attend to the ‘border crossings’ within the new landscape of public and private sector co-habitation in theatre education and the changing identities of theatre-makers within the twenty-first century as identified by Duška Radosavljević amongst others. Today we inhabit a landscape in which practitioners are challenged to recalibrate their approaches to the new realities of funding, policy, economics and cultural trends. The past sixty years, personified in my journeys from Coventry to Woking, are testament to the seismic shifts in theatre education. We have come a long way, some traditions and skills have lasted every mile of the journey so far but we are now, as always, in new territory. An embrace of hybridity is not new as theatre in education and children’s theatre have always found inspiration in related professional forms but the twenty-first-century modes that now proliferate, and the new conceptual models available to articulate them offer us incipient pedagogies and methodologies. These emergent paradigms are imperative as the changes in national curricula and cultural policy across Great Britain gather pace. So let us talk a little more about remarkable things.

160 

M. CROSSLEY

Bibliography “Acting Up Report”. 2017. Labour’s Inquiry Into Access and Diversity in the Performing Arts. Labour Party publications. https://diversityuk.org/wp-­ content/uploads/2017/08/Acting-­Up-­Executive-­Summary.pdf. Bennett, Stuart, ed. 2005. Theatre for Children and Young People: 50 Years of Professional Theatre in the UK. ASSITEJ Aurora Metro Publications Ltd. Cooper, Chris. 2013. THE IMAGINATION IN ACTION: TIE and Its Relationship to Drama in Education Today. In Learning Through Theatre: The Changing Face of Theatre in Education, ed. Anthony Jackson and Chris Vine, 41–59. Abingdon: Routledge. Crossley, Mark, and James Yarker. 2017. Devising Theatre with Stan’s Cafe. London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama. Davis, David, et al. 2014. Imagining the Real: Towards a New Theory of Drama in Education. Institute of Education Press. Elsom, J. 1979. Post War British Theatre. London, Routledge. Freshwater, Helen. 2013. Children and the Limits of Representation in the Work of Tim Crouch. In Contemporary British Theatre: Breaking New Ground, ed. Vicky Angelaki, 167–188. Heddon, Deirdre, and Jane Milling. 2016. Devising Performance: a critical history. Palgrave Macmillan. Hopkins, Eirwen. 2005. Theatre for Young People in Wales. In Theatre for Children and Young People: 50 Years of Professional Theatre in the UK, ed. Stuart Bennett, 29–31. ASSITEJ Aurora Metro Publications Ltd. Jackson, Anthony and Chris Vine ed. 2013. Learning Through Theatre: The Changing Face of Theatre in Education. Abingdon: Routledge. Lavender, Andy. 2016. Performance in the Twenty-First Century: Theatres of Engagement. Abingdon: Routledge. Lewis, Lisa. 2018. Performing Wales: People, Memory and Place. Cardiff: The University of Wales Press. Machon, Josephine. 2013. Immersive Theatres: Intimacy and Immediacy in Contemporary Performance. Palgrave Macmillan. McGregor, J. 2002. If Nobody Speaks of remarkable Things. Bloomsbury. Nicholson, Helen. 2009. Theatre and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ———. 2011. Theatre, Education and Performance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ———. 2014. Applied Drama—The Gift of Theatre. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Ogden, Gill. 1997. History of Theatre in Education in Wales 1979–1997. In Staging Wales: Welsh Theatre 1979–1997, ed. Anne-Marie Taylor, 47–60. Cardiff: The University of Wales Press.

4  EN ROUTE TO A TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

161

Pearson, Mike. 1997. Special Worlds, Secret Maps: A Poetics of Performance. In Staging Wales: Welsh Theatre 1979–1997, ed. Anne-Marie Taylor, 85–99. Cardiff: The University of Wales Press. Reid, Trish. 2013. Theatre and Scotland. Palgrave Macmillan. Shank, Theodore, ed. 1996. Contemporary British Theatre. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Shaughnessy, N. 2012. Applying Performance: Live Art, Socially Engaged Theatre and Affective Practice (2012). London, Palgrave Macmillan. Taylor, Anne-Marie, ed. 1997. Staging Wales: Welsh Theatre 1979–1997. Cardiff: The University of Wales Press. Turner, Jeremy. 2005. Young People’s Theatre in a Minority Language and Culture. In Theatre for Children and Young People: 50 Years of professional theatre in the UK, ed. Stuart Bennett, 32–37. ASSITEJ Aurora Metro Publications Ltd. White, Gareth. 2013. Audience Participation in Theatre: Aesthetics of the Invitation. Palgrave Macmillan. Wood, Anne. 2016. Children and the Arts—A Hidden Culture. Arts Council England. https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/publication/create-­children-­and­arts-­hidden-­culture. Wood, D. with Janet Grant 1999. Theatre for Children: A Guide to Writing, Adapting, Directing and Acting. Ivan R. Dee, Chicago. Wooster, Roger. 2007. Contemporary Theatre in Education. Bristol: Intellect Books. ———. 2016. Theatre in Education in Britain: Origins, Development and Influence. London: Bloomsbury.

CHAPTER 5

Border Crossings: Twenty-First-Century Theatre Education

This chapter addresses the here and now of theatre education and creative learning. It begins with a consideration of how new markets and new modes are transforming the landscape as the public and private sectors, led by innovative practitioners from diverse backgrounds, are rewriting the rules of engagement. Three particular developments of twenty-first-century theatre education are then investigated in detail: immersion and intimacy, co-creativity and place-making. These transformations have been wrought into being by the theatrical evolutions in performance, participation and spectatorship over the past few decades and the attention to them reflects the specific trends in methodology articulated by the contributing practitioners.

New Markets, New Modes The Sunderbans forest goes across India and Bangladesh. You can’t part the current of the waves, it will go where it will go. (Trina Haldar, Mashi Theatre)

In Haldar’s description of the cross-border landscape, evoked in the company’s 2019 production Stripey Honey…Is Very Yummy! there is an elegant analogy for this chapter’s theme of hybridity and the diffusion of boundaries coming to the fore in theatre education. Many of the old silos

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Crossley, Contemporary Theatre Education and Creative Learning, Palgrave Studies In Play, Performance, Learning, and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63738-5_5

163

164 

M. CROSSLEY

are disassembling due to shifts in experimental practice, curriculum upheaval, strategic repositioning and fiscal reality. New forms of theatre education are coming to the fore, notably led by theatre for and by children and young people, and new forms of interdisciplinary analysis are revealing the potential of the pedagogies and methodologies enfolded within them. There are unquestionably inherent dilemmas or dichotomies unearthed by such hybridity. It is not my intention to arbitrate at length on these, rather to illustrate the new realities, opportunities and tensions of occupying this landscape and creating and co-creating within it. It is worth beginning with some of the curricula and fiscal realities, or perhaps more accurately market realities, that are intensifying the hybridisation of theatre education. As already outlined in previous chapters, the curriculum, particularly in England, has led in many cases to a diminution of the arts within many schools, or at the least made provision unpredictable. Alongside this, the exclusion of theatre or drama from the core curriculum of Key Stages 1,  2 or 3  or the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) requires evermore persuasive arguments to integrate it within lessons or subjects. In this regard, I am referring specifically to contemporary theatre educators’ capabilities to engage in dialogues and relationships with educators, parents and children, as opposed to drama and theatre as timetabled subjects. To navigate this territory requires ingenuity, flexibility and pragmatism on the part of theatre education makers. Sam Cairns from the Cultural Learning Alliance (CLA) is frank in her assessment: It’s a bit of a no brainer. If you want to work with schools you have to work out what matters to schools and then work out how what you’re offering solves the schools problem. What’s the problem and how do you solve it. That’s how you get through the doors and build a conversation. Strong relationships build great provision. If you’re a contemporary theatre company you need to think how your work supports the employability of young people or how your work supports young people to understand the range of careers in the creative industries. That’s incredibly functional I know.

For some theatre-makers such a strident and bald assessment sits uncomfortably with their own ethics and aesthetics, as will be noted later, preferring to accentuate the making of ideas-led work as the driver of practice and projects. However, pragmatism has always been imperative for theatre educators, as Gordon Vallins underlined: ‘If you want an income you have to find satisfaction for the customer and if the school is paying the purveyor then they must feel they are getting something of value.’

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

165

The recent repositioning of Arts Council England strategy in Let’s Create poses new questions for theatre companies, as Rob Elkington outlines: ‘This shift to making theatre with and by young people reflects the question—who should be the beneficiaries of public funds and this is what the Let’s Create strategy is all about.’ The re-emphasising of culture and creativity across England, Scotland and Wales has presented the arts with new opportunities to facilitate national objectives, but it is clear that the arts are only one of the creative strands tasked with nurturing cultural literacy or democracy, depending on the terminology you prefer. Ambitious national agendas from each government or arts council are tempered by the financial reality as referenced in the Changing Lives cross-party report (2019) and underscored by Diane Hebb from Arts Council of Wales who moderates the aspirations of Curriculum for Wales with the fiscal truth of the matter: ‘Experiential learning is central to the curriculum but that means working with people outside the school to enhance the learning, but you’ve got to be able to afford to do that and schools are struggling to afford the teachers they need to deliver what they’re being asked to deliver.’ The financial realities across all three nations, perhaps to be exacerbated by post-COVID-19 austerity, are often in sharp contrast to the far-reaching and arguably grandiose plans of national governments and arts councils, prompting imaginative strategizing to marry aims with deliverable objectives. Curricula restrictions are also fashioning new, and for some, challenging realities in the breadth of theatre education provision on offer and the ethos and language embedded within this widening provision. These curricula restrictions are evident, as already documented, in England but also identifiable in Scotland as Expressive Arts still struggle to establish equal status alongside the other seven curriculum areas and in Wales it has yet to be discovered if Expressive Arts can find parity of esteem amongst the six mandatory areas of learning. In parallel to such difficulties, it is unsurprising then that the private sector has found an ever-increasing role in providing theatre education to children and young people. The approach of such companies (in tandem with arts councils priorities) indicates that all ‘providers’ in this ‘marketplace’ cannot make assumptions about their entitlement to funding or access to the education sector. The dynamism and sophistication of strategy within the private sector was palpable when in conversation with Jo Scalpello who underlined the impact of national decisions on Stagecoach: ‘We are filling that gap and we have seen our numbers steadily increase over the last five years, and we believe that’s partially to do with the funding squeeze. We can’t be sure, but we are

166 

M. CROSSLEY

Fig. 5.1  Stagecoach Ealing students performing at Shaftesbury Theatre, London (2019). (Photographer Theo Wood)

certainly filling that gap’ (Fig. 5.1). In her analysis of current opportunities, Scalpello uses phraseology which unquestionably unsettles established norms of discourse within theatre education: We are a premium service which is priced to be affordable to a large and wide number of households in the UK and around the world. our aim is for performing arts to be accessible for everybody, but one of the challenges that we have is that mainstream educational budgets continue to be squeezed and unfortunately performing arts education gets the brunt of it. We know there is a need and demand for performing arts, however outside the school environment, it is an extra cost, and that’s a shame that not every household will be able to afford it. We target a wide set of households around the UK, and most are working or middle-class customers. Typically they have on average £146 per month to spend on extracurricular activities for their children, which is a lot of money invested in their children’s activities and future. But in order to make our service accessible, we also offer a large number of scholarships each year, we take tax-free childcare and childcare vouchers.1 1  Stagecoach operates what is referred to as a franchise model. Louisa Roberts (Head of Education) outlined the three types they operate: ‘There are three types of franchisee—performers (West End etc.) maybe currently performing, another group comes from an educa-

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

167

Theatre arts research, in the context of the private sector, has a distinct but not entirely dissimilar objective to public sector research. Scalpello outlines the company’s use of a ‘Brand tracker which tells us where we are in the market and our competition, in other words—who else is vying for the pound? I firmly believe you have to go out and talk to consumers to understand which way the business should go.’ From this dialogic process with consumers, Stagecoach has discerned that the three main reasons people choose Stagecoach are ‘quality of teaching, convenience of location and our reputation’. Whilst the precision of such research tools may be novel and sobering for professionals elsewhere in the sector, the intention behind it is correlative with the consultations of arts councils, in the case of Let’s Create this entailed ‘a conversation involving more than 5000 people from around the country’, all in the name of testing demand for their ‘change’ agenda. As identified earlier, there is now a greater emphasis from all quarters, as evident in Time to Listen (2018), to be guided by data-informed research. Therefore, whilst there may be legitimate concerns over the reasons behind an increased presence of the private sector within theatre education and the inherent weaknesses in the state system this may indicate, creating polarities between public and private methodologies or objectives requires nuance and, in some regards, has limited validity. Louisa Roberts, the Head of Educational Programme Development and Training for Stagecoach, is also more than comfortable with the promotion of a brand and products. Again, an instinctive reaction for some within theatre education may be to push back against the semantics of such language but Stagecoach themselves do not see their position diametrically opposed to the state sector or publicly funded arts education provision, as Roberts identifies: We’re about promoting the arts in every context. It might seem that we are benefitting from the children not accessing performing arts in mainstream but actually what we believe is that for all of our students, their first access should be through mainstream provision, because if they’re not getting that then how do they know what they don’t know? How do they know they tion background, current teachers working part-time or ex-teachers who may have lost faith in mainstream, wanting to develop something that’s their own, and the third group are business people who don’t come from an education or performance background. They see it from a business perspective and they may go to a franchise fair and think “I’d like a Stagecoach”. We have regional franchise managers called RFMs who manage and support the franchisees.’

168 

M. CROSSLEY

love dancing or drama if they never do it at school. It’s actually massively beneficial for them to have had those experiences at school. We need a broad and balanced curriculum. If and when it picks up in mainstream sector that won’t be a disadvantage to us. It’s about that first access.

There is now a hybrid, mixed economy of provision within theatre education in which public and private sectors run in parallel or now frequently occupy the same territory, as Roberts herself suggests, ‘I don’t see public and private as two completely disjointed things.’ As the private sector finds new ways of inhabiting the territory and reading its landscape, theatre educators reliant on the public sector and public funding will have to embrace pragmatic and flexible modes of delivery to meet the challenges of the new curricula. Manon van de Water wrote in 2010, ‘To this day, many professional theatres for young audiences could not survive if they could not rely on school audiences—this reliance, in most cases, means that they have to conform to school ideologies and notions of appropriateness if they want to keep these audiences and forge any kind of partnership with educational institutions’ (p. 279). Likewise, Sam Cairns reflected in conversation: For some artists that may feel ethically wrong but the reality is that on the ground if you’ve got a school that isn’t going to offer any arts and that’s your only way in, then that’s what people have to do. I’m quite pragmatic. If that the only way to get art to children, then we have a duty to take that route. If you know that what you’re offering is high quality then it’s better than no provision at all.

This undoubtedly brings reward but also risks for individual companies and the sector as a whole as TIE itself became vulnerable to the creative constraints of curricula. Lyn Gardner noted back in 2002 that ‘I see too many shows whose driving force is clearly not a passion to make theatre, but a passion to sell a product whose major selling point is the way it ties in with the National Curriculum’ (2002, p. 35). The dangers of such practice still resonate today and guide the instincts of practitioners towards new modes of creative collaboration with schools and community groups, facilitating ideas-led rather than curricula-driven projects whenever possible. However, as can be noted from Cairns observation and the many examples of practice which do respond to curricula and school objectives, such as Lead Creative Schools in Wales or Stan’s Cafe in England, the issue is the quality and integrity of the interaction, not the impetus for action itself.

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

169

The austerity of the last decade is having a clear impact on smaller theatre companies’ capacity to attract funding, including those making work for young audiences in venues and schools. Chris Elwell from Half Moon Theatre reflected that ‘we’re finding it harder to get money as the funding bodies are getting multiple applications, because mainstream companies are now going to the trusts and foundations. There is less money out there and more people are applying for the pots.’ In Scotland, the funding squeeze has brought its own tensions as the regularly funded (RFO) status of many organisations was put in peril by recent decisions by Creative Scotland. Laura Penny from Visible Fictions notes how in 2018, designated as the Year of Young People, ‘ourselves and Catherine Wheels, the only companies in the portfolio making work for young audiences, had our funding cut in that year. So there was a massive outcry.’ For a certain period the companies2 were moved on to the short-term Open and Touring Fund schemes, but as Penny identifies, ‘We can’t survive project by project. There were no parameters for those funds in terms of timescales. So we were told we were being moved without a strategy, which left the Scottish theatre sector in a state of shock and grief.’ Whilst a well-co-­ ordinated industry-led campaign3 reversed much of the funding cuts, reinstating RFO status in many instances, the events affirmed the precarity of arts funding in a sector where the access to private revenue and income streams can be severely limited. Whilst Stagecoach and other theatre arts schools can legitimately target ABC1, the viability of much of the practice created in this field defies such an economic model. Penny highlights this in the case of one of Visible Fictions’ more recent productions and tours: ‘The Hidden is an immersive adventure in a library and has an audience of fifteen, so no matter what we do that is never going to wash its face. We have also just finished a tour on the Isle of Muck. There are five kids in that school so it doesn’t make us any money, but we are charged with giving access to communities that want it. We prioritise rural areas.’ We never assume we deserve the money. We have to blow our own trumpet. Sophie Ochojna, Visible Fictions 2  Alongside cuts to theatre companies making work for children and young people, Creative Scotland also cut RFO status to Birds of Paradise and Lung Ha, the only two portfolio companies making theatre with disabled artists and Stellar Quines who are the only company making work with all female artists. 3  The campaign included an open letter with over 150 signatories, in The Scotsman (2018) supporting Catherine Wheels RFO status.

170 

M. CROSSLEY

The funding landscape, with the prioritisation of direct funding to communities, education consortia4 and schools, has placed a greater emphasis on diversity of financial revenues. Many theatre companies are now reducing their reliance on arts council funding,5 focusing their attention on income streams from charitable trusts and foundations as well as income generation from tours and schools programming. The new financial reality prompts ingenuity in theatre companies’ relationships with schools, as Elwell outlines: ‘We have a two tier funding approach. We say to a school: “This show costs £2,000, you need to pay us £300, then the second time we go out we say that’s how much it cost last time, we have to charge you properly this time”. If the programme is successful and has impact and value they will find the money.’ For some in this sector, accustomed to long-term arts council support, such frank negotiations may appear stark but for many theatre-makers, particularly those entering into this field from an experimental background, this fiscal hybridity has for many years remained the norm and working with children has frequently been the source of vital new revenue, as Paul Davies from Volcano Theatre reflected: ‘Financial necessity was the initial impetus for working with children. People were asking for physical theatre workshops and we were able to provide them.’ For countless companies, including Volcano, Stan’s Cafe and Talking Birds, their early survival was reliant on income generated by schools workshops, so for many practitioners there is less of an expectation of subsidy within this sector. James Yarker from Stan’s Cafe indicates that pragmatism and creativity do not have to be in opposition when negotiating with schools: ‘Why would you go and help with the most exciting bit of the curriculum; the bit teachers love and enjoy teaching. That’s pointless. We need to find the dull stuff and uncover the creative challenge within that. They’re paying for this through their budgets so they need to get good value out of it.’ Such pragmatism is indicative of the resilience which theatre educators have learnt and will continue to deploy moving forward but, as Laura Penny identifies, the lack of a holistic approach to theatre funding impacts on the capacity of the theatre ecology to support and nurture creativity: ‘I 4  In Wales there are four Regional Education Consortia (North Wales, West Wales, Central South Wales and South East Wales). Their focus is on ‘raising standards in literacy and numeracy’. Each consortium has a Regional Arts and Education Network through which funding for arts-based creative learning is distributed. 5  Half Moon Theatre, for example, currently only receive 25% of their funding directly through Arts Council England.

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

171

would argue that the rationale for core funding companies is that it creates an infrastructure for supporting artists to create work. Freelancers need companies who have that infrastructure as it allows us to provide work for these people.’ In recent years, there has been both an increasing de-siloing and marketisation of theatre education, a recalibration impelled by austerity budgets but also shifting and conflicting ideologies, advocating cultural literacy albeit from divergent angles. Hastening these changes have been the curricula revisions which for some bring opportunity and for others concern. In Wales and Scotland, there has been a conscious attempt to deconstruct silos of knowledge and encourage cross-curricula and interdisciplinary learning across the six mandatory areas and the seven curriculum areas respectively but this has brought both opportunity and tensions. Tim Howe from the Sherman Theatre in Cardiff is enthusiastic about the potential of the Curriculum for Wales: ‘The curriculum is blown open now, we can hit curriculum aims in five or six places, from mental health, poverty of opportunity amongst many others.’ Howe tempers his enthusiasm however when reflecting on the challenges of the curriculum going forward: ‘The key thing now is how secondary aligns with primary as all the exams fit into the old system. They’ve not quite worked that out yet. In the primary sector one teacher can lead the creative curriculum but that’s not possible at secondary.’ This raises opportunities within secondary education to develop creative partnerships between schools and practitioners, as indicated earlier in Diane Hebb’s declaration that ‘the best creative practitioners are artists’. The decline in school-based performing arts qualifications has been well documented already in this text but this regression is contrasted with the emergence of extra-curricular or enhancement arts qualifications. The Artsmark for schools and Arts Award for children and young people have been central to the Arts Council England’s strategy over recent years and were key measures within goal 5 of their 2010–20 strategy. The Arts Award has proven a thorny issue for many within the field of theatre education as Chris Elwell noted earlier, and there is an unease that the award is indicative of the direction of travel for performing arts qualifications away from the school curriculum, into the hinterlands of enrichment and entitlement, a disquiet underscored by Sam Cairns from the CLA: ‘We get the sense from the Culture Minister that what they want is theatre to be taught by theatres as extra curricula activity. But we need a rich curricula of arts and not an add on which seems to be where we are going.’

172 

M. CROSSLEY

Offering and promoting such provision, it may be argued, enables government to demonstrate their commitment to arts and culture within broad educational terms without having to compromise the core curriculum at primary and secondary level including the EBacc. Currently, the Arts Awards are being heavily promoted through several channels of the Arts Council, including bridge organisations and Local Cultural Education Partnerships (LCEPs), and for many of the theatre-makers and Artistic Directors interviewed, the Arts Award is part of their new reality, to be navigated within their remit and funding obligations. Manya Benenson reflects this realism and finds an important positive in the award: ‘Create a project that can build Arts Award in to it. Don’t crowbar it in. It allows children to “see” themselves. A lot of children we work with have never got a certificate before.’ However, the view of Adel Al-Salloum, the Director of The Spark Arts for Children in Leicester, is reflective of many in the sector: Whilst there are clearly benefits to supporting young people in gaining qualifications there remains an inherent dilemma in the way the Arts Award needs to be positioned. It is often used as a mechanism in which we are able to demonstrate value, as if the act of consuming or producing art with and for young people has no value in and of itself. The Arts Award is reliant on creating value against a criteria and on occasion can get in the way of producing or immersed, being lost or moved in the moment. And it then becomes a headache. But sadly a necessary one because without it we (the arts sector) have no way of measuring or asserting its worth. This government is so obsessed with qualifications and attainment that we need to qualify an artistic experience and so we have an Arts Award. I’m personally less concerned with the Arts Award and more concerned with providing children with experiences to access performing arts without having to quantify that human experience through a qualification.

Chris Elwell from Half Moon also voices concern over the award effectively replacing some mainstream provision: ‘Arts Awards are being completed in Year 9. The scandal for me is that out there are so many kids who could get a C in drama but they are not going to get a C in Geography or History or whatever. That’s the scandal, we’re not allowing those people to achieve in subjects they can: making them do subjects that they won’t.’ The qualifications within performing arts are diversifying at an ever-­ increasing pace as public and private sector providers attend to the opportunities or necessities in front of them. From the private sector, new

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

173

‘products’ are being offered for all age groups. Stagecoach have developed, as Jo Scalpello outlined ’a range of initiatives to celebrate learning, for example, our ‘Early Stages passports’ for the younger students (four to six years) all the way through to a new course called Further Stages+ (fourteen to eighteen years),’ which they refer to as a development programme rather than a qualification but its strategic positioning alongside A Levels is self-evident as Jo Scalpello states: ‘This is a really lovely product. At the end they can earn up to 28 UCAS points, meaning they can supplement their education.’ This concerted entry into the market is replicated by many other providers such as the Pauline Quirke Academy offering further education qualifications at her London academy. This mixed economy of provision reflects the ethos of resilience and diversification heralded through many of the strategic plans of recent years but for some there is concern in this. Justine Themen from The Belgrade in Coventry reflected: ‘If we get to a point where private providers and Arts Award are the cultural provision for young people. If we go to that place not only is it not accessible to everybody, it’s also a pretty superficial version of what we’d be getting if we invested in it properly.’ Whilst there are bursaries into some private provision and some of the qualifications within this sector attract public funding, the reality is that shifting access to qualifications into enrichment and out of school provision risks an exacerbation of cultural inequalities. It is too simplistic, however, to cite private sector initiatives as the cause of such inequities, as Roberts and Scalpello both highlight the need for a robust offer within the public sector. It is perhaps more balanced to note that their growing presence in the sector is firstly a long-­ term trend over many decades (suggesting a clear and sustained demand) and secondly that their popularity is, to some degree, indicative of the paucity or inconsistency of arts education in the public sector, in other words more a result than a cause. Gordon Vallins put it quite simply to me: ‘The GCSE has declined because the education system doesn’t give it any value. The private providers are rising because children need to do it.’ In 2017, the Labour Party produced its own report entitled Acting Up: Labour’s Inquiry into Access and Diversity in the Performing Arts in which it highlighted the demise of drama in state schools in contrast with the continued prioritisation in the private sector, including private schools.6 As suggested by Time to Listen and ImagineNation, this lack of access for 6  This growing gulf in access to arts was again highlighted in a 2019 survey of theatre executives. Survey as referenced in Arts Professional ‘“Increasing Social Division” in Schools’ Theatre Access’ article (16/8/2019).

174 

M. CROSSLEY

‘the many’, to use Jeremy Corbyn’s well-worn phrase, endangers a multitude of discriminations in children and young people’s personal and civic agency and opportunity. What influenced you theatrically Christopher? “Not much really. I saw panto as a kid.”7 —Christopher Davies, Bamboozle Theatre

In 2015, Duška Radosavljević identified ‘10 Traits of Theatre-Making in the 21st Century’,8 the first three of which she listed as education and training, self-determination and deprofessionalisation. Radosavljević’s identification and articulation of these themes illuminate the dissolution of a number of silos and traditions not only in theatre-making but also in theatre education making. In reference to education and training, Radosavljević proposes, ‘It is symptomatic that artists who declare themselves as “theatre-makers” have mostly emerged out of universities rather than drama schools.’ As already identified, many of the theatre-makers referenced in this text have emerged from diverse backgrounds, often from university programmes focused on experimental theatre practice or from disciplines related to, but beyond the usual routes of theatre-makers, notably design and visual art.9 The training and professional lives of these practitioners have habitually fledged under the influence of some of the most prominent radical thinkers within theatre, including Baz Kershaw and Alan Lydiard,10 and/or within small-­ scale theatre companies and venues promoting new writing and 7  Panto—abbreviation of pantomime. A British form of theatrical family entertainment often referred to as a genre of popular theatre. It has its roots in commedia dell’arte, using well-known stories such as Cinderella or Aladdin and combining slapstick humour, dance, songs and stock characters. 8  ‘10 Traits of Theatre-Making in the 21st Century’ originally published in Exeunt magazine 11 February 2015. 9  For example: University of Birmingham—Jacqui O’Hanlon; Lancaster University— James Yarker; Rose Bruford College—Lee Lyford; Swansea University—Paul Davies. Several of the Artistic Directors were trained within visual arts and design including Janet Vaughan from Talking Birds and Nettie Scriven from Dragon Breath. 10  Baz Kershaw is an internationally renowned theatre academic who founded the first Rural Touring Community Arts Group (Medium Fair C. A. 1976) and first Reminiscence Theatre Company (Fair Old Times 1978) as well as collaborating with Welfare State International. Alan Lydiard was Artistic Director of Northern Stage in Newcastle during the 1990s which ran extensive TIE and community theatre programmes.

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

175

community engagement, such as Arcola Theatre, London (Romana Flello), The Egg in Bath (Lee Lyford) and Northern Stage (Adel Al-Salloum). Lee Lyford, now Artistic Director of Theatr Iolo in Cardiff underscores this divergency of backgrounds within the field of theatre education: ‘I’ve sort of inadvertently found myself in children’s theatre, which is a very happy discovery. I haven’t come for an educational background. I’m definitely not from a TIE background.’ It could of course be pointed out that Gordon Vallins himself came into the Belgrade Theatre with a background in teaching geography. However, what is pertinent here is that although Lyford recognises the importance of TIE as a significant extant methodology, it is evident in conversation that he feels comfortable, in fact creatively compelled, to explore the bounds of theatre education beyond this TIE tradition, to the point of consciously diffusing aesthetic and pedagogical boundaries and skillsets. Somewhat contentiously for a theatre company focused on children and young people, Lyford goes on to say: ‘I don’t really believe there’s such a thing as a children’s theatre expert as such. I suppose what I find very hard to do is to go “Oh I’m going to make a piece of theatre for a child”. I don’t know if I know how to do that in a conscious way, like that’s my goal. All I can do is say—“I’m interested in exploring this”. There’s often this assumption that children are a whole other audience. They’re not. When making theatre for children, the process is the same.’ Lyford’s outlook is echoed by Derek Nisbet from Talking Birds who stated, ‘Young people are not a main focus for us but we just work with who is appropriate.’ For others, in contrast, there is an imaginative attitude and specificity to making work for children and young people, as articulated by Chris Elwell from Half Moon: ‘There’s a strange hierarchy where people think they know what an eight-year-old wants because they’re the adult, and I know what they want, normally based on when they were eight or what you believe that was, rather than absorbing yourself in their world and engaging with them. You have to find structures to achieve that.’ Demarcating a coherent profile for theatre education is made ever more problematic as practitioners in this field are not always immediately identifiable, their practices not easily definable and therefore their profile and impact not easily recognised or fundable. Yet this is the reality of theatre-­ making in an educative context in the twenty-first century where many artists cross boundaries, appropriating skillsets across a variety of genres, from arts-based media and live performance to film and social media as

176 

M. CROSSLEY

well as diverse educational methodologies. Education as a term within theatre nomenclature is now often being reframed or rebranded as creative learning, participation or community engagement, as in the case of the Sherman in Cardiff, the Belgrade in Coventry and The Royal Court, as outlined by Romana Flello: ‘We were Young Court and Beyond the Court. We wanted to bring those two together, so now its Participation. It reflects trends of terminology. Participation works for us now.’ Flello’s comments accentuate the fact that there are now new compounds from which theatre education springs and into which it is stirred. Such experiences reflect and also accelerate self-determination and deprofessionalisation as Radosavljević (2015) refers to them, the former she describes as the movement away from traditional divisions of labour towards ‘individual artist’s determination, personal interests, aptitudes, skills and creative concerns’, an attitudinal shift that coalesces with the ‘unwillingness or inability of contemporary theatre-makers to occupy only one definition of the existing professional profiles of actor, writer, director, designer, composer, choreographer’ as she refers to deprofessionalisation. Such perspectives are clearly evident when Artistic Directors are asked about their practice. In describing Visible Fictions style of theatre, Dougie Irvine quickly responded: I just make stuff. We make mostly theatre but we also make other stuff too. New, new, new was placed at the heart of the company. Anything we could do innovatively. If we were the first to do it, if it was new to us, that’s what we got excited by. We didn’t care if it ‘worked’ per say, as long as it investigated. We wanted to try something new because we wanted to keep up with where young people are—they’re at a place where everything is new—so we wanted to keep that approach as well.

The capacity and instinct to make ‘other stuff’, dissolving the traditional remits of a theatre company, is expedited by the theatre-makers backgrounds but also the changing demands of children and young people, whose cultural experiences are a molten synthesis of new and existing media and artforms, accelerated by digital platforms which, for the first time, afford democratic access to the production tools of creativity as well as the reception and spectatorship of culture. Derek Nisbet from Talking Birds, akin to Irvine, is quite relaxed about the indistinctions inherent within a contemporary theatre company, so when asked the same question

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

177

he replies: ‘What does this theatre company make? It’s a thorny one. We do a bit of everything, we’re a bit blurry. It’s a theatre company run by a composer and a designer. Work tends to be performative.’ Similarly, Peter Rumney from Dragon Breath remarks, ‘At the heart of the company are two artists—one is a visual artist who’s actually a poet, and the other is a poet who thinks like a visual artist,’ and Paul Fitzpatrick from Imaginate reflects, ‘My experience has been that artists making work in this field have always been much broader in their aesthetic. There is less of that silo thing.’ For the theatre-makers interviewed who work across practices for children and adults, the educational work they create is interwoven into the fabric of their artistic identity and follows the same values as work they create for any audience. Many of the traditional delineations of theatre no longer exist due to shifts in experimental hybrid practice and the need for divergent income streams in which education work sits on a par with, and at times ahead of, other lines of work within a company. This has prompted some subtle rebranding of theatre companies to express the diversity of their output. Laura Penny, the producer for Visible Fictions in Glasgow highlighted their own evolution: We rebranded the company no longer as Visible Fictions Theatre Company but just Visible Fictions. We dropped theatre from the name and the rationale at the time behind that was that we are still passionate about theatre but theatre is changing. For years we’ve been moving away from traditional, end on proscenium arch, sit down theatre. We are really interested in new ways of telling stories, that’s all we’re about, just telling stories because we’re all very visual as well. So we’ve made stop motion, film, online digital experiences. We like to dip our toe in new things and see if it excites us.

In theatre’s such as Half Moon in London, who make work exclusively for and with children and young people, a similar rejection of silos is to be found and an insistence that children’s theatre innovates with as much regularity as any other form of theatre but that there is often little recognition of this, as Chris Elwell, the director of Half Moon Theatre, made clear: Historically work for young people has always been at the cutting edge of methodology. The problem we have is that the significant high profile aspects of work for young people are very mainstream—adaptations of a book, translations of fables and so on. Some have broken the mould but most work is like that and that’s because the majority of mainstream spaces

178 

M. CROSSLEY

making work for young people are using adult models of narrative construction. There are lots of companies doing work differently to that but the majority of venues frankly play safe and shy away from booking more challenging work.

Self-determinism, whilst it may find itself constrained at times by cultural and professional compartmentalisation, enables practitioners to respond to a range of cross-curricula or interdisciplinary challenges, constructing new methodologies pertinent to the specific theatrical problem in front of them. I am aware here of a conscious shift at this point to the use of the term theatrical and/or theatricality, as such terms accentuate the domain-specific nature of the learning medium. It is reflective of the ethos and language of many of the practitioners I spoke to, as Nisbet underlined: ‘There is always a show aspect in how a project is framed, launched and talked about.’ This accent on performance often informs the recruitment of practitioners on to projects as highlighted by Kevin Lewis, when as Artistic Director of Theatr Iolo he was ‘more interested in people with acting skills rather than education skills’. Arts council priorities also reflect this accent towards performance practitioners within education projects, as indicated by Diane Hebb: Theatre makers, along with other artists and creative professionals bring a well-developed knowledge and experience of creative approaches and processes. I think it’s important to be clear that for us it was important to work with the “creatives” in arts organisations. So in terms of theatre we wanted to work with the Artistic Directors, the writers and so on.

Frȃn Wen are identified by Hebb as one of the most dynamic companies working in theatre education across Wales and they offer an apt example of contemporary theatre education and the synergies between experimental theatre and work for children and young people. Based in North West Wales they make work in the Welsh language for and with young people, responding to their locality and the nature of Welsh identity in the twenty-first century. In recent years they have created work across a range of sites including Prosiect Haf with the National Slate Museum (2019) and in 2020 the Young Company responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with a full-length online digital theatre piece entitled 120960, in reference to the number of minutes since the first case of the virus was reported in Wuhan. Their commitment to experimental practice is evident in their recent appointment of Gethin Evans as Artistic

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

179

Director, previously joint Artistic Director of Cwmni Pluen, often reviewed as a ‘fearless’ and ‘innovative’ theatre company.11 The exploration of Welsh identity is central to their practice as expressed in the description of the Young Company which proposes to ‘create ambitious, multi-disciplinary theatre that celebrates what it means to be a young person in North West Wales today’. At times the hybridised methodologies of contemporary companies appear to bypass existing drama in education or theatre in education pedagogies. James Yarker from Stan’s Cafe acknowledges the fact that ‘we’ve never read Heathcote and others in drama education, so it’s trial and error. Maybe we could have got further quicker if we’d done some research but maybe we would also have closed off a number of paths.’ Guy Hollands, the Associate Director (Citizens Learning), from Citizens Theatre in Glasgow reflected that in theatre education more broadly ‘my hunch is that if you asked most people in this field they would say they don’t really have a methodology. We don’t think about methodologies, we think about values. So our values are about respect for people. Methodologies are simply the tools you’ve acquired.’ Yet, as already noted, many practitioners recognise TIE’s experimental genesis and acknowledge the interaction of methodologies through their practice. Nettie Scriven from Dragon Breath Theatre affirmed that their work was ‘held together by a big TIE principle—young people making sense of the world, often in an immersive whole day programme’. Peter Rumney, the co-Artistic Director of the company, articulated their approach, working alongside young people as performance researchers to create work, and in his explanation, there is a sense of the new balancing point between TIE and theatre for children and young people: ‘I don’t think children consider they are watching an “issue based” play with Dragon Breath Theatre, we’re not overtly saying that we are looking at “bullying” or “transition”. We may explore those questions at some point, but what’s going on is something more metaphorical.’ There may be an argument here for Wooster’s concerns over a lack of pedagogic analysis (2007), but my contention is that contemporary theatre educators are cognisant of this, and at their best are developing new pedagogies predicated on dialogic and collaborative models. These modes are explored in greater depth in the next sections, but Nettie Scriven’s explanation of their 11   For example—Jafa Iqbal’s review of their production Mags 2018  in Wales Arts Review online.

180 

M. CROSSLEY

ethos is indicative of this attitude: ‘At the centre of it all for us in meaningful dialogue. Meaningful dialogue with the young people and with the teachers and that’s the principle that’s carried through from TIE.’ For many companies, there is now more of an interest in working to a theatrical or performative brief created in collaboration with a specific school, consortia or community group, responding to a curricula or community need rather than offering a thematic performance and workshop model. Derek Nisbet’s reflection on Talking Birds collaborations with schools typifies many companies approach: ‘They tend to be bespoke We don’t do workshops as we like to work together to make something. It might be a piece of theatre or it might be a piece of orchestral music with narrative, it might be opera or a piece of visual art.’ The creative constraints of a brief resonate for smaller theatre companies who are familiar with the demands of artistic briefs from festivals or funders with the inherent constraints of time, venue or budget. Likewise, as James Yarker will explore in his Practitioner Voice essay on experimentation, contemporary theatre-makers often embrace externally or self-imposed formal constraints within their practice (spatial restrictions of site, time limitations, one to one audience etc.) so the constraints of a school-based brief are more often a creative opportunity rather than an obstacle. In reference to Tim Crouch’s practice, Radosavljević refers to these as ‘liberating constrictions’ (2013, p. 156), and in 2017 I reflected that for Stan’s Cafe ‘on a regular basis, the constraint is the idea’ (p. 54). There is habitually a significant incentive and creative curiosity in pushing beyond the bounds of traditional theatre forms, facilitated by the spectrum of practitioner backgrounds, so the range of projects now encompassed by theatre education resists categorisation. The life experiences, interests and skills of children and young people are prompting new avenues of creativity as Diane Hebb from Arts Council of Wales identifies: ‘Many of the theatre and drama projects that have taken place as part of our programme over the last five years have included film and digital. We’re certainly seeing much more of this, which is unsurprising when the young people are in the driving seat.’ A lack of methodological canon and the interdisciplinarity that is engendered is captured in Dougie Irvine’s explanation of the genesis of Visible Fictions’ The Hidden (2017) (Fig. 5.2): This started with two conversations that came together. A Glasgow librarian (who had seen The Spokesmen and Curse of the Demeter) liked how we took a space that wasn’t a traditional theatre space and successfully engaged

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

181

Fig. 5.2  The Hidden (2017) at Paisley Central Library with pupils from Dumbarton Academy. Visible Fictions. (Photographer Mark Donnelly) young people with it. She said “I’m struggling to get kids engaged with the library.” Meanwhile I’m having a different conversation with a game-maker colleague, Cameron Hall about storytelling possibilities with the form he specialises in. They both came together in my mind and I had this image of teenagers sat around a terminal in a spotlight in a library with a mystery where they would find themselves with choices like in a game or immersive shows like Sleep No More by Punchdrunk.

Border crossings are inevitable, necessary and vital for theatre education to sustain itself. It demands creative ingenuity to solve the next

182 

M. CROSSLEY

problem with an original solution rather than an off the shelf best-fit, but this arrival at the crux of a creative dilemma, often at the same moment in time as the teachers or young people is an opportunity for genuine collaboration and experimentation. This approach is clearly evident in the methodology Imaginate employs within schools in Scotland, as Paul Fitzpatrick explains: Our work in schools is always either performance or artists led so we don’t go in with a workshop about a show or an artist goes in to develop maths. We work with schools to say can you trust us to pair you up with an artist. We don’t know what the outcome is going to be but the intervention will be inherently educational but we aren’t going to give the artist any educational outcomes that you would recognise as part of the curriculum. Curriculum for Excellence gives us freedom to do that. We call them artists in residence. It’s definitely an artist’s enquiry.

James Yarker from Stan’s Cafe comparably notes that in the creation of Any Fool Can Start a War (2014) with Billesley Primary School in Birmingham, they were faced with writing a bespoke play with sixty speaking parts for the children, tailored to the abilities and personalities of the cast. ‘In order to create this close match we wrote nothing before we had met the classes and continued to write script between rehearsals’ (2015, p. 215). To prepare a school for such uncertainty takes careful negotiation and trust as reflected upon by Derek Nisbet from Talking Birds: ‘Dialogue with schools in advance nearly always improves it. To say to them that we don’t know what the show is yet and its fine if we go off-piste.’ Such specificity and localised methodology can obfuscate, unintentionally, the scope and influence of theatre education, including its voice at a national level as indicated by Cairns, as it metamorphoses into diverse fields of practice and is difficult to delineate at times, resisting the existing appellations of TIE, DIE or theatre for young audiences. The deterritorialisation of theatre education has had greater recognition in recent years, as in 2010, when reflected upon by Emelie Fitzgibbon, Cecily O’Neill and Nancy Swortzell, all internationally known practitioners within the field. Fitzgibbon noted that ‘TYA and its overall definition have loosened up in the past 30 years. There isn’t the gap that there used to be between theatre for children, TIE and Theatre for Youth,’ whilst Swortzell contended that ‘Children’s Theatre is no longer Children’s Theatre. It is young people’s theatre but sub-divided into the early years, the middle years, and then … the open

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

183

years. And the open years can be anywhere from 13 to the early 20s. So it has become much more sophisticated and devoted to plays which develop significant contemporary issues for children’ (pp. 87–88). The integration of experimental theatre practice is acknowledged by both O’Neill and Swortzell: O’NEILL:

[…] These types of wordless pieces we’ve seen would have been unusual 30 years ago. They would’ve been seen as mime or something else. And we also see the kind of things that are more like art installations than a dramatic encounter happening more frequently. SWORTZELL: I think you would have to say that many more forms are included now. It was a gradual evolution. Theatre centers in England began exploring more topics and then some of the resident children’s theatre and authors turned to forms and ideas which normally were not considered appropriate for youth. (2010, ibid.) This increasing hybridity and perpetual experimentation may, very partially, explain or excuse the lack of representation of diverse practices within the drama and theatre examination culture within the British nations. From the Higher Drama qualification in Scotland to the WJEC Drama and Theatre in Wales, to the raft of English drama and theatre examinations at 16 and 18, there is limited inclusion of experimental or hybrid practice. This is partly the consequence of such methodologies having a limited presence in textual form (restricting their mentions to sections within the devising modules) but it is puzzling that students are often exposed to very experimental ideas within creative learning projects or youth theatres pre- or post-sixteen but are then habitually asked to delimit their theatrical imaginations and repertoire in relation to examination subjects.

Immersion and Intimacy—A Pedagogy of Felt Experience The poignancy and creative potential of ‘felt’ experiences is a well-­ acknowledged perspective across theatre education and the broader field of contemporary theatre. The influences of immersive and intimate

184 

M. CROSSLEY

practices, key modi operandi of contemporary theatre, are in evidence across contemporary theatre education. Immersivity has unquestionably been part of the pedagogical and methodological repertoire of drama and theatre in education with its use of role play and sustained fictional participatory frameworks. Chris Cooper notes the import of feeling within TIE: ‘Frame, role, task and enacting moments or dramatic situations enable the participants to bring their whole selves to the TIE programme, it matters to them because they are in it and they experience a felt understanding, this is something that cannot be handed over, it has to be experienced’ (2013, p. 46). In a contemporary context this has been informed by and embellished with the most recent developments in immersivity, notably in Great Britain from companies including Punchdrunk, dreamthinkspeak, WildWorks and Blast Theory but also European practitioners such as Dries Verhoeven or Rimini Protokoll. Such practices offer the potential for agency, collaboration and a deeper level of experiential learning. In Immersive Theatres (2013) Josephine Machon writes: ‘In theatre discourse, “immersive” is now attached to diverse events that assimilate a variety of art forms and seek to exploit all that is experiential in performance, placing the audience at the heart of the work. Here experience should be understood in its fullest sense, to feel feelingly—to undergo’ (p. 22). She goes on to state that ‘immersive theatre is inherently interdisciplinary. An immersive form has evolved from the innovators of performance practice across generations’ (p. 28). Immersive experiential practice is in evidence across theatre education and theatre for children and young people and notably spans the full spectrum of ages from birth up to young adulthood, responding to these phases through diverse experiential modes. Immersive experimentation, it may be argued, is particularly prevalent and relevant within early years and special educational needs (SEND) settings. As previously noted, Machon (2013) acknowledges Oily Cart’s multi-sensory, interactive practice yet the correspondences between experimental immersive theatre for adult audiences and those crafted for children and young people (including SEND) merit further attention as innovations continue to be made by those within the domain of theatre education. From a washing-line hung an array of coloured ribbons (just like the ones that had been adorning the trees and plants en route) and a bedraggled teddy bear. Over a fire (a genuine, real fire0 a steaming cooking-pot was

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

185

Fig. 5.3  Words in the Woods (2007) featuring Hannah McPake. Theatr Iolo in partnership with Vale of Glamorgan FEI (Forest Education Initiative). (Photographer Kirsten McTernan) suspended. There was also a large book with gilt-edged pages, half hidden under some foliage. “Hello! Hello! Anyone at home?” we called out. (2007, p. 11)

This is from Sarah Argent’s description of an immersive theatre experience for three- and four-year-olds, entitled Words in the Woods (Fig. 5.3) and created by Theatr Iolo.12 It could as easily be an account from the scenography of any renowned British immersive-based company, conjured perhaps from the imagination of WildWorks who, in consideration of their site- and community-based practice, ask you to ‘Imagine a world where stories take flight, where landscapes wear one-off wondertales woven by the people that live there’. In this instance, the project was situated in Hensol Forest in the Vale of Glamorgan, South Wales. The experience, designed to stimulate storytelling and story writing, invited the children in  Made in partnership with Vale of Glamorgan FEI (Forest Education Initiative).

12

186 

M. CROSSLEY

to the woods where they met a variety of characters, including The Fairy and The Man in the Tree and several mysterious environments. Andy Lavender, as noted earlier, adopts the term mise en événement to describe such encounters, and whilst the children were given some direction from one ‘event’ to another, unlike in some contemporary immersive practice, the intention and experience is comparable as the creative learning experience was predicated on the children’s physical and imaginative journey through the environment, negotiating their agency as they progressed. I would contend that this can be delineated from the broader categorisation of experiential learning to consider this as, to use Machon and Lavender’s word, a pedagogy of felt theatrical experience. The hybrid framing of the work partly grounded in the reality of the forest, with all its sensorial stimuli, and partly in the figmental realm of fairy stories is crucial in this pedagogical mode. Machon identifies this in-between state as fundamental to the experience of immersive works. She refers to Gilles Deleuze’s dualism of immanence and transcendence, the former referring to ‘a state of being, existing or operating within the material or physical qualities of human experience’ (2013, p. 108) and the latter ‘a state of suppressing the materially “immanent” and entering into an esoteric or otherworldly state, beyond the physical qualities of human experience’ (ibid.). Children are adept at exploring and testing this liminal space in-­between reality and otherworldliness, often effortlessly fusing the two domains. Argent writes that in the encounter of Hannah, established as a performer and ‘fairy’, some children readily embraced this conflation, as quoting some of the children she writes: ‘…for some she existed in two different realities: – Once upon a time there was a Hannah who was a fairy—she’s pretty, she’s kind, she had green spotty wings’ (2007, p. 20). There are a number of criticisms of immersive practice, notably that it cultivates a narcissistic, self-absorption in its immediacy (Alston 2016, p. 64), but framed pedagogically, with well-timed irruptions from characters or teachers (Who might have made that noise? Who might live here?) such absorption/immersion has been learnt to be productively harnessed through critical intervention. Notably, in her introduction to the project Argent acknowledges the influence of the early Belgrade TIE team, citing Ifan’s Valley (1973) which took children on an experiential adventure through the countryside13 and the site-specific work of Brith 13  Such events have been referred to as ‘adventure programmes’ (e.g. Jackson and Vine 2013).

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

187

Fig. 5.4  Daniel Naddafy performing in Glisten (2018) with audience member Arlo in the post-show interactive play session. Half Moon Theatre. (Photographer Stephen Beeny)

Gof in Wales and Grid Iron in Scotland (2007, p. 3), underscoring the lineage of practice from early TIE to the present day and the fertile, if at times undervalued, connections between experimental theatre and theatre education. Across the country, companies are experimenting with sensoriality in theatre for the early years. Half Moon Theatre in London presented Glisten (2018) (Fig.  5.4),  co-created by theatre-maker Daniel Naddafy and visual artist Phoebe Stubbs. The piece was an interactive performance for babies between 0 and 18 months, which they referred to as a ‘sensory landscape’, whilst a few years earlier the Unicorn Theatre in association with Sarah Argent and Kevin Lewis created the Baby Show, with a Christmas spin-off entitled Scrunch (2014). Both shows, which have proven very

188 

M. CROSSLEY

popular in successive years are predicated on sensorial engagement, at times visual but building to an immersion within the production, including touching and mouthing14 objects and materials. Conceiving of theatre for babies as a performative event is considered by Evelyn Goldfinger: I would suggest that theatre for babies experiences can be related to a theatrical event: generally, as mentioned earlier, there are no defined characters, little to no text, no lineal plot, no fable. Most performers receive the audience while playing and showing objects such as masks, shoes, water. Sometimes, the stage is defined by a fine line on the floor, or is suggested by lighting. At times, toddlers are invited onstage or performers step into the audience space. (2010, p. 297)

This diversity of sensorial opportunity in immersive practice is attended to by Jen Thomas, Punchdrunk’s Enrichment Officer: ‘Immersive theatre, in general, is about entering a full world, you’re surrounded on all sides, it’s three-dimensional, you’re within a real space where there could be sound, smell and taste, all your senses are engaged. You’re being immersed, you’re stepping into an enclosed world that surrounds you and the characters are of that world’ (2013, p. 214). Multi-sensory stimulation is well documented as fundamental to a baby and young child’s development15 and the potential of theatre to facilitate and celebrate this has been readily embraced by early years theatre practitioners The significance of kinaesthetic experience is central to this field of theatre education and the emphasis on this mode of engagement can be seen in a range of Oily Cart’s productions from Blue (2006), an immersive space inspired by the New Orleans delta in which children with ASC (Autism Spectrum Condition), could investigate either by observing the space or by travelling right through it, or Jamboree (2019), a piece of kinetic ‘gig-theatre’ in which every tune in the gig was co-created with a young person who is non-verbal. Tim Webb, the company’s Artistic Director, indicates, ‘You have to let people become comfortable, find their bearings and settle down. Then they’ll be prepared to go off on a journey with you’ (2012, p. 73). Theatre’s capacity to embrace multiple media within a single event has been intensively researched in recent years (e.g. Kattenbelt 2008; Georgi 14  Mouthing is the term used for oral exploration by young children—as a means of sensing the world around them. 15  For example, Clemo et al. (2012).

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

189

2014; Crossley 2019, 2020) and this hypermedial particularity of theatre, as it is referred to, is fundamental to immersive practice, with some specific features well-attuned to early years work and special needs theatre practice. The hypermedium of theatre enables a plethora of media (plurimediality) to co-exist within a space and to some degree situate themselves ‘without affecting their respective materiality’ (Georgi 2014, p. 46). To be specific, this enables objects, fabrics, lighting, performer and fellow participant bodies and so on, alongside their attendant sensations (touch, temperature, taste, texture, light intensity, wet/dry etc.) to be immediately accessible. This may be seen in contrast to more conventional theatrical practices, or indeed other media such as film or literature, wherein the signification is invoked through semiotic recognition (aural and visual), informed by memory and cultural experience. The materiality and accessibility facilitated by the theatrical hypermedium however enables an immediate engagement with the senses (the scrunch of paper for example) at a pre-semiotic level (Elleström 2014), making such immersive, felt experiences far more potent and instinctively engaging for babies, young children and children within a SEND context. Within theatre made for children with special educational needs, the experimentation with immersive and site-based methodologies is widespread and sophisticated, with multi-sensory engagement often at the forefront of this practice. Leading companies in this field include Birds of Paradise and Lung Ha within Scotland, Bamboozle, Oily Cart and Frozen Light in England and Hijinx in Wales. Tim Webb, from Oily Cart, writes: We examine all of our shows, and especially those for young people with PMLD or ASD, to see that they contain other sensory elements beside those old stand-bys of theatre, seeing and hearing. Even after years of creating multisensory productions, it’s easy to neglect the other senses, so we check to ensure that an emerging show has things that are good to smell, to touch, perhaps to taste, and that there will be stimulation for the kinaesthetic sense. (2012, p. 21)

The innovation and risk-taking of the company is commensurate with any experimental practitioner as their work explores environments and sensory experiences that should rightly be seen at the avant-garde of theatre practice both in educative terms but also in the wider spectrum of contemporary theatre. In 2018, Oily Cart in collaboration with National Theatre Wales created a show entitled Splish Splash. As the title suggests,

190 

M. CROSSLEY

the show is pool based and designed for three different audiences, children with Autism Spectrum Condition (ASC), Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities (PMLD) and those who are Deaf-Blind. During the piece, five performers interact with the children immersed literally and figuratively within the water, using a range of interactive scenographic objects and technologies. The impact of this work is captured in Francesca Pickard’s reflections on the performance for National Theatre Wales: It is hard to explain how powerful this intimate work is but the impact it has on the children and the staff, who accompany them in the pool, is very moving. When one carer calls another over to see how much a pupil with PMLD is smiling, or a boy who usually refuses to leave the safety rails decides to venture further in to the pool to look at a box spewing bubbles, or children described as ‘non-verbal’ expel all sorts of sounds and noises when hearing their name sung aloud; it feels like the show is offering a profound opportunity for self-expression, choice and play. (2018)

Lavender’s conception of a mise en événement is again pertinent to such practice as the linearity of a narrative gives way to temporal and spatial flux, as the children are given space and time to become accustomed to new surroundings and sensations, pursuing individual journeys through the environment within a curated framework. On a broad scale, Lavender (2016)  proposes that  21st century performance  practice  is epitomized by  engagement, an experiential agency, and in this instance  the  engagement recognises that for some children the creation of an environment in which they can be immersed is more meaningful and a more achievable aim than that of encouraging them to follow any through line of narrative. The aim of the performer is to engineer a joint engagement with the child, however briefly, as a precursor or early form of communication. The aim is also to observe, value and respond to all forms of communication, be they verbal, non-verbal, usual or unusual. Theatre educators have to be very creative with children with SEND, to make a connection and overcome barriers to learning, especially when communication is highly delayed. The arts offer a very accessible approach to education within a SEND context and present an invaluable, intuitive starting point when formal learning is not appropriate as an option.16 Bamboozle Theatre, based in Leicester since 1994, are similarly experimental in their devising and performing for children with special 16  For this insight into SEND practice and theatre’s pedagogical potential, I must acknowledge the expert knowledge of my wife Siân Crossley, who works as a senior practitioner within a SEND school environment.

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

191

education needs, underpinned by a clearly articulated pedagogy. Christopher Davies, the Artistic Director, acknowledges the writings of Alfie Kohn, in particular Punished by Rewards (1999),17 in informing what the company initially referred to as a non-judgemental space, ‘… one in which students can interact with environments, with each other and with us, without facilitators and teachers, without the slightest fear of being judged—of getting it wrong. If we can create such a space it is my belief that students, whatever their abilities and disabilities, will flourish in ways that we might not have thought possible’ (2012, p. 6). In our recent conversation, Davies and the company have revisited their own expression of non-judgemental, owning the ethos more directly: ‘We talked about it as the non-­judgemental approach but the problem with that is that in the title you have what it is not, which is not so helpful. So six or seven years ago we decided to call it the Bamboozle approach, lets claim it.’ Drawing upon Kohn’s work, the company’s performance methodology centres around authentic interactions, unencumbered by praise which they propose is disincentivising and devaluing of children’s natural curiosity. This approach is immediately evident during performances as carers and parents are encouraged to move back and allow the children to experience the show independently. Within productions such as Down to Earth (2014), Girl and the Goat (2016), Storm (2016) or Makara and the Mountain Dragon (2020) (Fig. 5.5), the narratives are interspersed with invitations for the audience to engage, to smell spices or herbs, feel the sensation of fabrics on arms or faces, or travel through an Indian market or into the mountains to meet the dragon. The method known as intensive interaction is often employed, using matching breathing and gestures to build trust and rapport. Performances are therefore a dynamic interplay of individual one to one moments and collective experiences, redolent of Punchdrunk’s practice in which the communal act of spectatorship is at times punctuated by invitations into solo moments of intimacy. I recall seeing Storm at a local SEN school and whilst the stripped back narrative, based on The Tempest, navigated itself lightly but purposefully forward, one or more of the performers separately attended to individual children, inviting them to investigate a book, a polythene fish or the strings of a guitar.

17  Full title—Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise and Other Bribes (1999).

192 

M. CROSSLEY

Fig. 5.5  Makara and the Mountain Dragon (2020) Bamboozle at Curve Theatre, Leicester. (Photographer Pamela Raith)

As a final example of immersive practice for SEN, of which many may be proposed,18 it is interesting to return to the work of Volcano Theatre as it demonstrates the diversity of children’s based practice from within a company known more widely for their radical and experimental performances for adult audiences. Beastly Ongoings (2019), conceived by Catherine Bennett and Clare Hobson, was a collaborative project between 18  It is worth noting that many of the theatre practitioners I spoke to and the theatres they represent had active programmes and projects for young people with special educational needs including Talking Birds, Royal Court, Glasgow Citizens and Half Moon Theatre. See Theatre of Place for further analyses.

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

193

Fig. 5.6  Beastly Ongoings (2019) featuring Catherine Bennett. Volcano Theatre in collaboration with Crug Glas and the Coastal Housing Group. (Photographer Claudine Conway)

the company, Ysgol Crug Glas (a special school in Swansea) and the Coastal Housing Group who made an urban space available for the installation (Fig. 5.6). The piece was inspired by the picture books of Shaun Tan and the radical architectural style and ethos of Aldo van Eyck, with the show’s publicity material tantalizingly promising that ‘the children will be pursued by tigers, leave their imprint in a fossil room, hide themselves amongst strange creatures and release their inner animal!’ Bennett, who created, directed and performed in the work (alongside Rick Yale), presents a rich and impassioned insight into the impact of the project: The headteacher at Ysgol Crug Glas was passionate that her kids have the same opportunity for immersive experiences as other children. We agreed to collaborate on a theatre piece and when we designed the performance it was vital to me that each space offered the children a different experience from the space preceding or following it. For example, in the first room, the idea was based on bones as the building blocks of life—as a consequence the movement and touch experienced by the kids was skeleton-like. One space was covered in bubble wrap—they could hear it when they were pushed, in

194 

M. CROSSLEY

their chairs, into the space. The sound was loud and fragmented. I felt like it was risky and, if things turned out right, fun. The children were able to visit this space twice and given the number of times they returned and stayed, it was clear that they really enjoyed it. This space challenged our expectations as to what children can cope with and enjoy. The last room had the most profound effect on them. It was a landscape of cardboard boxes; a lunar fantasia and we were dressed entirely in yellow—playing hide and seek. The children laughed the whole time. They were totally involved in the performance and held me, so tenderly. It felt like our roles had been reversed and unsurprisingly we couldn’t get some of them to leave. You have to be experimental within special education. Carers say the children do repetitive activities every day and they seem to imply that is all they can do. My experience tells me that the real task is to allow them to respond in different ways; to give them experiences that allow to explore a range of reactions—to find themselves anew every day.

Manya Benenson’s practice at Nottingham Playhouse encompasses a broad range of projects and methodologies, including intimate, one to one story-making sessions for children in  local hospitals.19 Benenson reflects on the complex dynamics of this work: ‘It requires a totally different methodology. You don’t know who’s coming, how ill they’re feeling. We go one to one at the bedside for those children who can’t make it to the room. It’s a lot about using our production house resources—handling props—making things together, making stories using their voice.’ In her own account of the practice, in Practitioner Voices, Benenson explains how the methodology uses object-led enquiry as a space for facilitating the child’s agency. ‘One of the ways into engagement I have discovered is through the offer of carefully chosen intriguing objects or items. The focus is not on the child or practitioner, instead on the objects, generating enough curiosity that we can find a gentle connection or way in together, whilst not being too onerous or threatening.’ Again there are correlations here with specific branches of contemporary practice, notably object theatre. In reference to the object theatre of practitioners including Tadeusz Kantor, Richard Allen writes, ‘The dramaturgy is conceived to allow the spectator to participate in an encounter between objects’ (2016, p. 12). This resonates with Benenson’s practice as it moves beyond spectator to participant in object theatre. Research has recently been conducted into 19  The potential of theatre within hospital settings is receiving greater attention in academic research, for example, Persephone Sexton’s Theatre for Children in Hospital (2016).

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

195

the uses of object theatre within healthcare and well-being20 so the imperative to further recognise innovation in this field is unquestionable. One to one, sensorial and haptic performance have been attended to by a number of theatre scholars, notably Machon (2013), Leslie Hill and Helen Paris (2014) in Performing Proximity: Curious Intimacies and Jon Foley Sherman in A Strange Proximity: Stage Presence, Failure, and the Ethics of Attention (2016). Sherman writes, ‘The performance that touches me the most touches me the most. If it leaves me apart from it, it leaves me cold’ (77). Hill and Paris analyse On the Scent (2003), one of their own Curious Performance productions, created and performed with Louise Weaver, in which audiences are invited into a kitchen, living room and bedroom to experience the aromas of pork chops and cigarettes, the taste of chocolate and tequila, evocations of home and homesickness. In the practice of Bamboozle, Oily Cart and others we can see a clear correlation to such experimental sensory practice utilising intimate, felt experiences as conduits for recollection and learning. I would propose that immersive performances for children are particularly powerful examples of what Machon, citing Claire Bishop, refers to as ‘psychologically absorptive’ (2013, p. 34) and represent some of the most sophisticated practice in this field. However, following the pattern identified earlier in section ‘In the Folds of the Map’, there is limited attention to its development within immersive theatre discourse. In Lyn Gardner’s review of Oily Cart’s Blue (2006), cited in the company’s own text, there is an unambiguous argument for why this may be the case: ‘Oily Cart is one of the great British theatre companies of the last 25 years. Yet plenty of theatregoers, even the most avid, will not have heard of it. The reason is simple: Oily Cart works entirely with children, many with complex disabilities, and often behind closed doors in Special Needs schools’ (2012, p. 56). In addition to this unseen innovation, Christopher Davies acknowledges that the sector itself may need to propagate its own practice more vociferously, noting: ‘There isn’t much dissemination, not much from us anyway and it would be good if there was.’ There are several practitioners, including Webb and Davies, writing within this field and an increasing interest within academia21 but

20  Research includes praxis from the Object Theatre Network at Nottingham Trent University, UK, which facilitated a range of workshops for healthcare professionals. 21  For example, there are numerous research projects focused on theatre and autism—for example, Trimingham and Shaughnessy (2016), and Beadle-Brown et al. (2017).

196 

M. CROSSLEY

there is still a distance to be travelled for mutual recognition across domains of immersive and intimate practice. For older children, a gaming paradigm is often utilised to stimulate participation and immersion. As already noted, Visible Fictions’ The Hidden (2017) adopted the affordances of an online game to stimulate engagement with libraries and literacy. Stan’s Cafe, in a recent project in a Birmingham school, explored mathematical problems with Year 10 through an escape room scenario. ‘A briefcase sits on a table, inside of which are the keys to escape the prisoner of war camp. Six envelopes are located nearby, each with a mathematical puzzle which, if answered correctly reveals part of the six digit code. The clock is ticking, the commandant will return any minute,’ as James Yarker describes it. On a larger scale companies have staged hugely popular immersive events either intended specifically for a younger audience or including children within a community cast, including Punchdrunk’s The Crash of the Elysium (2012) which was written in collaboration with the Dr Who creative team or WildWorks Wolf’s Child (2017). Whereas these shows sought inspiration in sci-fi and fairy tales respectively, immersive practice for younger audiences also has the capacity to address complex contemporary issues. Off the Grid (2018) produced by Half Moon Theatre in London was an immersive production exploring the struggles of inner city siblings Connor and Kelly, who are abandoned by their parents and prone to exploitation or neglect once ‘off-grid’. The play was written by David Lane with substantial collaboration and workshopping with local youth groups in the areas surrounding the theatre which struggle with high levels of child poverty and deprivation. Whilst not at the immersive extremes of some practice, the piece inculcated the audience through intimate staging and curation of objects to invest in the characters, as Chris Elwell proposes in his directorial programme notes, ‘…we hope that by experiencing this production, audiences will not simply be passive onlookers, but be moved to become agents for change.’ Baz Kershaw (1999) reminds us of the potential for radical immersive practice, writing: ‘such performances can somehow create access to new sources of collective empowerment, especially through the forging of a strong sense of community, […] their aesthetics deal so obviously and directly in the dynamics of coercion, control, cohesion and collective power; in short, about who is empowering whom for what’ (p. 194). The agency afforded to children and young people in such practice at its best is, I would contend, radical or perhaps more precisely I would say it has the potential for radicalism, to author

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

197

their engagement with the world and through an increased exposure to such practice the confidence to co-author immersive experiences which may articulate their felt life experiences and to test out the validity of their cultural democracy, and where necessary question cultural hegemony.

The Art of With: Co-creativity and Co-authorship In 2009, Charles Leadbeater entitled an essay on co-creation as ‘The Art of With’, articulating the collaborative and cumulative nature of the endeavour. In recent years, influenced by arts council guidance but also by the shifting experiences and expectations of children and young people, co-creation and co-authorship have become central tenets of theatre education pedagogy. Rob Elkington notes the increasing prevalence of collaborative methodologies, partly prompted by economic factors: ‘What I see a lot more of is work made by and with young people. There have been a lot fewer professional productions everywhere since the recession and there has been a resurgence of youth theatres and access for children and young people to theatre spaces.’ Often the terms co-creativity and co-­ authorship are conflated with the capacious domain of collaboration but the distinction between them is significant when considering the creative agency of young people. Collaboration is a broad church in which contributors may or may not have agency over the proposition, process or outcomes. Adel Al-Salloum from The Spark suggests that there is a ‘continuum on which collaboration and co-creativity sit. You can’t co-create if there is a disparity In starting points. We have to take those children on a journey to meet those artists. So co-creation is about years and years of relationship building and investment in the children and the artists.’ Co-creativity is now at the forefront of the national discourse on democratising the arts, as evidenced in the Let’s Create strategy and in the variety of initiatives instigated in its name, including the Co-Creating Change network, convened by Battersea Arts Centre and with a membership spanning arts organisations across the country. In its initial research phase, the network identified the balance of ‘control and power’ as one of the central challenges when articulating and advocating for co-creative projects (2018). In response to their own question Who has agency in any project? they reflect that … this individual, group or community, who have been involved in setting aspects of the project up, are likely to experience high levels of agency—they

198 

M. CROSSLEY

are likely to feel that they can take action and successfully affect change in the project. They have a high level of control and power. […] Of course, many projects in the subsidised arts sector are not set up by individuals, groups or communities—they are often initiated, set up and run by artists, producers and/or cultural organisations.[…] So perhaps a useful question we can ask ourselves, when it comes to projects which begin in this way, is how much agency does the individual, group or community have in the project? And how much does the artist, producer or cultural organisation have?

Initially such questions seem eminently resolvable, but Leadbeater reminds us that the arts have entrenched power dynamics which are not readily dismantled or diluted. He writes: ‘The modern, iconoclastic avant-­ garde starts from the idea of separation and specialism. To produce good art, artists have to separate themselves off from the society around them— physically, emotionally, morally, socially—the artist as a self-styled resistance fighter pitted against the trivializing distractions of popular culture. […] It is art done to us, as us and for us, but not with us’ (2009, pp. 3–5). This perspective is echoed in Caroline Heim’s analysis of audience co-­ creation (2012) in which she observes, ‘The audience’s contributory role in the theatrical event has changed extensively, particularly over the past century. Analyses of audience behaviour clearly reveal that contemporary audiences play a less contributory role than they have in the past.’ Drawing upon the research of Baz Kershaw, Richard Butsch and Neil Blackadder,22 Heim notes that there have been fundamental changes in audience contribution including ‘the disempowerment of the theatre audience, the decline in audience sovereignty, and the change from active to passive spectatorship’ (p.  189). These consciously accrued separations, emphasised by the delineation and repetition of ‘audience’ rather than co-creator or collaborator, pose challenges for contemporary theatre educators seeking to build, sometimes within concentrated periods of time, co-­ constructive partnerships with children, young people or the communities of which they are a part. Ben Walmsley (2013) offers a comprehensive evaluation of the spectrum of co-creative models and the challenges of making co-creative theatre, raising concerns that the hierarchies within theatre and the preconceptions of it as a ‘niche’ art form risk the 22  See, Kershaw, ‘Unruly Audiences’; Richard Butsch, The Making of American Audiences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); Neil Blackadder, Performing Opposition: Modern Theatre and the Scandalized Audience (Westport: Praeger, 2003).

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

199

perpetuation of solipsistic models of practice in which only those already culturally habituated to theatre engage in co-authorship projects, thereby reinforcing elitism (p. 116). More often than not the characterisation of co-­creativity in an arts context is predicated on the principle of artist instigation and in reference to this Walmsley cites Brown, Novak-Leonard and Gilbride (2011) who perceive co-creation as an activity where participants ‘contribute something to an artistic experience curated by a professional artist’ (p. 108). Highlighting the rise in interactive and immersive experiences Walmsley reflects how ‘considering the popularity of these emerging art forms, the lack of research into why audiences choose to engage with the arts in a more participatory way, and the value they obtain from it, is striking’ (ibid.). He identifies that in many definitions there is an emphasis on creating ‘something new together’ but that in many instances … co-creation does not always culminate in something new, and Leadbeater’s (2009) more generic depiction of co-creation as “the art of with” therefore seems more apt. This broad, collaborative conception is also espoused by Rudman, who champions co-creation as “a new form of ‘organizational porosity’—a mindset that allows for a free exchange of creative energy between an arts organization and its public” (as cited by Brown et al. 2011, p. 18). (2013, p. 109)

Leadbeater’s own response to the challenge of moving from the art of done to us to the art of with us echoes Rudman’s notion of porosity, in his advocacy for a ‘“participatory” avant-garde’. Championing the role of the Internet and digital practices in this endeavour, he envisages ‘a folk culture in which authorship is shared and cumulative rather than individualistic. […] The “participatory” avant-garde sees art as a kind of conversation, rather than a shock to the system. Art is not embodied in an object but lies in the encounter between the art and the audience, and among the audience themselves’ (2009, pp. 8–9). Likewise, Walmsley concludes that co-­ creativity must be genuinely dialogic and unpredictable or risk what he refers to as a self- theatrical solipsism: ‘Ultimately, co-creation must be acknowledged to be messy, raw, contingent and context-dependent. At best, it provides a platform for authentic engagement; at worst, it can foster elitism and inter-legitimation’ (2013, p. 117). This movement, however ‘messy and raw’, towards a mutual encounter as co-artists is articulated by Neil Packham from Glasgow Citizens Theatre, who notes a particular

200 

M. CROSSLEY

egalitarianism within theatre with young people: ‘When I’m facilitating, I start by observing what people bring to the table rather than dictating it. I want people to play to their strengths and feel empowered by this. Maybe that’s one of the differences with professional theatre where a very clear vision can be imposed or dictated.’ This approach is similarly expressed by Justine Themen from the Belgrade when asked how she fosters co-­ authorship within the youth theatres: ‘I suppose it’s going into a rehearsal room with a genuine question and a series of tools to explore it that give the young people space to come up with creative responses, so that they’re answering the question. Listening and questioning, pushing them further, linking the work to their own experiences.’ Rob Elkington, who in his work within a bridge organisation, notes a similar ethos in contemporary theatre education and in his remarks, there is an observation that smaller-­ scale experimental companies may have the capacity to offer this encounter with more immediacy than large-scale theatres: ‘This approach doesn’t treat young people as learners, it treats them as artists. At some larger companies kids get access to rehearsal room techniques so there’s a touching point to the work of artists but with Stan’s Cafe and others you get to work with the artists as an artist in an artist’s space.’ Such democratic attitudes within a learning environment may initially seem radical but they have deep roots within progressive education. Helen Nicholson notes how John Dewey’s own philosophical pragmatism ‘led him to challenge the premise that teachers were the authority of all knowledge’ and that Harriet Finlay-Johnson referred to her Edwardian pupils as ‘fellow-workers, friends and playmates’ (1912, p. 29)’ (2011, pp. 42–45). Co-creativity and co-authorship within the learning environment of a drama or theatre experience has long been acknowledged therefore as necessary to challenge existing authorial hierarchies and facilitate personal and collective agency. Such co-creative spaces are arguably more vital than ever as the English education system reverts to a valorisation of canonical knowledge, as E.D. Hirsch Jr suggested in his 2016 interview with Arts Council England: ‘The idea of education as the gradual initiation of the child into the adult tribe—the “anthropological” view of education as mainly training not mainly individual “growth”—is making a comeback’ (p. 4). The discourse on co-creativity within the theatre education community and within Arts Council England is somewhat at odds then with the current direction of travel within the English formal education system. In Wales and Scotland, the curricula espouse co-creativity and the respective

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

201

arts councils and education departments seem more in tune with this ethos. Diane Hebb describes how the remaining Welsh theatre education companies were funded and supported to move towards a co-constructive model with schools and pupils, under the banner of the Lead Creative Schools scheme: The artistic leads from three of the companies became Creative Agents working on our Lead Creative Schools Scheme and have been very effective lead practitioners. I think it’s early days to say how they will respond to the new curriculum but being part of our regular funded portfolio of organisations does give these companies an advantage. As a result of the work we’ve been doing, schools are more informed about the kind of artists or companies they want to work with and we’re encouraging a more collaborative approach with pupils being part of the design and production, not simply receiving work. We have excellent examples of theatre companies in Wales responding to this way of working. Frȃn Wen in North Wales delivers some really inspiring work that has young people as co- creators and co-constructors.

Whilst innovation may be evident across Wales, there are ongoing challenges on the ground as earlier identified by Hebb and the Culture, Media and Sport select committee (2019). The realities of finite curriculum time, limited budgets, examination restrictions and professional anxieties over co-creativity can overwhelm the aspirations of strategic planning. Pragmatism and incremental steps towards co-authorship are therefore more likely to be adopted and succeed when partnerships are created between practitioners, education providers and children and young people. In response to their own questions on co-creativity, the Co-Creating Change network consider … whether it is possible to have some kind of scale or spectrum to understand how much agency either party has in any specific project? So at one end of the scale you might have projects where the control and power sits, largely, with the individual, group or community—and at the other end of the scale there will be projects where the control and power sits with the artist, producer and/or cultural organisation. And some where it is somewhere in between.

This conception of a spectrum of agency resonates with Adel Al-Salloum’s reflection on co-creation as a continuum, enabling a degree

202 

M. CROSSLEY

of honesty and a recognition of the miles yet to travel in terms of moving towards genuine co-creativity. This is evident in Al-Salloum’s consideration of the creative councils established with pupils in Leicester schools: ‘If I’m being honest it was collaborative and we’re working towards co-­ creation. We can work towards that in a few years’ time. I want them to have an experience they don’t yet know they want. We can all borrow the phrase co-creation but really were on a journey and it’s not a quick fix. I think this is a tension in fostering cultural democracy.’ James Yarker is also refreshingly honest in conceding the realities of collaborating with children: ‘There is always a balance to find as they’re seven and I’m fifty (older than their parents probably) so I’m not going to leave all the decision making to them from the start.’ Likewise, Manya Benenson is clear that ‘we can collaborate but we are not at a co-construction model yet’. There is an acknowledgement in this that practitioners must recognise the initial authority they carry with them into collaborative theatre-making, an ethical hinterland as you navigate from practitioner instigation to co-creation or even further beyond to participant-led creation. Gordon Vallins distilled this initial practitioner-child dynamic as ‘power over innocents’, and whilst this may be a somewhat vivid summation of this relationship, it highlights the responsibility to negotiate sensitively and to be mindful of the creative vulnerabilities every co-artist carries with them. These shifting power dynamics have been articulated and systematised in a number of models, often referred to as ‘ladders of participation’. Sherry Arnstein proposed a ladder of civic participation in 1969 to delineate the steps towards an ethical ‘citizen controlled’ level of civic participation; a model commonly adopted by community theatre practitioners. Arnstein identifies eight levels in total moving towards this final stage, and the first rungs on her ladder highlight the dangers of lip-service participative practices. Rung One is described as Manipulation and Two as Therapy. Both are non-participative. David Wilcox (2020) writes of these steps: ‘The aim is to cure or educate the participants. The proposed plan is best and the job of participation is to achieve public support through public relations.’ In 1997, Roger Hart refined this model specifically for young people’s participation. He utilised the same term manipulation and as the ladder ascends he next refers to Decoration and then Tokenism. At the top of his scale he moves through Adult-initiated, shared decisions with young people to Young people-initiated and directed and finally to:

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

203

Young people-initiated, shared decisions with adults. This happens when projects or programs are initiated by young people and decision-making is shared between young people and adults. These projects empower young people while at the same time enabling them to access and learn from the life experience and expertise of adults. (2008, pp. 1–2)

Often projects, as identified by Al-Salloum, are on a messy, negotiable journey up (or sometimes down) those steps on the ladder. In many instances, from my own experience and from listening to practitioners it is feasible to facilitate projects within the sixth category ‘Adult-initiated, shared decisions with young people’ yet it is the final two steps into ‘Young people-initiated’ which are the most difficult and complex to craft and sustain. In pursuit of these democratizing models of participation and authorship, the modes of theatre education need constant recalibration and evolution. Devising, arguably the predominant methodology and pedagogy within contemporary theatre education, ostensibly offers an egalitarian model of co-creativity and individual or collective authorship yet its conventions may carry inherent biases or weaknesses. A number of writers have attended to this issue, including Anne Wessels (2010) who, in citing Marion Young (1990) and Nancy Fraser (1992), questions presumptions of a shared and unified ‘community’ within devising which could subtly enforce ‘identification’ and ‘symmetry’ with the group, denying representations of difference or creative conflict. Wessels then writes: Some of the ‘hidden hierarchies’ affecting participation are linked to the complexities of dialogue/silence and conflict. Who is talking, who keeps quiet and for what reasons? What happens when someone says one thing and immediately says the opposite as a form of self-silencing? […] The questions remain: dialogue for whom, on whose terms, playing by whose rules and for the benefit of whom? For devising then, unless the rules of engagement are negotiated, it does not necessarily follow that the results and processes will be any more democratic than other forms of theatre pedagogy. (p. 132)

She goes on to conclude: ‘Devising may create performances that address imbalances of power and injustice but, at the same time, it has to remain cognizant of its own processes to ensure that they do not demand conformity at the expense of difference’ (p. 134). In accordance with this

204 

M. CROSSLEY

concern, Deirdre Heddon and Jane Milling, in their reflections on devising traditions, propose: The majority of actor-focused companies, irrespective of their desire to empower the performer, were led by directors; the aim of involving the spectator in theatrical or performance events often, in reality, looked more like undemocratic instances of heavy-handed coercion than invitations to participation; in the political companies, the struggle to develop a totally democratic form was painful and never wholly successful as hidden hierarchies established themselves; while devising in a community context was and continues to be affected by anxieties around the politics of participation. (2016, p. 229)

As already expressed by the practitioners in this chapter, there is an alertness to this challenge and a recognition that progress is still needed to fashion widespread robust models of co-authorship and participant-led practice. The renewed emphasis on theatricality and production values complicates this challenge as implicit within this are strata of skills sets and professional knowledge accrued over many years of practice which may limit direct participation in, and agency over, the creative process for children and young people. Janet Vaughan from Talking Birds suggests that there is a productive confluence to be found in child-centred ideas married to a professional capacity to realise those concepts: ‘The work inherently contains their agency but improved through production values. So you’re not getting them to make it. You take their idea and slightly translate it so it looks like it looked in their head.’ This approach based on negotiation and supported decision making is echoed by Tim Howe from the Sherman Theatre: ‘The children design the show by working with a designer, pulling everything out from wardrobes, choosing colour palettes, the music and so on. I might think “I would never have picked that music but let’s do it.” Their investment grows and grows. When you bring back a model box they can see their ideas. We are facilitating. It’s the way they want to go and we have to follow that and work out how we realise it.’ The increasing prevalence of script-based work creates particular modes of expression that require creative and sensitive responses. The writing of text enables personal authorship, but through this there is risk and vulnerability in the sharing of script. In 2018, for example, the Royal Court collaborated with twenty girls, many from the BAME community, from

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

205

Fig. 5.7  Royal Court Theatre Shine Project at Eltham Hill School (2018). (Photographer Helen Murray)

Eltham Hill secondary school on a project called Shine,23 which supported the students in writing monologues based on or inspired by their own lives and experiences (Fig. 5.7). Romana Flello from the theatre reflected on how ‘the girls had an open remit, they could write about anything. You see so much about their upbringing. They are Year 7 but the subjects are often older than their years.’ Text-based practice introduces the opportunity to author narratives and identities, but also through the processes of writing and/or engagement with extant text it requires engagement with and some expertise of additional layers of mediation beyond the physical, kinaesthetic mode of participation. Around the country, theatres, writers and practitioners are evolving strategies which embed writing and textual engagement within devising methodologies, combining intrapersonal linguistic intelligence alongside interpersonal kinaesthetic intelligence.24 The 23  The students worked with playwrights Somalia Seaton, Zella Compton, Matilda Ibini and Emma Dennis-Edwards. 24  Howard Gardner conceptualised the theory of multiple intelligences in Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983).

206 

M. CROSSLEY

Primary Expressions scriptwriting project (2018) at the Sherman Theatre in Cardiff is indicative of this hybrid methodology as Jeremy Linnell, the writer who facilitated the work, explains in his introduction to the published scripts: The process I used in this project was based on limiting or removing self-­ censorship through play. Initially I focussed sessions on improvisation exercises to allow the young people to offer ideas within the space and introduce them to their own creativity. […] We explored different ways to tell stories; for example in one session the students picked a well-known story but told it using three still images in a tableaux, during another session we took a grab bag of ideas (times, places, objects) and then told stories featuring these items. […] Each session consisted of writing and performance elements to allow audience feedback to help refine the story; allowing students to develop the ability to reflect and comment on creativity was an important part of their understanding and development. I limited my involvement in the student’s stories as much as possible to preserve their voice.

Neil Packham from the Citizens Theatre in Glasgow relates a different concern in questioning the reception of young people’s theatrical production and to what extent an open critique of it confers or destabilises validity and ‘worth’: ‘The production values are expected to be very high, equal to that of our professional productions at the Citizens Theatre. This is excellent; however, it often poses the question should it be reviewed by the press as if it were a professional show? If you don’t allow this to happen, does that deny its worth and undermine it?’ The increased visibility of theatre for, with and by children and young people within professional theatre spaces or community-specific locations imbues it with increasing cultural value but also risks a degree of commodification and the extrapolation of form, through the pursuit of high production values, from content unless carefully monitored, negotiated and contextualised. Intergenerational theatre within Great Britain is perhaps one of the most innovative areas of collaboration and co-authorship with many theatres across the country establishing intergenerational groups, including Leeds Playhouse, London Bubble Theatre and Royal Exchange Manchester, with many practitioners facilitating projects in this field and a growing number of academics researching into its benefits.25 As already 25   Research into intergenerational theatre includes ‘The Process and Impact of Intergenerational Theatre Making’ (Petherbridge and Kendall 2012) and The University of

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

207

noted, Sue Mayo and Magic Me led a project entitled Moving Lives, bringing together elders from the London Jewish community and pupils, predominantly Bangladeshi, from London’s Mulberry School for Girls. From amongst the group of practitioners that I spoke to, there was a strong indication of a burgeoning  interest in intergenerational projects. Kevin Lewis and Sarah Argent recently developed a storytelling project based on Little Red Riding Hood: Kevin Lewis—We worked in a nursery two days a week and with old people from a day centre lunch club. I am a storyteller called Tomos who has forgotten his stories. He gets stuck on Little Red Riding Hood so asks the children to help him tell it. I have a suitcase to help me but when I open it all the objects have disappeared so old people and children help me look for them in the garden. Sarah Argent—We asked ourselves: How is an older person similar to a young child and how are they different? What can an older person learn from a young child and vice versa? How can their lives be mutually enriched by a series of creative encounters?

In 2019 Theatr Genedlaethol Cymru created Dwy Stori, Un Llwyfan (Two Stories, One Stage), a project bringing together elder members of the Carmarthen community with children from the Menter’s Clwb Drama, a group supported by the Welsh language organisation Menter Gorllewin Sir Gâr. Theatr Genedlaethol Cymru wrote of the project that it was ‘an opportunity to think creatively about each other’s well-being, whilst encouraging good health both mentally and physically. It will encourage both generations to develop self-confidence, to chat together and respond in a creative manner.’ Returning to the concept of ladders of participation, such intergenerational practice affords the opportunity to experiment with transitional models of authorship, utilising the enculturated knowledge and skills of older generations. The vulnerabilities within each generation (stemming perhaps from a lack of generational interaction or artistic experience) may, if carefully facilitated, open up new shared understandings, which as Leeds Playhouse alert us to, has increasing value ‘when society, politics and the media increasingly polarises older and younger people’ (2020). Intergenerational practice may also enable the avoidance of ‘coercion’ (however unintended) that may ensue from a binary of adult director/child performer, by embedding this ‘elder’ experience and support Sheffield’s Intergenerational Community Theatre project.

208 

M. CROSSLEY

within the participation to enable younger co-creators towards increasing levels of authorship. Within theatre education, particularly as practitioners and strategies prioritise co-creative models of learning and place-making, such ladders with their explicit admonitions of manipulation or tokenism and, in hopeful contrast, their propositions of citizen/child initiation serve as apposite guides and forewarnings for the landscape ahead. Centrally driven targets and strategies risk tokenistic roll-outs of schemes as a means of demonstrating national creativity and democratizing place-making, but to achieve genuine co-creativity through to participant initiated creativity requires long-term, localised negotiation and trust. An understanding that the progression from tentative collaboration towards co-authorship takes long-term commitment has informed the strategic planning and ethos of many organisations. Working locally and consistently with schools and communities to understand their curriculum and social context, and therein to build trust, is now the objective for many practitioners, as typified by the inclinations of James Yarker from Stan’s Cafe: How do we address the frustration of having a one-off relationship with a school when the end of the project is where you should start the project, because you’ve built up the trust and understanding and that’s been hard work? So you have these very fond farewells but you know you’re never going to come back so you think how brilliant could the next thing be if we were starting from that. In our new model we had a rule of thumb—we can only be in residence if Craig26 or I can cycle there from home or the office. So we can drop in.

This commitment to long-termism in relationship building is endorsed by Chris Elwell from Half Moon: It takes years to build relationships and trust. I’ve been here over twenty years and within reason I will know a lot of people and they know me in the borough. They’ve learnt that we don’t simply want to sell them shows. Of course we want them to come but our primary aim is to build relationships and mutual understanding—so we have our primary forum and secondary drama forum. Those forums are massively popular, particularly the secondary one because it’s self-managed, they set the agenda and at no point do we  Craig Stephens—associate director/performer Stan’s Cafe Theatre Company.

26

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

209

sit down with them and say “ok guys next term we’ve got show a,b,c” we never do that. First of all, we are a resource and a place they can engage with if they want to. What you then need to ensure is that what you’re offering is relevant, has quality and is affordable.

Facilitating such models of practice also entail long-term relationship building with funders, be that arts councils, the private sector or charitable trusts and a sustained persuasive narrative for arts within education which must find ways to accommodate or if necessary transcend short-term political ideologies of cultural value or creativity. In correspondence to this, the significance of place-making in this model is central as such practice seeks to valorise the specificity of children, school and communities rather than impose a transient or prescribed aesthetic or methodology.

Theatres of Place It seems that there is no place like place at the moment. The last decade has seen place-making, or place-shaping as it is sometimes referred to, establish a prominent role in the lexicon and discourse of national cultural strategies across the globe. In 2018 Arts Council England commissioned a report entitled The Value of Arts and Culture in Place-Shaping (2019) as part of the planning for Let’s Create, ‘to articulate if and how the arts and cultural offer within a place can attract and retain individuals and businesses and help to shape its identity’ (p. iv). Citing the Lyons Enquiry into local government it defined place-shaping as the ‘creative use of powers and influence to promote the general well-being of a community and its citizens. Place-shaping is now widely understood to describe the ways in which local partners collectively use their influence, powers, creativity and abilities to create attractive, prosperous and safe communities, places where people want to live, work and do business’ (Parkinson et al. 2019, p. 3). The enquiry indicated that ‘arguments for a local role in determining the actions of government and the provision of public services are becoming stronger’ (ibid.). This increasing recognition of local and regional authority and democracy can be seen a few years earlier in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport 2016 Culture White Paper which seemed to indicate the UK Government’s intention to establish a more diverse arts and culture industry, seeking to better distribute the benefits to areas and communities suffering from decades of socio-economic hardship. Arts Council

210 

M. CROSSLEY

England brought place-making into sharper focus through its 2010–20 strategic plan Great Art and Culture for Everyone, accentuating the potency of arts to regenerate localities, enhance tourism, attract investment and facilitate health and well-being. Through this strategy came the Creative People and Places initiative and the Great Place Scheme. As a precursor to the latest Arts Council England strategy, the Durham Commission on Creativity and Education (2019) again highlighted the value of creativity ‘in promoting social engagement, community identity and cohesion’ with its strong capacity for ‘place-making’ (pp. 30–31). Place-making has been honed as a term by a multitude of reports, harnessing creativity and culture to local, regional and national regeneration. Creativity is increasingly being framed as the process of making, producing or participating in ‘culture’ and within that cultural domain are notions of personal, civic and national identity. In People, Culture, Place (2017), a report on the role of culture in place-making by the Local Government Association, Polly Hamilton27 expressively defined place-making and culture’s role in its formation: Great placemaking makes people feel a renewed love, passion and pride for their ‘place’. It draws on the combined assets of heritage, people, buildings and landscape to create places for people to fall in love with. Culture holds up a mirror to our tired streets, squares, buildings and civic spaces and asks us to look again at what makes them special. It gives people the opportunity to connect their individual stories with collective narratives, helping to make their place feel like home. Culture provides people with ways to explore, celebrate and create shared experiences. It brings depth and meaning to people’s experience of a place, highlighting the extraordinary in the ordinary.

The report goes on to argue that meaningful place-making can play a central role in ‘an individual’s physical and mental health, education and life chances, as well as in driving local economic growth and community cohesion’. This outlook is echoed by many other articulations of the phrase which alight upon place-making as the capacity to shape our public realm as a means of realising and harnessing our shared cultural and civic values. In her review as the director of the Northern Heartlands Great Place Scheme, Jill Cole argues that consequential place-making can do so much more than merely establish ‘links between communities and their  Polly Hamilton—Vice-chair, the Chief Cultural & Leisure Officers Association (cCLOA).

27

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

211

cultural infrastructure and heritage’ and should aspire to ‘enable meaningful dialogue between those who make decisions about places and communities, and those who live in them’ (2020). Place-making, by these descriptions and definitions, is framed as a positive, civic endeavour through which creative community action enables collective and individual well-being, predicated on and furthering prosperity, security and agency. This plethora of initiatives and strategies centred on place-making would seem to indicate that ‘place’ has been conceptually wrestled into an agreed designation, in order to articulate what the ‘making’ of it means. Tim Cresswell in Place: An Introduction (2014) reminds us to question such a presumption: ‘Given the ubiquity of place, it is a problem that no one quite knows what they are talking about when they are talking about place’ (p. 6). In seeking some clarity on the term, Cresswell goes on to propose that place must be understood as situated, reflecting the relationship of space to the people who live within it or interact through it, in other words he suggests ‘the most straightforward and common definition of place—a meaningful location’ (p.  12). This meaningfulness is not however impartial; it is imbued with and influenced by political and cultural power dynamics, and in that regard he refines the expression of place to ‘location plus meaning plus power’ (p. 152). It is interesting to wonder in this context what may then be interpreted from ‘local partners collectively use their influence, powers, creativity and abilities’ as articulated by Parkinson et al. Cresswell, in his reformulation of place, notes that the arts play a crucial role in destabilizing and questioning the hegemonic fixity of place, proposing that in this context ‘site-­ specificity’ requires reconsideration: One aesthetic strategy for artists has been “site-specificity”—a strategy that includes the relationship between art and place within it. The word “site” is a little misleading here as it seems to imply merely “location.” What we are really talking about, however, is place—location plus meaning plus power’— including what people do in a particular place as much as its materiality. Site-specific art frequently seeks to ask questions of the way an artistic object is made meaningful through its relationships to place and all the institutional frames that a particular place implies. (2014, p. 152)

Fundamentally, identities of place are an intricate interplay of the specific and the imagined. This interaction of the definite and the indefinite is

212 

M. CROSSLEY

perhaps more vivid for children and young people than for any other age group, for whom place is both very concrete and equally elastic and imaginal. Their lives are more readily bounded by local routines of school, family and friendships, their experiences limited by age and exposure, if not imagination. These aspects may be in flux as family and friendships shift, schools change and homes are moved from and to but even these dynamics are coloured with detail. Such intensity is in contrast to an uncertain yet emergent sense of civic, regional or national identity, thereby requiring a more inquisitive, agile and creative approach to constructing what their identity may be within their local or national context. Benedict Anderson (2016) proposed that all nations are ‘imagined’, as he writes: ‘It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion’ (2016, p. 9). In his original writings, Anderson focused on the capacity of print media to stimulate shared imaginings of national identity, emphasising the influence of national, top-down modes of communication and culture. Tim Edensor (2002) sought to revise this delimitation by accentuating the capacity for popular and digital culture to facilitate nationness, ‘for instance, music hall and theatre, popular music, festivities, architecture, fashion, spaces of congregation, and in a plenitude of embodied habits and performances, not to mention more parallel cultural forms such as television, film, radio and information technology’ (p. 7). This accumulated proposition of an imagined communion fashioned through everyday cultural practices resonates within the specific scale of a child’s experience of localised bonding and community. It is this fertile, and at time fragile, exchange between the immediate and the imagined which theatre education and creative learning can engage. As the discourses on place-making and national identity continue to gather pace, this capacity to facilitate meaningful constructions of place and nationness, and therein identity, grow increasingly germane. Place-making and cultural citizenship are intricately entwined. The Warwick Commission placed community and broadening cultural participation throughout its five goals, with recommendations including a fostering of local creativity, promoting regional equality and celebrating everyday arts and cultural participation. Following closely from The Warwick Commission came the publication of Towards Cultural Democracy (2017) which valorised the ‘cultural capabilities’ of ‘creative citizens’, a citizenship within which ‘people are often both participants and

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

213

organizers. […] Our findings—regarding the frequent crossover between developing one’s own creativity and contributing to the conditions in which others can get creative too—extend the applicability of the term “creative citizen” to a wider range of people and their cultural practices’ (p. 36). This conception of empowered cultural citizenship is made evident in Let’s Create, in which Arts Council England have signalled an attempt to democratise artistic participation and decision-making with the three central outcomes of Creative People, Cultural Communities and A Creative and Cultural Country. In Scotland and Wales, the centrality of place-making is also notable across the public and private sectors. Creative Scotland have initiatives including the Place Programme and Creative Place Awards, the latter supported by a range of not for profit charities and with an emphasis on regeneration and tourism, whilst Scottish private property developers utilise the same language to promote regenerative building works across Edinburgh and Glasgow.28 Arts Council of Wales, resonant of England’s Creative People and Places initiative and the Great Place Scheme ran the Ideas People Places (IPP) initiative between 2014 and 2019. The programme’s aim was ‘to test new models of regeneration, placemaking and collaboration through the arts’ with projects across the country from Blaenau Gwent to Newport and Llandudno. Two reports were commissioned to reflect on the project, and both offer illuminating insights into the potential of place-making and its responsibilities to the communities it collaborates with. In Paul Haywood’s piece commissioned by Arts Council of Wales, he refers to the ‘direct impact’ of the IPP projects which he perceives as …an immediate ramification at a local level, cultural activity that leads those contributing and those engaging with its outcomes on an evolutionary journey. ‘Deeper resonance’ in that all of the Ideas, People and Places (IPP) projects are intertwined with prolonged and long-term cultural contributions reflecting the lives of those leading and operationalising programmes, embedded within their communities. IPP is an initiative for, about and close to locally embodied wisdom and collective cultural agency. It resoundingly advocates the global presence of the vernacular and the local across communities of intention actively co-operating on the emergence of fresh content (and ‘inhabited art’). (2017, p. 1) 28  For example, Lambeth Smith Hampton, a major Scottish developer network, refer to place-making throughout their publicity material.

214 

M. CROSSLEY

In clarification of the term ‘inhabited art’ Haywood explains, ‘I think I may have just invented the term “inhabited art” to emphasise that this is a process which is lived in and populated by those who already have the investment of a life-wide commitment to their “place”’ (ibid.). In Haywood’s report, there are correspondences to be found with Hart and Arnstein’s ladders of participation and in the models of theatre of place to which this chapter refers, as he foregrounds the importance of sustained and genuine commitment, noting that ‘it is change without trauma or rapid pace, it is gentle and evolutionary. And it is change that is responsive to both habit and chance; respectful of the necessity to allow fresh or incrementally new cultural investments the opportunity to take shape and become some- thing in direct correspondence with a place and its occupancy’ (ibid.). The decorative or tokenistic pitfalls of participation find resonance in the second review of IPP entitled Thinking Beyond the Snowline, in which authors Ruth Essex and Chris Coppock propose that IPP was cognisant of these issues and so ‘concluded that participation without significant civic agency and action can become self-defeating and diversionary for those taking part. As such IPP was based on the principle that active participation—coupled with the enabling of community transformation in terms of aspiration, building confidence, self-development, and creative ownership—should be obligatory and form an integral part of the IPP (social) contract’ (2020, p.  4). The title Thinking Beyond the Snowline has significance in this debate as the authors utilise this metaphor to highlight the customary fixation of contemporary arts with ‘metropolitan environments’ and the need therefore to engage with rural areas and communities which have previously been seen as ‘peripheral’. In this regard, Essex and Coppock envisage IPP as ‘a model of cultural democracy which celebrates the authenticity of the periphery over the centre’ (p. 1). Rob Elkington from the bridge organisation Arts Connect is attentive to the same insularity that place-making may be prone to: ‘I think that civic is often conflated with urban. If you live in a rural community then place may means something different altogether.’ Nicholson likewise attends to the potential of previously marginalised places; drawing up Tim Edensor et al.’s writing in Spaces of Vernacular Creativity: Rethinking the Cultural Economy (2010) she reflects that the authors’ intention is to ‘identify and celebrate alternative, uncool or “vernacular” spaces of creativity that are found in suburban gardens, for example, or community centres, garages and sheds’ (2011, p. 108).

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

215

Whilst such places and the people who inhabit ‘beyond the snowline’ of metropolitan life unquestionably merit greater cultural attention, their very marginality creates potential vulnerabilities within the strategy and the impact of place-making. Localisation, and its inherent community-­ level empowerment, strengthens what may be termed as the internal validity of the cultural production facilitated through place-based initiatives, yet correspondingly this rich, local instantiation of culture arguably limits its potency to influence and find dialogic resonance at a national level. If culturally hegemonic practices exist, as inferred by Themen, Fitzpatrick and others, then such localised manifestations disputably have a limited capacity to destabilise persistent systemic concepts of ‘great’ art and culture. Edensor (2002) pointedly refers to the valorisation of such ‘folk’ culture as ‘located firmly ‘in-place’’ (p.  14), suggesting a hegemonic instinct or habit to perpetuate its peripheral significance. Many critics have suggested that creative place-making perpetuates neo-liberalism rather than enabling genuine cultural democracy. In 2019 the artist and academic Stephen Pritchard referred to the ‘slow violence of creative place-­ making’, arguing that current national, state-led policies lack the radicalism needed to make significant societal shifts: Unfortunately, creative placemaking and socially engaged art do not demand the impossible. They reproduce and reinforce the already possible over and over and over again. Pretty bunting, patches of grass, rainbow pedestrian crossings, bikeable, walkable, commissioned street art, quirky sunflower street signs, saccharin-sweet salves to the onward march of a neoliberalism that is well-versed in disguising its heartlessly selfish greed behind colourful and fun symbols of capital. […] The trouble with placemaking and, perhaps even more so with creative placemaking, is that it does not and cannot offer people the freedom to take back the city because it is often rolled out as an integral part of neoliberalism’s totalising system. Creative placemaking uses art to window-dress neoliberal regeneration and renewal agendas. The crucial question here is: ‘Why should we (re)make your places for you?’

From a more moderate perspective, there are undoubtedly genuine and well-intentioned objectives behind place-making as a cultural strategy in tandem with, as Rob Elkington contends, a more pragmatic impetus: ‘Placemaking is being used as a way of focusing those bits of the public sector that are left into improving the experience of people locally.’ Whether it is ideology, cultural democratic instincts or fiscal reality guiding place-making, it risks limiting the potential for theatre and children

216 

M. CROSSLEY

and young people, marginalised as they are in national agendas, to contribute cohesively to the discourse on national and cultural identity. This may, of course, be mitigated by certain factors. In Wales and Scotland, the scale of the nations and the subsequent reach of initiatives from their respective arts councils (Time to Shine and Scottish Year of Young People for example) could enable a more interconnected narrative and sense of representation. Alternatively we may be reminded of Hearn and Antonsich’s assertion, as noted in Nations, theatre and education, that ‘a nation is far from a concrete, hegemonic structure and is actually built on a shifting heterogeneous polyphony […] an extremely dynamic and ambiguous process made of multiple, conflicting ordinary voices’ (2018, p. 601), but it is self-evident that national identity is, at times, constructed nationally and therefore national cultural policies which connect and empower children’s and young people’s culture are required beyond the demarcated communities of place-making. Theatre has always known that it has a unique capacity to help facilitate and nurture personal and collective identities of place. As Thomas Taig argued in 1945, theatre enriches and enables communities in ways that other media cannot as it is predicated on live interaction that can harness the specificities of locality from community stories to geographic and socio-economic details. There is a long-standing tradition of theatre-­ makers responding to place, from Welfare State International, who throughout its years of existence affirmed that ‘We design and construct performances that are specific to place, people and occasion’, to Brith Gof in Wales and, as already noted, the first major project of National Theatre Scotland, entitled Home (2006), the name of which offers an insight into the layers of meaning that ‘place’ may conjure. A company puts down roots just like an individual. It doesn’t feel like we should move it now. We couldn’t relocate now without losing its point. (Derek Nisbet, Talking Birds)

Place, if not always the politics of place-making, is fundamental to theatre education. Whilst this is self-evident from the priorities that practitioners are now responding to from arts councils, it has been this way for many years. Many of the practitioners documented in this book have worked for decades within specific urban or rural environments, strongly identifying with and responding to local or national agendas. Talking Birds have been based in Coventry for well over twenty years, as have

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

217

Stan’s Cafe in Birmingham, likewise Volcano in Swansea and Visible Fictions in Glasgow. In this chapter, I propose several specific modes of place that theatre education has a propensity for: dialogic construction of place, security and transition, theatre as place-maker and representation. Dialogic Construction of Place One of the central tenets of theatre education is dialogic participation. As reflected upon in ‘The Art of With’ section, practitioners distinguish this as fundamental to collaboration and co-authorship. This capacity of theatre to enable real-time discourse and creative conflict among participants has the potential to facilitate meaningful expressions of, and responses to, place, be that an articulation of the individual in-place, the local or the national. To engender this potential, theatre educators recognise the importance of their own long-term commitment to place and people and in this regard, I will pay particular attention in this section to the practice of Talking Birds and Stan’s Cafe, two Midlands-based companies. Talking Birds, as indicated by the quote from Nisbet, are particularly notable for their articulation of and creative response to place-making, referring specifically to a Theatre of Place. Redolent of Haywood’s description of a ‘deeper resonance’ in Welsh place-making, they articulate theatre of place as a ‘slow movement, a progression built on trust’ and in their Guide to Theatre of Place (2011) Nisbet wrote that ‘a successful Theatre of Place, where site and performance meet, requires humility without reverence’. The company’s commitment to their city is deftly summated in the title of Janet Vaughan’s 2017 article ‘We Belong to the City, and It Belongs to Us’. As co-Artistic Directors of the company Vaughan and Nisbet embrace the civic responsibility as a ‘low level but important aspect of any work’. In the practitioner contribution that can be found in Practitioner Voices, Vaughan’s opening paragraph thoughtfully articulates place as a dialogic and symbiotic relationship between the people and their physical environment and in this expression of place is a clear indication that their practice is rooted in more than site-specific theatre: When we make work in a place, we make it in collaboration—with the assembled creative team of course but also, and more importantly, in collaboration with the place itself. For us, a place is composed of two interlocking elements—the physical attributes (geography, environment, structure, aspect, factual history) and the people that live and work there (and have

218 

M. CROSSLEY

lived and worked and visited there throughout time—every person whose actions, memories, thoughts, opinions, ambitions have acted on it, everyone who has contributed to making it what it is). People and Place: one cannot be understood except in relation to the other.

Talking Birds Theatre of Place finds resonance with the thoughts of Nicola Shaughnessy (2012) who, in drawing upon the work of Cresswell, conceives of place ‘as an embodied activity and as a way of being in the world (rather than a fixed location), as practice (the production and performance of locations, identities) and as transformation (changing our perceptions and understanding of the lived environment)’ (p. 102). The symbiosis of people (past/present) and place which Vaughan refers to is integral to Shaughnessy’s conception, as she writes: ‘Performance contributes to this process through the creation of events which, in various ways, draw upon histories, cultural and personal memories, identities (in flux) and the journeys that move us between places, contributing to the understanding which distinguishes one place from another’ (p.  104). For Shaughnessy, this performative and embodied expression of place embraces stability and notions of home but also instability as ‘the boundaries constructed to distinguish one place from another and the factors associated with belonging to a place are also associated with nostalgia, parochialism, exclusion and violence. In discussing place, we also need to be conscious of the related conditions of placelessness and displacement. Performance can also be implicated in this process’ (ibid.). In accordance, Cresswell reiterates that ‘acts of place-creation are political and contested’ (2014, p. 161). Within theatre education, this capacity and need for place-making to both affirm but also contest ideas of place, belonging and authority is fundamental for children and young people to formulate their own expressions of identity and collective culture rather than confirm normative expectations. It requires a recognition that theatre education is political, as Dougie Irvine from Visible Fictions affirms: ‘Children’s theatre is a hugely political act. If just five people in the audience come out willing to question things more deeply then that’s a political act.’ Back in 2006 Talking Birds embarked on a Creative Partnerships funded project entitled Space of Possibilities in which the children of Coventry wrote their own cultural strategy for the city. Thirteen artists worked with thirteen primary and secondary schools to envisage the city from new perspectives. As the introduction to the strategy indicates: ‘We wanted to explore a different way of creating, and then presenting, a

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

219

cultural strategy. We thought a good way of starting would be to ask people who’d never heard of a cultural strategy.’ The ten-point proposal co-­ created with the participants offers an insight into how children and young people envision place, community and belonging. On reading the document you are struck by the importance of emotional and physical well-­ being and the significance of joy and pleasure. Possibility number two is that no one is lonely; number three—all journeys are thrilling; number four—the city makes us laugh; number seven—the city eases family stress. Notably the contributors advocate for ‘safe risk’, physical but also emotional spaces ‘where it was comfortable to meet and talk’ (p. 2). The ninth possibility reveals a relationship between environment and community which may be insightful for many strategists on place-making as the authors note: ‘Amongst various groups, the city was imagined almost as if it were an ideal parent—history has given it confidence, an identity, rules which work, and it has much to be proud of because it’s done some important things. This then helps its “children” to develop confident attitudes towards both it, and the world in general’ (ibid.). Ever since the beginnings of theatre in education at the Belgrade, the ‘place’ of school has been embraced as a fertile site for creativity and performance, prompted by circumstances (the realities of school buildings and the need to travel to where the children are) and by the creative potential of these locations. As contemporary theatre has developed ever more sophisticated site-based practices, this experimentation has informed theatre education projects across the country as school is recognised as one of the most imperative places of agency for children and young people. In 2004 at Castle Vale School in Birmingham,29 Stan’s Cafe asked a group of pupils to vote for the ten things they would most like to change if they ruled the school. In the project entitled School Rulers, the rules they drafted are a salutary insight into the school experience from a child’s perspective but a potent text to base a series of performance acts, including a ceremonial ‘blowing up’ of the school complete with hard hats and high vis vests for the ‘demolition team’ (Figs. 5.8 and 5.9). Change the Time-Table. Detentions are Pointless. The Chairs are Uncomfortable. Change the Uniform.  Castle Vale School is now named Greenwood Academy.

29

220 

M. CROSSLEY

Fig. 5.8  School Rulers: Hard Hats (2004) at Castle Vale School, Birmingham. (Photographer Graeme Braidwood)

Fig. 5.9  School Rulers: Explosion (2004) at Castle Vale School, Birmingham. (Photographer Graeme Braidwood)

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

221

Change the Dining Hall. Change All the Teachers (except the nice ones) Curved Mirrors in the Corridors. Re-Paint the School Half the Rules are Not Fair. Blow Up the School. (Stan’s Cafe website 2020)

Shaughnessy (2012) offers us an insight into the solo practice of Helen Bryant, who worked as an artist in residence in a secondary school in Hull. Bryant’s own account of the project illustrates the often taut and precarious interplay between educational conformity and experimental intervention. She notes, wryly that the ‘residency was problematic from the start’ with the school in special measures and with no police check yet in place. Anticipating collaboration from the teachers she was disheartened to find that ‘upon arrival it became clear that there was no time in their schedules to spare for this, and I was expected to just go about my business and make things happen’ (2012, p. 55). Bryant crafted herself a silver ‘Zero Suit of Invisibility’, in which she wandered through the school but this performative act brought its own tensions: It hadn’t fully occurred to me before, but wandering around this spaceship school, covered head to toe in a silver suit, I looked like an alien stowaway. And to the errant pupils also wandering the school instead of going to lessons, I had magnetic appeal. They saw me. They followed me. When I escaped them, they hunted me down. They wanted the alien caught. […] The following day, I played the unedited footage in the staffroom, which caused some mirth, but opinion was divided as to if it was any good. I was summoned by the head, who advised that my performance had been disruptive. He had had many ­complaints. The students following me had been noisy. I had managed in some ways to alienate myself further. (p. 56 italics as original)

From an objective standpoint it is not surprising that Bryant met with such resistance as schools appear to have limited incentive, budget or time to expend on arts-based interventions, particularly those which challenge hierarchies and destabilise behavioural norms. These assumptions need resisting however as recent research (Time to Listen as a notable example) indicates that in many schools it is possible to balance an arts-rich curriculum with broader educational goals and that such a balance improves learning across the school. Rob Elkington asserts that schools can provide a vibrant cultural offer but it is highly dependent on the individual

222 

M. CROSSLEY

institutional management: ‘What we’ve found is that schools where they’re doing great cultural education with kids, they’re also offering great sports, forest schools and extra curricula classes. The real issue is the inequality across the whole piece. Some kids are getting the best opportunities and some are getting the bare minimum.’ In Scotland, The National Theatre worked with twelve- to fourteen-­ year-­ olds in Craigmount High School in Edinburgh and Auchinleck Academy in East Ayrshire to create Like Flying in 2019. Utilising aerial performance with movement direction from All or Nothing Aerial Dance Theatre, the project, led by Nic Green, sought to respond to ‘the growing levels of anxiety found in teenagers across Scotland’. Finding resonance with Stan’s Cafe’s School Rulers project, Like Flying envisaged a destabilisation or transposition of authorial norms, as the project website described: ‘Weaving through a surreal and dream-like curriculum, young people educate adults in this mirror-image world where roles are reversed, power is flipped and authority is inverted’ (2019). Beyond the localities of school, community or city, practice in this field also offers young people the opportunity to consider their ‘place’ within wider national and international parameters, as Tim Howe from the Sherman Theatre summated, it enables the question ‘Where is your place in the world?’ Stan’s Cafe are particularly attentive to the possibilities and the profundity of connecting audiences or participants to their wider environment. In 2017, I reflected that for the company, ‘The relationship between the personal and the political, the localized and global are recurring themes’ (p. 25), and similarly, Shaughnessy identified their interest in exploring the ‘relations between the microcosm and the macrocosm’ (2012, p. 118). This interest is as true for the children and young people they work with as it is for any adults. With one of their long-term partners, Billesley Primary School, they created a version of All the People in All the World (2013) and in 2014 they collaborated with the school on their Year 6 production. Unlike previous years or what may be expected of a primary school, they decided to take on the Cold War and the Cuban missile crisis, in the production entitled Any Fool Can Start a War (Fig. 5.10). James Yarker, the Artistic Director, cites the headteacher of the school in encapsulating its intentions: I loved the challenge within it, the political concepts that mean so much to me personally, I’m always talking about social justice through the curriculum at school and I’m not always sure people know what I mean—but there

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

223

Fig. 5.10  Any Fool Can Start a War (2014) Billesley Primary School in collaboration with Stan’s Cafe. (Photographer Graeme Braidwood) it was in front of me today—just a complete ideal of what I would want, there, my school and children on stage at the mac.30 (Jo Clifton, Head teacher, Billesley primary school) (2015, p. 213)

Yarker himself reflects how ‘it was ironic. We were a theatre company and we hadn’t done a play in a school. So I thought the Cuban missile crisis seemed a good plan. I wondered “What’s the subject for the play that will make the school go ‘What??!’”’ The risk of this production was, in reality, a careful pedagogical calculation based on long-term collaboration which had seen the company and the school create numerous projects from a Scalextric grand prix, a marble run along the full length of the main corridor and creative risk taking days with teachers. This attentiveness to an accumulated body of shared practice between theatrical and educational partners reflects a trend amongst practitioners to move away from spontaneity or improvisation as conduits for creativity and to revalidate a domain- or project-specific accrual of skills and knowledge. Nicholson considers the ‘affective transactions’ that such durational collaboration  Mac—Midlands Arts Centre—Birmingham.

30

224 

M. CROSSLEY

may engender. In an analysis drawing upon Deleuze, she contemplates a pedagogy that is ‘less dependent on the shock or suddenness of spontaneity’ and proposes ‘I am suggesting a slower pedagogic patterning that is both alive in the space of performance and accumulates, reflexively, over time’ (2014, p. 61). Within the production, akin to the negotiation and supported decision making at the Sherman, the pupils at Billesley contributed to writing text and lyrics and making props and costumes, as Yarker outlines: ‘The children didn’t choose their roles but had material tailor made for them. They felt a lot of ownership.’ During the play, the cast portrayed all the major political and military figures from the period from Castro to Khrushchev and Kennedy. It may be contended that the stability and the repetitions of the production environment facilitated an engagement with the complexities of social justice and the children’s emergent awareness of the uncertainties and instabilities within their own world. For some projects, the company take an even more direct approach to engaging young people in their city and its political processes, enabling them to perceive them as contestable constructs, to be inhabited literally and democratically. In 2016 they created Trailblazers: In a Visible City, an ambitious interdisciplinary project mapping the city31 from the perspective of the young participants, as Yarker explains: Birmingham City Council’s Equalities, Community Safety and Cohesion Service asked us to devise a project that would engage young people across Birmingham with their city and gain a sense of how they relate to the city and what aspirations they have for themselves as citizens. […] We chose to recruit one hundred and twenty 14–15 year olds as our Traiblazers as there are 120 councillors on Birmingham City Council, and for our concluding event the Trailblazers literally took the seats of these councillors in Birmingham City Council Chamber, acting as the City Council of 2030. (2016)

YOU FEED US.  YOU DRESS US.  YOU WATCH US WHEN WE ARE SLEEPING. YOU LAY DOWN THE LAW.  YOU EXPLAIN THAT NIGHT FOLLOWS DAY.

31  As part of the project an A4 ‘map’ was created, documenting the journeys, images and stories of the young participants.

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

225

The potential for children to (re)present the adult world as a means of self-expression and as a mirror for older generations has been experimented with by a number of practitioners, including  Forced Entertainment’s That Night Follows Day (2007 onwards), as outlined by the company: ‘Performed by children, for an adult audience the piece explores the way that adults and the adult world shape the experience, understanding and possibilities that young people have.’ Inspired by this production, Tim Crouch created John, Antonio and Nancy in 2010 using the repeated phrase ‘My father…’ as a textual device. In 2015 Crouch explained the use of child actors and the repetition of the phrase within the text: I had recently seen That Night Follows Day (2007), Tim Etchells’s piece with child performers, so the idea of children as adult mouthpieces felt like a good one. In some cases, it really exposed the absurdity of the statements: ‘My father was in Plymouth recently and talked to a 40-year-old black man.’ But there’s also a certain lyricism that comes when you put adult words in children’s mouths, and also something very personal about that recurrent prefixing of ‘My father says…’, ‘My father will…’. For me it’s about promises—promises that adults make that will impact on future generations. (2015, p. 251)

Security and Transition Nadine Holdsworth, in her analysis of Scottish theatre and national identity, turns to Lawrence Grossberg’s distinction between places and spaces to consider the preponderance of liminal places within David Greig’s plays, ‘the former identifying sites of fullness, identity, “the inside” and human activity, the latter identifying the emptiness between places in which nothing happens except the movement from one place to another’ (2003, p. 28).32 This conception of ‘inside’ offers a synonym or metaphor for personal identities, the internal formulation of ‘place’ and the immediacy of home. On that point it is interesting to note that Frȃn Wen’s proposed new home in Bangor it to be called Nyth, meaning nest, and to recall that in Talking Birds Space of Possibilities the city was compared to an ideal parent. Whilst theatre has the capacity to provide a ‘safe space’ for 32  Lawrence Grossberg, ‘The Space of Culture, The Power of Space’, in Iain Chambers and Lidia Curti (eds), The Post-colonial Question: Common Skies/Divided Horizons (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), p. 175.

226 

M. CROSSLEY

creative expression, it can also challenge children and young people to look beyond their own values, to envisage otherness. Nicholson writes: Questions of belonging, emotional attachments to place, and ideas about what home means have always been subject to change. And although in many ways the recognition that there are multiple homes and ways to live represents a positive way forward, it can also be emotionally bewildering and inspires the kind of prejudice that leads families and communities to seek to demonize those whom they consider to be outside the ‘norm’. One of the educational roles of theatre is to provide a transitional space in which young people can make emotional connections between the drama, as a fictional and symbolic space, and their own lives. (2011, pp. 126-127)

This potential for transition, challenging participants to transcend boundaries is articulated by Adel Al-Salloum, whose organisation The Spark Arts for Children works with a diverse range of communities across the city of Leicester. In this context Al-Salloum is clear in her conviction that as theatre educators ‘we have a role to play in challenging perceptions. We have to occupy a space which might be uncomfortable. It’s not a one way street as we have to challenge that community to think about identities outside of their community. Otherwise it exists in a silo. We don’t want to alienate people but we need to have a conversation.’ In this outlook, Al-Salloum is cognisant of the wider family and community connections into which a child or young person is interwoven. Their sense of identity is a dialogic interplay of the personal and the social as identified by Hearn and Antonsich (2018) and the impact of theatre education projects may therefore reverberate well beyond the immediate participants. The assertion that perceptions may require challenging also offers a subtle recalibration of cultural democracy as it prompts us to consider the potential silos of our own identity politics and how theatre must support children into ‘transitional spaces’ that enable them to encounter the polyvocality of their community and nation. In this sense, cultural democracy for young people must represent a supportive confrontation with their own values as much as it is an opportunity to affirm them. Frȃn Wen’s nyth/nest metaphor may be apposite in this instance as we find belonging within it yet it is constructed of multiple and diverse threads from disparate places. Theatre educators have long been alert to the potential of the medium to address issues of transition and change from one literal or conceptual

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

227

space to another. Many of the productions and projects created by the practitioners within this text have sought to articulate the uncertainties of transition. Superficially this may alight upon school transition from primary to secondary but held within the narratives of the texts are broader questions of change from child to adult and the agency of youth within a ‘place’ (school, town, economy) defined by adult parameters. The research for such practice is reflected upon by Nettie Scriven from Dragon Breath, whose show Gulliver’s Travels (2012) harnessed the metaphor of uncharted journeys to explore the uncertainty of transition: ‘We’ve always worked with a key teacher in a school to collaborate with us on developing a project. Gulliver was about transition—as well as about politics and humanity—and a number of teachers helped us to shape that to ensure the authenticity of the young people’s experiences are reflected in the piece’ (Fig. 5.11). Half Moon Theatre in London runs a Year 6 Transitions project every year to explore what they refer to as the ‘fears, expectations

Fig. 5.11  Gulliver’s Travels (2012) at Curve Theatre, Leicester featuring Chris Jack as Gulliver. Dragon Breath Theatre. (Photographer Pamela Raith)

228 

M. CROSSLEY

and aspirations’33 of the progression from primary to secondary school. Echoing the thoughts of Adel Al-Salloum, Chris Elwell from Half Moon observes that the resonance of such a project is often beyond the immediate participants, as he identifies, ‘The Transitions project is actually also about parents transitioning.’ Engaging with ‘otherness’ is a recurrent theme in theatre education, finding moments of interstitial engagement with those beyond our routine circles of experience. One such manifestation of this engagement are projects in which children and young people from mainstream school backgrounds, participate in projects alongside others from within a special educational needs context. Troy Story (2013) is one such example, an ‘intergalactic opera’ made in a collaboration between Orchestra of the Swan and Talking Birds with Welcombe Hills, Thomas Jolyffe and Wilmcote schools across the West Midlands. The production, performed at Birmingham Town Hall, re-imagined the myth of Odysseus, combining a range of primary age children within the rehearsal and performance space. Nisbet reflects that ‘there was trepidation from primary kids working with special school kids. But put them together doing stuff, within half an hour they were rolling around, working together. It’s one big team from violinist with conservatoire training to a nine year old.’ It would of course be too simplistic to read this exemplar as evidence of widespread integration in collaborative theatre for children, as Andy Kempe indicates, there are many preconceptions which inhibit such opportunities for children with a special educational need: Peter (2009) points out that it is often assumed that children with learning disabilities are unable to work interactively with a narrative form rather than being simply the passive audience for stories told by the teacher. Similarly, it can be the case that adults, in trying to be supportive, too often speak and act for children when they see them to be struggling, and thus deny them the right to take charge of their own words and actions.

33  Transitions project outline available at https://www.halfmoon.org.uk/participate/educators/early-years-primary/year-6-transitions/.

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

229

There is however a growing impetus from practitioners34 to explore this combination of participants. Kempe advocates for the potential of the dramatic social space as a learning medium for children in a SEND context, proposing that ‘by embracing the social model, drama can provide a context in which narrative ability can be learned and students realise their own creativity and capacity to communicate their ideas’ (p.  165). Such an opportunity is equally significant to children in mainstream and the confluence of abilities and needs brings with it the risks and vulnerabilities (as in intergenerational practice) that may lead to affective and creative practice. Theatre as Place-Maker Across all my interviews, a recurrent theme has been the increasing significance of the theatre space itself, both in terms of its physical presence aesthetically and productively but also as a site of community-level cultural democracy. In previous decades there had been a degree of tension, including for Gordon Vallins at The Belgrade, between the agendas of theatres and the theatre educators working within them, as Steve Ball from Birmingham Repertory Theatre acknowledges: For many years there existed an inherent tension between two key objectives of theatres: audience development and theatre education. This often manifested itself in strained relationships between theatres marketing and education departments, too often characterised by mutual suspicion with theatre educators opposed to the crude notion of getting ‘bums on seats’. (2013, p. 157)

However, as Ball highlights, this has shifted markedly in recent years as theatres have evolved their participatory and outreach work, re-­orientating away from TIE towards an approach which ‘considers the theatre—including its stages, resources, productions and staff—as a learning resource for schools, colleges, individuals and communities’ (p. 156). The pedagogical potential of the theatre resonates with Nicholson’s proposition that places 34  As an example of integration for an older age range, Glasgow Citizens Theatre offers Friday Club for adults with learning disabilities, including young adults, and this group collaborated on a pilot performance project, Parklife, in which they worked on an ‘equal footing’, as the theatre’s own year-end report states, with members of the Citizens Community Collective.

230 

M. CROSSLEY

have a particular affective potential: ‘The feeling and atmosphere of places influences learning; places have an affective power that is, itself, often pedagogical’ (2014, p.  60). This affective power is recognised across the country by practitioners, therefore embedding young people at the heart of a theatre is now a priority as indicated by Neil Packham from Glasgow Citizens: The visibility of the young people in the theatre is very important. Along with programming annual Young Co. productions in the Citizens Studio theatre, members also have the opportunity to take part our large-scale community projects. We endeavour to do a community production every two years on the main-stage, with around 50 non-professional actors of all ages and abilities. These have included epic challenges like Grapes of Wrath or a new play about a historical local event, The Gorbals Vampire. These productions are treated as if professional, from marketing, design, writer and director to give all the participants, including members of Young Co. the opportunity to experience this world. The chance to perform and be seen on the prestigious stage of the Citizens is something that is a treasured opportunity.

Likewise, Manya Benenson, whilst at Nottingham Playhouse, noticed the perceptible shift in engagement when children were able to inhabit the theatrical space: We did a Shakespeare Schools festival with a school in Clifton. Some engaged but it was only when we brought them in to the theatre for their dress rehearsal that they got it. Before when we said “You’re going to come to this theatre and perform on the stage” it meant nothing to these children from Clifton, because they may not even come to town very often, they certainly haven’t seen this theatre let alone the opportunity to come to watch theatre.

This strategy of utilising theatre, partly as shock and awe, to instil creative ‘buy-in’ on a project requires careful negotiation so as not to reinforce a reification of theatre as an exclusive and excluding high art. To facilitate a sense of shared ownership within a theatrical environment, Jacqui O’Hanlon from the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) advocates a democratisation of artistic language: For the future of the arts we need to be demystifying all the kinds of language that arts organisations have and the best way to do that is to share that

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

231

language with schools and teachers. I find it very exciting that when young people and teachers come to Stratford to meet our actors they absolutely understand each other. They use the same language and there is a fantastic sense of recognition and connection between them.

In moving beyond a model of the education department merely as an audience recruiter, many artistic directors seek to place their theatres at the heart of community interactions. Several of the contributors based in a specific theatre building, particularly in urban areas, referred to their site as a gateway, repositioning the theatre as a civic or community hub through which families and young people could access arts, and therein enhance and articulate their ‘cultural capabilities’. At the Sherman Theatre in Cardiff an initiative entitled Sherman 5 has been established to increase accessibility for the community, and children are key to this, as Tim Howe explains that ‘children are the gatekeepers into the communities’. Chris Elwell at Half Moon explains his own theatre’s motivation for a similar approach: If you think about it, we are funded indirectly through the taxes or lottery purchases of our stakeholders in this community so we owe it to them to make work that may change their lives or make an impact. We call ourselves a gateway organisation, we are their first port of call, we are a gateway. They come into the building because they feel safe. Then after a time we provide the pathways for them as audience or artists to move on and they feel safe here and feel ownership of the arts we make and experience together here. Well over 80% haven’t ever been to another theatre.

Neil Packham is also certain about Glasgow Citizens responsibility to its community, situated as it is in an area with a high level of socio-­ economic deprivation, ‘Our learning activity also makes a vital contribution to the company’s efforts to make the Citizens Theatre as inclusive and diverse a place to be as we can—for audiences, creative artists, staff members and participants alike.’ This ambition of inclusivity and diversity is also evident at The Belgrade as Justine Themen indicates that she is seeking ‘a depth of engagement with our communities’. Themen recalls an encounter with the theatre’s community groups, through which the creative and marketing teams gained new insight:

232 

M. CROSSLEY

We had a promotional event for Red Snapper35 with community groups. There was some resistance from community leaders—“Now you come along and speak to us, when you want to sell tickets.” And so I told them all about what we had done with communities. So they said—“Oh you want us to tell good news stories so they come in to the theatre?” and I said “YES”. But what was important for the Communications team at the theatre to hear was that communities want to know about the participation and talent development work, they want to hear what you’re doing for their kids, what you’re doing to change the fact there are no non-white faces on the stage. They want genuine embedded commitment to their communities, empowering them and addressing balance. And that was a turning point for the theatre—about selling the whole building. That was the start of connecting communities and professional work with the talent development programme as a bridge.

This reference to a talent development programme is indicative of such initiatives across all three nations, from The Royal Court to the Sherman or Glasgow Citizens. Battersea Arts Centre notably title their young people’s theatre programme HOMEGROWN to reflect the emphasis on nurturing local talent. In such instances, children and young people are given opportunities which support them through youth groups towards greater autonomy and authorship over projects within the theatres, including writing and directing, as Romana Flello at The Royal Court notes: ‘Some of our young writers have now joined our senior writing group and have been commissioned to write or had plays produced.’ Again it reflects the move towards long-term commitment rather than re-active engagement. The importance of teacher engagement is also identified by Flello, amongst many of the contributors, as central to cementing the theatre within a matrix of learning: We have a teacher panel for consultation. For example we have asked them to identify ten pupils at risk of exclusion or we will work with them and provide CPD36 to teachers. We ask teachers to come up with big idea for their schools. We will also do residencies in schools. It’s so important to work with teachers as artists.

35  Red Snapper (2016), written by Liz Mytton, was a play focusing on the lives of five women in Jamaica in 1962. 36  CPD—Continuing Professional Development.

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

233

Such innovation within traditional theatre spaces resists presumptions that may be made about their role in perpetuating a set of metropolitan cultural standards. Nicholson, who draws upon the innovative work at the Lyric Hammersmith, to highlight this capacity for innovation within extant theatre buildings challenges these assumptions: ‘It would be easy to see text-led, building-based theatre as the readerly voice of the establishment, and devised and place or site-based performance as integral to a more vernacular everyday construction of national identity. My intention is, however, to resist and challenge this duality’ (2011, p. 135). Meanwhile, in non-traditional spaces, the potential for shock and awe may be lessened when the place in question is an old factory or in the case of Volcano, a stripped out old Iceland food store. In this instance, it is the very unhallowed openness of place, consciously constructed and signalled by staff to be informal, that is fundamental to its potency, as Catherine Bennett indicates: ‘I feel strongly that children should have the confidence to claim the space so that every time they come in on Saturday they’re refusing to be quiet, to be disciplined. They’ve been at school all week and it’s the perfect time to come in as a collective, be joyous and loud, express their energy.’ The importance of this openness and ethos of accessibility is echoed by Chris Elwell at Half Moon, even when it runs counter to the basic economic strategy of ticket sales: All our performances are relaxed, they can make noise, if they want to video it they can as perhaps only one member of the family can attend and others can’t afford a ticket or are working—something to share later. Often there might be someone waiting and not going in and I’ll say “Do you want to go in?”, and so they video it to share. It’s important to be flexible, tuning into the needs of this community.

In bringing this section to a close I am mindful of the tensions that arise out of a reinvigoration of theatres as place-makers, centres of theatre-­ based learning and domain-specific creativity. As previously discussed, there are concerns that within government there are agendas to move the arts curriculum out into the theatre community and private sector, away from the core curriculum. Steve Ball attends to this very issue when stating ‘theatres are not education organisations or social services departments of local authorities. It is their role as producing theatres that separates them from other drama and theatre provision’ (2013, p.  157). Likewise,

234 

M. CROSSLEY

Romana Flello insists: ‘It’s really important in this climate when young people have less opportunities in schools that we provide the opportunity for young people to access theatre. But we should not take the place of drama in schools.’ The balance of these agendas therefore needs careful observation. Representation The practices of politically conscious companies such as Stan’s Cafe or Volcano already illustrate the potentiality of theatre, and its expressed intention to enable new and empowering representations of young people both within a local and national sense but also within identities of ethnicity, gender and disability as well as childhood itself. On the latter issue, theatre education has consciously and vociferously placed itself within the political discourse of representation for children, evidenced in recent ‘manifestos’ for children’s arts, including the Drama, Theatre and Young People Manifesto in 2020. National identity, as has been already considered, may be interpreted and expressed as a dynamic interplay of personal and social experiences, coalescing as Clarke and Garner refer to it as ‘a collective act of imagination and emotional investments in belonging’ (2010, p.  62). Within England this has arguably proven elusive as a national conversation, prompting more localised initiatives of ‘place-making’ to enable ‘polyvocal’ expressions of Englishness. This may be construed as democratic, neo-­ liberal, galvanising or atomistic depending on your perspective. In Wales and Scotland, the discourse around national identity is manifestly more cohesive and unquestionably at the forefront of strategic debates including arts and education. For theatre educators, these debates permeate their thinking and practices, as Lee Lyford from Theatr Iolo reflected: ‘I’m feeling the politics of it. It’s present. We are here to serve Wales principally.’ Guy Hollands, in his time at Glasgow Citizens expresses a similar alertness to national agendas but is less certain of its impact on practice: ‘You are keenly aware of it all the time. We are aware it’s a privilege. But we rarely make work that’s specifically about being Scottish.’ Justine Themen, who has worked north (at Dundee Rep Theatre) and south of the border, offers a valuable comparison: ‘Having worked in Scotland it’s such a different context. The politics of the society are different. That politics infuses the cultural programme which I often find lacking in England with its

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

235

colonial, patriarchal structures. The influence of the patriarchy and the colonial structures are strong.’ Within a Welsh context, attentiveness to place has long been invoked as a distinction from English theatre and Englishness. Characteristics often wedded to place in a Welsh context are identified by James Tyson, long time theatre programmer at Chapter Arts Centre in Cardiff: ‘If you want to think about what is Welsh in performance,’ says Tyson, ‘think about an interaction with words, between cultures. Old traditions, problems of language. Land. Interdisciplinarity. Community’ (Geliot and Gomez 2016). More recently, in an arts council report on place-making it was noted: ‘An emerging theme in Wales is exploring the use of arts and culture to help tackle poverty on a place-based model. This has led to the Fusion programme, aimed at utilising arts and culture to address broader wellbeing objectives surrounding poverty eradication’ (2019, p. 6).37 Storytelling and the use of vernacular texts are identified by many as fundamental to the formation of Welsh identity. Diane Hebb refers to them as ‘implicit to the culture’, an articulation of cynefin, the relationship of the place of birth and upbringing. The significance of storytelling is evident in the range of projects initiated under the Lead Creative Schools and Creative Collaborations schemes, from pupils at Ysgol Y Faenol producing digital storytelling using Welsh folk tales to Lewis School Pengam, where over a hundred and seventy Year 7, 10 and 13 pupils used the early twentieth-­century stories and poems of Thomas Matthews to ‘resurrect the cultural initiative of excavating local legends from within their own community’ (2019) in a production entitled Broken Harp.38 For Hebb, Welsh nationness is finding a new momentum in the national discourse and the curriculum but from an arts education context there is a word of caution: ‘Welsh identity is very important but it’s crucial that we shouldn’t be dictating what that is, the children should be telling us. Children should lead that. If we tell them, we’re teaching them nothing. We have a duty as artists not to tell them.’ Rhian A. Davies of Theatr Genedlaethol Cymru also offers a clear advocacy for Welsh-language theatre for children: ‘It gives a voice to contemporary feelings in the Welsh 37  The Fusion: Creating Opportunities through Culture programme is an initiative by the Welsh Government. It focuses on communities experiencing economic disadvantage, with the intention of reducing barriers in accessing culture and heritage. 38  Arts Council of Wales produced a report on the Lead Creative Schools and the Creative Collaborations projects entitled Let’s Celebrate—Creative Learning Through the Arts (2019).

236 

M. CROSSLEY

language. It’s a mirror of real live. You can’t beat the immediacy of experience.’ In Scotland, the recent closely contested independence referendum and Brexit have raised the volume in debates on Scottishness. A Culture Strategy for Scotland (2020) is an assertive and detailed statement of a commitment to culture as a defining feature of the nation and is far more explicit of culture’s role in nationhood than Let’s Create in England. Notably, place is invoked as a catalyst or touchstone for cultural democracy, as the strategy states: ‘Place—community, landscape, language and geography–is important and reflects the creativity of the past and provides inspiration for cultural expression today.’ Dougie Irvine from Visible Fictions reflects on this current trend in Scotland: They want to invest in it. Currently the Scottish Government seems keen to have Scottish identity celebrated and is also aware of the contribution that culture makes to the Scottish economy. Other recent Scottish Governments and the previous Scottish Executive have all believed in the intrinsic and instrumental value of the arts. The Scottish public also seem to believe in it. Generally I sense there is a left of centre view in Scotland so we invest in arts and education.

Irvine reserves some judgement on these pronouncements however and offers a note of caution: ‘I worry a bit about some of the things that Creative Scotland seem to have been doing. Sometimes it’s felt at odds with where arts and culture come from. But there is a vibrant culture of young peoples’ theatre in Scotland.’ Irvine, along with other practitioners in Scotland, highlight their positive working relationship to Creative Scotland but are mindful of policy shifts and the economic levers that drive them, as witnessed with the 2018 changes to RFO status. Perhaps a hopeful point to end this observation of national representation for young people may be found in the Scottish strategy’s affirmation of culture as a place, literal and figural, for agency and expressions of narrative and counter narrative: ‘Culture should be free to challenge and inspire, enjoy independence and enable self-expression. Nurturing culture and enabling it to flourish is an essential and powerful part of the fabric of any society’ (2020, p. 8). The potential for children with special educational needs to (re)present and assert their identity, as considered in Immersion and intimacy and Security and transition, is finding greater momentum across theatre as the

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

237

children’s individual responses are given greater validity through theatrical experience, as Andy Kempe asserts: ‘We cannot assume though that all pupils with special needs will structure experiences in a predictable way; it may be that what makes them “special” is that they structure experience in a way that seems strange to most other people’ (2010, p. 168). The methodologies that engage those young people are also now being seen as significant border crossing pedagogies, relevant to mainstream educational and theatrical settings, as Christopher Davies proposes for the Bamboozle approach: ‘Finding ways to engage young people is finding ways to engage young people whether they’ve got special needs or not. I would teach in the same way with a bunch of postgraduates as I would with infants with a disability. You just talk to people as people.’ Racial and gender diversity and representation in theatre are receiving long overdue attention in national and localised strategies, from A Culture Strategy for Scotland (2020) to Let’s Create’s Inclusivity and Relevance strategy (2020). Comprehensive analysis of these subjects is beyond what may be attended to at this stage of the text but the particularity of theatre ‘places’ to enable and celebrate greater diversity for children and young people is worth acknowledging. At a practical level, the Belgrade in Coventry decided in 2014 to establish specific black and Asian youth theatres. Justine Themen explains the rationale and the challenges: We set up a black youth theatre and Asian youth theatre. That was really important for us. When we first did it we were challenged on it by the theatre and the community. People thought it was separatist. At the end of the first project we had an inclination to cancel it—they were testing boundaries. We cancelled one show of the black youth theatre then asked them. They were so passionate about it—the only place where they aren’t the only black face, the only place where they’re not underestimated, we believe in their potential to do better whereas in schools their experience is that they are under estimated, even when they prove otherwise.

In 2015 the Asian Youth theatre presented Somewhere to Belong (Fig. 5.12), telling the story of Ahmed, a young British Pakistani ‘going through his own struggle, his own jihad’ as Reena Jaisiah, the director, describes it. The cast, which included non-Asian members, utilised masks to represent the variety of characters from school age up to grandparents, enabling a complex exploration of jihad, faith and the challenges of belonging and identity. Jaisiah contends that ‘it’s really important to work

238 

M. CROSSLEY

Fig. 5.12  Somewhere to Belong (2015) Belgrade Asian Youth Theatre. (Photographer Nicola Young)

with young people because this offers them an opportunity to speak instead of being puppets on a string for other organisations. They get to work in collaboration with us and we get to hear their voices and value what they think and feel’ (2015). The long-term benefits of a commitment to these groups are evidenced in the members sustained development within the theatre, as Themen highlights: ‘One girl started with us at nine, came through our black youth theatre, and is now an assistant director for the group, keeping them on task, as she just knows the process.’ The Young Vic Theatre undertakes an extensive range of schools and college work within its local boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark.39 The comments of Georgia Dale, the Schools and Colleges Project Manager, resonate with central themes of this text in terms of place-focused practice and a theatre-centric pedagogy: ‘We produce work that looks outside our local world but it’s also really important that at the same time we stay connected to the local community of which our schools are vital. One of the  In recent census, 2014, 43% of the population in Lambeth and Southwark were from BAME communities. 39

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

239

things we’ve been trying to develop lately is that the children have a really authentic performance experience’ (2019). Each year the theatre produces two full-scale school productions including one with a SEND school. The Royal Court in London, reflecting its own location within inner city London, seeks to represent the identities of young people from ethic minority cultures and diverse backgrounds, in all their complexities, on stage. In 2016, in collaboration with the Young Vic and Birmingham Repertory Theatres they presented Cuttin It, a play by Charlene James exploring female genital mutilation (FGM) within the British Somali culture. The production included a schools tour, which had a noticeable impact on audiences, as Romana Flello recalls: ‘A lot of people would leave saying that’s my story. It was adding a human level. Cuttin It was rooted in relationships within which FGM was discussed.’ Representing the diversity of British Asian identities is also central to Tamasha Theatre from London who recently created a range of short pre-shows through workshops with Year 7–10 pupils, to be presented before their production of Approaching Empty by Ishy Din. Each pre-show was set in a mini-cab office to reflect the context of the main play text. All the mini-plays were written by British Muslim writers with leading roles for Muslim performers within a mixed cast. Plays included The Lady by Asif Khan, set at an Eid party at the office and Birthday Begum by Iman Qureshi about a grandmothers birthday. Engagement with such diverse cohorts of young people is not of course limited to London with many practitioners working in inner city contexts that reflect the changing profile of British identity and nationness, from the Sherman Theatre in central Cardiff to Stan’s Cafe in Birmingham, as James Yarker exemplifies: ‘It’s completely natural for us to go into a school that’s 90 % British Asian and 10% Romanian.’ Diversity in gender, race and disability, in terms of text and practitioner representation, has long been an issue within the drama and theatre examination syllabi and The London Theatre Consortium have recently sought to address this head on. Romana Flello explains the impetus for their strategy: We held a Forum entitled Where are the women? In terms of their representation on GCSE and A Level syllabi. On the GCSE at least 70% of the writers are white able bodied men. 100% are white. We are interested in new voices. If students aren’t seeing themselves in this canon how are they going to see themselves in this industry.40 40  It is worth noting that in 2020, partly prompted by the Black Lives Matter campaign and the decolonisation agenda, examination boards are making steps towards a more ethnically

240 

M. CROSSLEY

This argument is underscored by the evidence, as Let’s Create identifies that there is still a ‘persistent lack of diversity across the creative industries’ (2020, p. 22).41 The recent tragedy of George Floyd’s death in the USA has however created a new impetus for change. Flello explains how momentum is growing: I have been working with colleagues from the London Theatre Consortium, teachers, young people and the organisations Beyond the Canon and Open Drama to present the exam boards with a list of plays by writers of colour for them to add to their set text lists. We have also been looking at opportunities for teacher training and CPD around decolonising the curriculum. As organisations such as The Black Curriculum have been profiled for calls to change the History and English syllabi, it feels like examining bodies, the DFE and teaching associations across subjects in the curriculum are taking notice to make both systemic and localised action; change feels possible.

It must also be welcomed that in recent years there has been some increase in the number of artistic directors from the black and Asian communities and there are a growing number of initiatives to support diversity, including the Pocket Guide to BAME Role Models and Leaders in the Performing Arts, a project led by Suzanne Gorman. Representing the ‘face’ of diversity within theatre education can however feel tokenistic as Trina Haldar from Mashi Theatre reflects: It’s very frustrating to be one voice speaking for the whole of the south Asian community. There is a lot of tokenism, being asked on to a panel yet talking into a void. Diversity is a charged conversation. We have to go into it in a playfully vulnerable way. In a workshop we have to be open to our vulnerability, non-judgemental so we can be open and not judge ourselves. diverse range of texts and practitioners on the syllabi. On the Welsh and Scottish curricula there is a noticeable inclusion of national playwrights (or those based within the respective nation) including Liz Lochhead and Zinnie Harris within the Scottish Higher Drama. In Wales, the WJEC/CBAC AS/A Level in Drama and Theatre specifically refers to the Welsh perspective, stating: ‘In following this specification, learners should be given opportunities, where appropriate, to consider a Welsh perspective if the opportunity arises naturally from the subject matter and if its inclusion would enrich learners’ understanding of the world around them as citizens of Wales as well as the UK, Europe and the world’ (2017, p. 8). Playwrights on the syllabus include Emyr Edwards, Aled Jones-Williams and Gwyneth Lewis, with numerous Welsh-language texts represented. 41  Inequalities within the arts industries have been analysed in a range of reports including Panic! Social Class, Taste and Inequalities in the Creative Industries (2018).

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

241

Fig. 5.13  Tales of Birbal (2017) Mashi Theatre company. (Photographer Pamela Raith) If we don’t ‘out’ those thoughts we’re never going to shift them. Often in work of people of colour—that’s what’s not seen some time—the spectrum. It’s important not to be pigeonholed. I make work for anyone.

Such opportunities for non-judgemental experimentation and collaboration are often best honed through the type of long-term, community commitment as already voiced by practitioners. Haldar’s own practice reflects this instinct, using extensive research within schools. For the recent production of Tales of Birbal (2017) (Fig.  5.13),  Haldar workshopped ideas in schools in North Nottinghamshire: ‘One boy used a word in an Indian language and used it to get his whole class to sit down. He gained power through this. It’s important that children hear their mother tongues on stage as some are embarrassed to use them in schools.’ The representation of diverse and authentic identities from the Isle of Muck to Welsh-speaking communities in Wales to black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in inner city London is a challenging, vulnerable yet vital endeavour for theatre educators. Theatre’s capacity to engage

242 

M. CROSSLEY

directly and intricately with place and people, responding to the specific landscapes of identity and community has the potential to enable genuine expressions of belonging to be voiced and heard. Jacqui O’Hanlon from the Royal Shakespeare Company is clear that an arts-rich educational experience is vital to this undertaking: Teachers noticed the difference of arts rich learning for children. It gave the children a sense of their own agency. It’s where they really discover their own voices and opinions about things. Where they find out who they might go on to be and what kind of difference they want to make in the world. Arts learning helped students appreciate difference and diversity of opinion.

Bibliography “A Culture Strategy for Scotland”. 2020. Scottish Government. https://www. gov.scot/publications/culture-­strategy-­scotland/. Allen, Richard. 2016. The Theatricality of Objects: Object Theatre Beyond the Puppet. Tidsskrift for Figurteater 1: 34. Alston, A. 2016. Beyond Immersive Theatre: Aesthetics, Politics and Productive Participation. Palgrave Macmillan. Anderson, Benedict. 2016. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso Books. Argent, Sarah. 2007. Words in the Woods: A Report on an Early Years’ Project by Sarah Argent. Theatr Iolo. Ball, S. 2013. Regional Learning Theatres as Resources. In Learning Through Theatre: The Changing Face of Theatre in Education, Anthony Jackson and Chris Vine, 155–166. Abingdon: Routledge. Beadle-Brown, J., David Wilkinson, and Lisa Richardson. 2017. Imagining Autism: Feasibility of a Drama-based Intervention on the Social, Communicative and Imaginative Behaviour of Children with Autism. Autism 22 (8): 915–927. “Beastly Ongoings Promotional Material”. 2019. Catherine Bennett and Clare Hobson/Volcano Theatre. Brown, A. S., Novak-Leonard, J. L., and Gilbride, S. 2011. Getting in on the Act: How Arts Groups are Creating Opportunities for Active Participation. San Francisco, CA: The James Irvine Foundation. “Changing Lives: The Social Impact of Participation in Culture and Sport— Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee—House of Commons”. 2019. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/734/73406.htm#_idTextAnchor024. Clarke, Simon, and Steve Garner. 2010. White Identities: A Critical Sociological Approach. Pluto Press.

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

243

Clemo HR, Keniston LP, and Meredith MA. 2012. Structural Basis of Multisensory Processing: Convergence. In The Neural Bases of Multisensory Processes, ed. Murray MM and Wallace MT. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press/Taylor & Francis. Cole, Jill. 2020. ‘Overambitious’ About Placemaking? We’ve Only Just Started. https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/magazine/article/overambitious-­about-­ placemaking-­weve-­only-­just-­started. Cooper, Chris. 2013. THE IMAGINATION IN ACTION: TIE and Its Relationship to Drama in Education Today. In Learning Through Theatre: The Changing Face of Theatre in Education, ed. Anthony Jackson and Chris Vine, 41–59. Abingdon: Routledge. Cresswell, T. 2014. Place: A Short Introduction. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell. Crossley, M., ed. 2019. Intermedial Theatre: Principles and Practice. Red Globe Press. ———. 2020. A Recalibration of Theatre’s Hypermediality. In Beyond Media Borders, Volume 1 : Intermedial Relations among Multimodal Media, ed. L. Ellestrom. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Crouch, Tim. 2015. John, Antonio and Nancy. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10486801.2015.1020722. Dale, Georgia. 2019. Young Vic. https://www.youngvic.org/taking-­ part/learning. “Drama, Theatre and Young People Manifesto”. 2020. https://dramatheatremanifesto.co.uk/. “Durham Commission on Creativity and Education”. 2019. Durham University. https://www.dur.ac.uk/creativitycommission/. Edensor, Tim. 2002. National Identity, Popular Culture and Everyday Life. Oxford: Berg. Elleström, L. 2014. Media Transformation : The Transfer of Media Characteristics Among Media. Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan. Essex, Ruth, and Chris Coppock. 2020. Thinking Beyond the Snowline Ideas, People and Places...Transcending the Mainstream. https://arts.wales/sites/default/ files/202002/Thinking%20Beyond%20the%20Snowline.pdf. Fraser, N. 1992. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. In Postmodernism and the Re-reading of Modernity, ed. F. Barker, P. Hulme, and M. Iverson. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Gardner, Lyn. 2002. The Quality of Children’s Theatre: After the Birmingham Seminar. Birmingham: Arts Council of England. ———. 2006. Blue—Oily Cart Review. In Oily Cart: All Sorts of Theatre for All Sorts of Kids. 2012, ed. Mark Brown. Trentham Books Ltd. Geliot, Emma, and Cathy Gomez. 2016. What Gives Theatre in Wales Its Radical Edge? British Council. https://theatreanddance.britishcouncil.org/ blog/2016/09/what-­gives-­theatre-­in-­wales-­its-­radical-­edge/.

244 

M. CROSSLEY

Georgi, Claudia. 2014. Liveness on Stage: Intermedial Challenges in Contemporary British Theatre and Performance. CDE Studies. Berlin: De Gruyter Goldfinger, Evelyn. 2010. Theatre for babies: A New Kind of Theatre? In Key Concepts in Theatre/Drama Education, ed. Shifra Schonmann, 295–300. Sense Publishers. Haywood, Paul. 2017. Ideas, People and Places: “Reflections on a Journey of New Beginnings”. https://arts.wales/sites/default/files/2019-­11/Paul%20 Haywood%20-­English.pdf. Hearn, Jonathan, and Marco Antonsich. 2018. Theoretical and Methodological Considerations for the Study of Banal and Everyday Nationalism. Nations & Nationalism 24 (3): 594–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12419. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db= aph&AN=131189551&site=ehost-­live. Hebb, Diane. 2019. New Curriculum for Wales Welcomed by Arts Council of Wales. https://arts.wales/news-jobs-opportunities/new-curriculum-forwales-welcomed-arts-council-wales. Heddon, Deirdre, and Jane Milling. 2016. Devising Performance: a critical history. Palgrave Macmillan. Heim, Caroline. 2012. ‘Argue with Us!’: Audience Co-Creation Through Post-­ Performance Discussions. New Theatre Quarterly 28 (2): 189–197. Holdsworth, Nadine. 2003. Travelling Across Borders: Re-Imagining the Nation and Nationalism in Contemporary Scottish Theatre. Contemporary Theatre Review 13 (2): 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/920087167. Jackson, Anthony, and Chris Vine, eds. 2013. Learning Through Theatre: The Changing Face of Theatre in Education. Abingdon: Routledge. Jaisiah, R. 2015. Video Interview Somewhere to Belong. Available from: https:// secure.belgrade.co.uk/news-and-blogs/blogs/spotlight-on-asianyouththeatre/. Kattenbelt C. 2008. Intermediality in Theatre and Performance: Definitions, Perceptions and Medial Relationships. Culture, Language and Representation, Cultural Studies Journal Of Universitat Jaume, VI:I. pp. 19–29. Kempe, Andy. 2010. Drama and the Education of Young People with Special Needs. In Key Concepts in Theatre/Drama Education, ed. Shifra Schonmann, 165–170. Sense Publishers. Kershaw, B. 1999. The Radical in Performance: Between Brecht and Baudrillard. London, Routledge. Leadbeater, Charles. 2009. The Art of With. https://charlesleadbeater. net/2009/04/the-­art-­of-­with/. “Let’s Create. Our Strategy 2020–2030”. 2020. Arts Council England. https:// www.artscouncil.org.uk/letscreate. Machon, Josephine. 2013. Immersive Theatres: Intimacy and Immediacy in Contemporary Performance. Palgrave Macmillan.

5  BORDER CROSSINGS: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY THEATRE EDUCATION 

245

McMillan, J. 2018. The Scotsman. Creative Scotland’s decision to axe funding defies logic. 5th February 2018. Nicholson, Helen. 2011. Theatre, Education and Performance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ———. 2014. Applied Drama—The Gift of Theatre. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. “Off the Grid”. 2018. Half Moon Theatre Programme. Parkinson, A. et al. 2019. Value of Arts and Culture in Place-shaping. Wavehill Social and Economic Research. Available from: https://www.artscouncil.org. uk/sites/default/files/download-file/Value%20of%20Arts%20and%20 Culture%20in%20Place-Shaping.pdf “People, Culture, Place: The Role of Culture in Placemaking”. 2017. Local Government Association. https://www.local.gov.uk/people-­culture-­placerole-­culture-­placemaking. Peter, M. 2009. ‘Drama: Narrative Pedagogy and Socially Challenged Children’. British Journal of Special Education, 36 (1): 9–17. Petherbridge, J., and Kendall, D. 2012. The Process and Impact of Intergenera­ tional Theatre Making. Quality in Ageing and Older Adults, 13 (4): 301–306. Radosavljević, Duška. 2013. Theatre-Making: Interplay Between Text and Performance in the 21st Century. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ———. 2015. 10 Traits of Theatre-Making in the 21st Century: Duška Radosavljevic´ on the Changing Face on Contemporary Theatre-making. Pub 11th February 2015. Available from: http://exeuntmagazine.com/features/ten-traits-oftheatre-making-in-the-21st-century/. Taig, Thomas. 1945. Towards a Welsh Theatre (3). Wales IV (6): 16–21. Welsh Journals—The National Library of Wales. https://journals.library.wales/ view/1214989/1215897/17. “The Value of Arts and Culture in Place-Shaping”. 2019. Arts Council England/Wavehill. Thomas, Jen. 2013. In Immersive Theatres: Intimacy and Immediacy in Contemporary Performance, ed Josephine Machon. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan. “Time to Listen”. 2018. RSC, Tate, University of Nottingham and Arts Council England. Trimingham, Melissa, and Nicola Shaughnessy. 2016. Material Voices: Intermediality and Autism. Research in Drama Education 21 (3): 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2016.1195121. Van de Water, Manon. 2010. Framing Children’s Theatre: Historiography, Material Context, and Cultural Perception. In Key Concepts in Theatre/Drama Education, ed. Shifra Schonmann, 277–282. Sense Publishers. Vaughan, Janet. 2017. We Belong to the City, and It Belongs to Us—UK City of Culture 2021, Coventry. https://coventry2021.co.uk/belong-city-belongs-us/.

246 

M. CROSSLEY

Walmsley, Ben. 2013. Co-Creating Theatre: Authentic Engagement or Inter-­ Legitimation? Cultural Trends 22 (2): 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09548963.2013.783176. Webb, Tim. 2012. In Oily Cart: All Sorts of Theatre for All Sorts of Kids, ed. Mark Brown. Trentham Books Ltd. Wessels, Anne. 2010. Devising as pedagogy. In Key Concepts in Theatre/Drama Education, ed. Shifra Schonmann, 131–134. Sense Publishers. Wilcox, D. 2020. Summary of the Guide to Effective Participation. Available from: https://www.globenet.org/archives/web/2006/www.globenet.org/horizonlocal/partnership/wilcox.html. Wooster, Roger. 2007. Contemporary Theatre in Education. Bristol: Intellect Books. Yarker, James. 2015. Any Fool Can Start a War. Research in Drama Education 20 (2): 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2015.1022146. Yarker, J. 2016. Trailblazers: In a Visible City. Available from http://www.stanscafe. co.uk/trailblazers.html Young, I. M. 1990. The Ideal of Community and the Politics of Difference. In Feminism Postmodernism, ed. L. Nicholson. London: Routledge.

CHAPTER 6

On the Horizon

Throughout the text there have been regular and divergent visions and speculations on what the future may hold for theatre education, so in this final brief sign-off it would be foolish to summate any collective sense of aspirations for the next decade or so, as there simply isn’t a single consensus. This is due to many factors but the significance of the national contexts must be acknowledged in how they are informing and directing the optimisms or concerns as well as the strategies and methodologies. From a Welsh perspective, Kevin Lewis is uncertain but optimistic: ‘I think we are in a slight limbo situation—there are a number of new companies coming up so the landscape is changing, so it’ll be interesting to see what happens over the next few years in creating a body of work so it’s all to play for.’ Sarah Argent meanwhile offers a reflective national comparison: ‘We are in a better position than England where colleagues are despairing about EBacc and STEM.1 There is still more of a focus here in Wales (at governmental level) of the value of arts in the curriculum than there is in England.’ The Curriculum for Wales is at a fledgling stage and much is to be discovered about its capabilities to embed Expressive Arts 1  STEM—acronym for the emphasis on science, technology, engineering and maths within the curriculum. Persistent lobbying (e.g. from CLA) seeks to rebalance this to include the arts, hence the alternative acronym STEAM.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Crossley, Contemporary Theatre Education and Creative Learning, Palgrave Studies In Play, Performance, Learning, and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63738-5_6

247

248 

M. CROSSLEY

within the four core purposes of the curriculum. However, the alignment of creative philosophy and strategic intent from Arts Council for Wales and the Welsh government, evidenced through flagship initiatives such as Lead Creative Schools and the collaborative research within the Foundation Phase, offers hope for future synergy between theatre and education. Likewise in Scotland, there is a notable degree of positivity in the direction of travel from Creative Scotland, Education Scotland and the potential of Curriculum for Excellence, despite ongoing issues of interpretation and implementation. Joan Parr from Creative Scotland reflects a similar theme of national contrast: ‘I hear some doom and gloom from people in England. The big difference is that we’re a small country and so we still have a collective ethos whereas in England I see pockets of really great practice. The Academies structure in England has taken away from that collective approach.’ Whilst the productive dialogue between Creative Scotland and practitioners has been highlighted, there is still some caution as expressed by Laura Penny from Visible Fictions: ‘We’re a little fearful of what the next funding round will look like—will there still be three year funding, will we all move to project funding? We just have to trust our gut.’ What is more certain is that in both Wales and Scotland, unlike England, there is a more strident and burgeoning nexus between theatre education and creativity in shaping distinct national cultural identities. The extent to which these identities are equated with nationalist instincts is still a little way off in the distance and today’s children and young people will no doubt have a lot to say on these matters. In England, there is, to be frank, a little gloom on the horizon yet the skyline is tinged with hopefulness. Manya Benenson voices the uncertainties of many practitioners: ‘I think we’re in really rough water. It feels like there are some really exciting initiatives, but in schools and education generally it’s pretty dire. The need for arts in society has never been greater, so many vulnerable people with mental health issues, but how can schools prioritise that against all the other needs. It’s a hugely difficult time to be a young person. So what we do is even more important now.’ Chris Elwell from Half Moon Theatre finds himself in a similar position of hope and trepidation: ‘I’m always optimistic but austerity is yet to hit. The next few years will be tough as hell because the impact of the cuts is yet to hit.’ These comments came even before the onslaught of COVID-19 so the uncertainty of a new austerity now hangs over theatres and practitioners whose funding streams may now be in jeopardy right across the three nations. However, against this fragile backdrop, Adel Al-Salloum notes

6  ON THE HORIZON 

249

the potential of theatre educators to respond: ‘Schools are talking about a recovery agenda and what’s central to a recovery agenda is relationships, empathy, meta cognition. The arts have got very good at mapping what they do against other agendas.’ Hybridity is a shared acknowledgement and interest across England. Scotland and Wales, a recognition that strategies must adapt to interdisciplinary methodologies. Joan Parr summated this view in reference to the future organisational structure of Creative Scotland: We can’t continue to be a theatre team and a visual arts or music team. Young people don’t see it like that. They are just making stuff, being culturally aware and expressing themselves and they are harnessing all kinds of media to express themselves. Where that takes us in terms of managing it all I have no ideas but I think that’s where things are going. We have to have a more holistic view of how things work.

This move towards hybridity and alternativity is reflected in the ever-­ increasing spectrum of places that theatre education and creative learning experiences now occur. Libraries and museums, progressively enfolded within arts council remits, are now envisaged as potent creative spaces to engage the community and stage events; Let’s Create envisages them as ‘the country’s most widespread and well-used cultural spaces, sitting at the heart of communities and often providing the first point of access to cultural activity’ (2020, p. 22). This shift in the placing of theatre can be seen in the library-based The Hidden (2017) by Visible Fictions or Half Moon’s The House That Jackson Built (2019), a spoken word performance for libraries about loss and bereavement. In this context, theatres and theatre companies are mutable entities, requiring creative adaptation which can both valorise their domain-specific strengths and embrace states of alterity. Visionary thinking as ever is matched to pragmatism. Sam Cairns from the Cultural Learning Alliance sees the changes within Ofsted as crucial but by no means a panacea: ‘If Ofsted changes I think you’ll see a swing back to this broad and balanced curriculum with arts subjects within that but we have a problem as the teachers haven’t been trained for that. I think we’ll see hot and cold spots and I suspect we’ll see middle class parents choosing to send their kids to those schools as they’ll recognise the value of that sort of education and this may jeopardise social mobility.’ Practitioners need to continue to adapt to the shifting contours of young

250 

M. CROSSLEY

people’s cultural lives, educational policies and fiscal realities, as Nettie Scriven from Dragon Breath Theatre emphasises: ‘The challenge is getting the work into the schools who want theatre despite the hurdles they face in doing so. So as artists we need to make work that enables schools to do this.’ The advocacy found in Time to Listen and ImagineNation or for the extension of Lead Creative Schools in Wales reminds us that alongside hope there is the imperative for persuasive data and sustained lobbying. The newly formed Drama and Theatre Education Alliance, which has sought to unite diverse drama and theatre organisations across the country as a means of marshalling a cohesive voice to government, may be a significant step towards reinstating the status of drama and theatre in education but as they themselves reflect on Facebook, ‘it’s going to take time’ but we must now ‘get our act together’. However, in contrast to any national strategies, Rob Elkington proposes that change is alternatively more actionable at a local level: This is a use value government, a utilitarian government so I don’t see any shift at all. But the hope that I do see, if you’re going to do some influencing, don’t bother with central government, do it at a local level with schools and MATs,2 that’s where they have money and can make decisions. It doesn’t follow that every child has to do EBacc. It takes brave headteachers, a lot of people in the sector are resisting it. I’m always optimistic.

As Coventry heads towards the mantle of UK City of Culture 2021, Justine Themen from the city’s Belgrade Theatre is similarly focused on the potential for local impact but through which may emerge a new model of civic partnership for regional theatre: I hope that what we can test is the opportunity to engage with our city across marketing, talent development and participation—really thinking about it in a joined up way that I hope is not just an ideological thing but makes the theatre more central to the life of its community, bringing more people in, engaging with what we’re doing. I hope that what comes out of this is a new manifesto for regional theatre in the 21st century so maybe come back and ask me where we got to in two years.

Standing back, the long view across a broader horizon may be the most balanced to adopt. Espousing this outlook in an English context, Romana 2

 MAT—Multi-Academy Trusts.

6  ON THE HORIZON 

251

Flello from The Royal Court reflects: ‘The pendulum will swing. Things have changed so many times so it’s about being ready for change. In terms of the work we’re doing with exam boards, it takes seven years for policies to really take effect so it’s about being ready.’ To be prepared for that change also requires an alertness to the cultural discourse within which we reside and to understand the inherent limitations within it which may restrict the opportunities for vulnerable, non-judgemental dialogues. Hadley and Belfiore remind us of the task at hand: ‘There can be no true exploration of cultural democracy without the acknowledgement that hierarchies of cultural value have always been, and always will be, imbricated in questions of power and authority: any future research agenda that disregards this connection will fail to make a contribution to both scholarship and to the encouragement of reflexive creative practice’ (2018, p. 222). Theatre education, whilst remaining susceptible to political and cultural trends, offers the capacity to collaborate and co-author original and alternative narratives. Peter Wright prompts us to remember that children and young people are active in their communities ‘as actors, change agents and knowers, as bearers of rights, and as citizens’ and in that context drama and theatre play a critical role in enabling society to ‘think of young people as being “at promise” rather than “at risk”’ (2010, p. 112). I hope that the text that has preceded this and the practitioner voices which follow offer some confidence that theatre educators are increasingly mindful of such responsibility and promise, so may head towards the future with humility yet fortitude.

Bibliography Hadley, Steven, and Eleonora Belfiore. 2018. Cultural Democracy and Cultural Policy. Cultural Trends 27 (3): 218–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954896 3.2018.1474009. “Let’s Create. Our Strategy 2020–2030”. 2020. Arts Council England. https:// www.artscouncil.org.uk/letscreate. Wright, Peter. 2010. Agency, Intersubjectivity and Drama Education: The Power to Be and Do More. In Key Concepts in Theatre/Drama Education, ed. Shifra Schonmann, 111–118. Sense Publishers.

CHAPTER 7

Practitioner Voices: Scotland, England and Wales

Scotland Paul Fitzpatrick Chief Executive—Imaginate, Edinburgh Theatre and Transformation Children have a huge amount to deal with at the moment. Last year we heard reports of children and young people suffering from Climate Emergency anxiety. Now they have to deal with Coronavirus anxiety and some will also deal with bereavements. When we get through this, we will need a way for children to come together and try to understand what they have experienced. And we need to find a way to help that happen. But how can we help them deal with this extraordinary experience in their young lives? What can we do to enable them to get on and enjoy their childhood? If only there was a gym for emotional resilience… Or a class for joy and hope… There is. It’s called the theatre. After this unprecedented period of social distancing and isolation, we are going to crave meaningful social contacts. Where better to find that than at the theatre? Edinburgh became a beacon for hope in 1947 when the Edinburgh International Festival was founded to ‘provide a platform © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Crossley, Contemporary Theatre Education and Creative Learning, Palgrave Studies In Play, Performance, Learning, and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63738-5_7

253

254 

M. CROSSLEY

for the flowering of the human spirit’ by bringing people and artists together from around the world following World War II. Following the current global crisis we need the theatres, festivals and, crucially, the artists to still be here, ready to provide that platform of healing for us all, particularly children. When a child goes to the theatre, they are transported to different countries, different worlds and situations. They encounter wonderful people and unpleasant bullies. They experience the highs, the lows, the pain and the beauty of the world. It’s a full-body work out for the mind, the emotions and the imagination. As we move through this COVID-19 experience, children will need to experience exciting, moving and transforming theatre and dance especially made for them. There was once a Healthy Scotland campaign with the tagline ‘Don’t do it for tomorrow do it for today’. The sense being—don’t go out and exercise just so you avoid health issues in later life, go out and exercise so you can enjoy your life more, now. The same goes for children’s theatre. When a child experiences theatre and dance that challenges the intellect and engages the emotion the primary purpose must be to enable them to have a fuller and richer childhood, not so they can be better adults. A recent study1 by the New Victory Theatre in New York found that over time, when attending the theatre regularly, children developed the ability to imagine their lives differently. They could see a future for themselves that was different from the one they were living. The work-out of the imagination in the theatre gave them the strength to develop something very special: hope. And that is something we all need at the moment. Dougie Irvine Artistic Director—Visible Fictions, Glasgow Children’s Theatre as a Political Act Theatre is an incredibly powerful act. The stories and narratives presented by the form are as varied and diverse as the audiences they are designed for, and no matter the shape they take, they regularly inspire, educate and entertain. Theatre experiences stay with an audience. It makes them smile,  A summary of the research by the New Victory Theatre can be found on pp. 7–11 of Envisioning the Future of Theatre for Young Audiences published by the National Endowment for the Arts and TYA USA. 1

7  PRACTITIONER VOICES: SCOTLAND, ENGLAND AND WALES 

255

feel angered, challenged or given hope. Some people are so moved by theatre pieces that they take action to promote change in the world, while for others the effects are subtler, but are undeniably there. We carry with us what we have experienced in the theatre. Theatre by its very nature invites questions, observations and provocations from an audience—and the best theatre encourages them to wrestle and engage with them: questioning society, the choices we make and the very essence of our human experience. The stories and narratives experienced open-up worlds that aren’t yet known but yet still feel incredibly familiar. Like Alice in ‘Through the Looking Glass’—an audience sees their reflection but also steps through to a new world of possibilities— stretching their thinking, their understanding while engaging with world views they never knew existed. The theatre audience is given an opportunity to empathise with a suffering character, a chance to reflect on a protagonist’s choices and decide whether they themselves might have made a better one, it gives them the possibility to see how a society is functioning for good or for bad. Politics is at its most essential a discourse or dialogue of behaviours between each other and/or a dialogue between social norms and societal laws. To be politically active is to understand, question, challenge and see new possibilities. Theatre is designed to be a discourse between artists and their audience about how they fit into the world and as the audience engages emotionally, intellectually and collectively, they make sense of and challenge how they as an individual and the society they are part of fit together. Theatre productions, whether intended or not, are ultimately political acts. The stories, characters and narratives shared in theatre act like a political critique of how we live and cannot ultimately be separated from politics or societal concerns. And the audience can choose to be conscious of that relationship or not. If the audience are children then there is one noteworthy difference: this younger audience is still growing, still developing, still learning who they are and where they fit into the world—but the work is equally political. They may be feeling certain emotions for the first time, having particular thoughts for the first time, they are trying to understand not only complex relationship structures but also some very basic ones, they are trying to positively engage with their emotional life and their thinking habits and behaviours. Therefore, the political potency of theatre for children and young people is significantly increased due to the potential receptivity and openness of the audience. Quality theatre for children

256 

M. CROSSLEY

helps the audience to understand their world and how they fit into it at a very ground level. They see their worlds, their experience and their perspectives reflected back at them, helping validate who they are, and what they are experiencing at that stage in their development—building a self-­ belief and self-understanding, which ultimately contributes to fostering of confidence and awareness of self and other. The audience’s relationship to experiencing theatre is a dynamic one—an individual yet collective one. This collective experience is, at its simplest, the celebration and garnering of the spirit of community—being at one with others, sharing the same space at the same moment in time together. It reinforces that we are not alone and have a part in the collective, a reminder of our responsibility for what happens in the world—whether we choose to act on it or not. Dougie Irvine Artistic Director—Visible Fictions, Glasgow Theatre and Location Visible Fictions prides itself on creating a diverse portfolio of artistic productions and education experiences—ranging from small-scale school touring productions to promenade pieces in public parks with audiences on bicycles; from Internet dramas to interactive theatre experiences in public libraries. This broad range of work is driven by a belief that our young audiences can be found anywhere and everywhere—and our task in order to serve them is to find them and stretch their understanding of what a story-driven artistic experience can be, and to open their (and our) thinking as to where it can take place. In his book The Empty Space, the theatre director Peter Brook starts by describing theatre as simple as the action of ‘a man who walks across an empty space whilst someone else is watching him’. Brook believes any empty space can become a stage for a performative act. This space or geographical context is very important to us and our work and can be virtual or physical spaces. Most importantly for us, however, is how our audiences and participants engage with the work we create in them. How our audiences engage with the world is becoming more and more complex, with traditional boundaries becoming blurrier, and accessibility needs and expectations becoming stronger. Ecological agendas are becoming more focused and this raises questions for production companies as to where and how they connect with audiences, all within a context of evertightening budgets and the need to address greater ambitions of

7  PRACTITIONER VOICES: SCOTLAND, ENGLAND AND WALES 

257

stakeholders and funding bodies. How we connect and inspire audiences is full of challenging yet equally exciting demands. As a company that presents work at home and abroad, the task is to create work that resonates with audiences and connects and inspires young people, no matter their geographical or cultural reference points. As a nation of approximately five million people, Scotland’s small-sized population also has a diverse landscape, people, languages and perspectives. In fact, within a few short hours from major cities, it is possible to be in remote and rural island communities where responses to culture and politics are very different to those common in a city. The key is to find the universality in the stories we tell, seeking and sharing the human experiences that are most common to everyone. We are told regularly by these rural communities how appreciative they are that our work has come to visit their community—animating a space that is local to them and playing a part in it being seen in a new way. This aspiration to connect with a local space is as important as celebrating the ‘spectacle’ of presenting in a ‘traditional’ theatre space. Both are of course important and can give a sense of aspiration and opportunity for the audiences—one in a space where what happens is expected (traditional theatre space) while the other is filled with surprise and new possibilities (non-­ traditional space) as they see it used in a new and different way. This principle of bringing different spaces to life has also been applied to the creative learning work the company has undertaken—with projects taking place in woodlands, in school playgrounds and young offender institutions to give examples—all recognising that young people access art and community in a multitude of spaces. Digital space is of considerable importance to our young audience, and to the world at large. This space is therefore gaining an ever-increasing importance to our work and how and where we connect and inspire. It helps us to help us achieve important ‘green’ targets around emissions by accessing audiences in their own space, in their immediate community, while also finding ways to connect to others. Our ‘State of Emergency’ project used a digital-based drama to activate an extensive range of creative learning around all aspects of the curriculum. This learning was explored and shared with other school communities linked together via intranet. The project was a dynamic alignment of art created for a digital space, a geographical space, and shared experiences which connected the two. Neil Packham Young Co. Director—Citizens Theatre, Glasgow

258 

M. CROSSLEY

The Value of a Young Company The Citizens Theatre, Young Co was founded in 2005 and was initially established for sixteen- to twenty-one-year-olds. I’d been involved in running many youth theatre groups in the past and through this had recognised there was a lack of provision for people that were sixteen plus, a time when young people are beginning to make serious career choices, possibly already in college, trying to gain entry to drama school or have absolutely no idea where to go next. Being based in the acclaimed, Citizens Theatre, Glasgow, I saw it as a great opportunity for young people to experience all the internal working life of a professional theatre. As someone who had previously trained as an actor, I wanted to show the realities of how this world operated both to those who intended to work in the theatrical profession but also those for whom it had other values. To this day it remains very much an inclusive theatre group, I don’t hold auditions, it’s not a drama school, some people come with a wealth of experience, some because they want to meet different people, they want to improve their confidence or gain a new creative skill. I think this is a crucial time in young people’s lives when self-development in all its forms is critical. In terms of recruitment, for four days in August, I hold, what’s come to be known as, ‘Summer School’. I programme a series of workshops, either led by myself or with guest tutors with other specialist skills and invite people who have been in touch during the year to attend, along with current members. Usually by the end of the third day it’s clear whether the group is for them or not. Young Co. is a democratic group, I obviously have to put some elements in place, however, due to their age and experience we make it a point to discuss what direction the group wants to take. This might lead to the theme for the term, individual workshop sessions or ideas for a production. As I indicated before I’m very keen that the group is considerably more than about, ‘wanting to be an actor’. When leaving school you’re not going to be aware of all the work opportunities in the theatre and I wanted to encourage them to gain a broader perspective of this. I’m in a position where I can introduce them to lighting, sound, set designers, the marketing department, directors, writers. I think it’s imperative to see the bigger picture. This is after all where the next generation of theatre-makers come from. Over the last five years, in particular, I’ve been very satisfied to witness more of the group drawn to other areas. It is also not unusual for a member of the group to ask to lead a session or a series of sessions, this might be exploring a piece

7  PRACTITIONER VOICES: SCOTLAND, ENGLAND AND WALES 

259

of writing or an idea they have had. A while back, I was talking to the group about a funding proposal and commenting how we’ve not really looked at issue-based material that I put forward looking at young people and gambling, online gambling in particular being a topical issue at the time. Members of the group that evening were quick to say that this didn’t affect them; however, one young woman brought up the subject of abusive early relationships—how do you understand your first relationship, and what are the parameters? This clearly struck a chord with many of the group, who were keen to write about this and explore the topic. This led to a scratch event of their work, initiated and led by them, ‘Scratched Love’. The young woman who introduced the subject wrote a play, using her personal experience, which eventually received funding and then we subsequently toured schools with the production. This project worked on many levels, the young writer was able to develop the play with the group, a cast from Young Co got the practical experience of performing in schools, along with members of the team creating and leading appropriate workshops with their peers. This proved incredibly empowering experience for the individuals involved. Naturally some members go on to train and become professional actors, a tough career which doesn’t magically happen even if you’re fortunate enough to gain a place at drama school. Currently I’m particularly impressed by ex-members joining forces, using each other’s skills and creating work independently but I’m equally delighted when someone who arrived lacking in confidence and direction goes off to explore the world outside of the theatre industry.

England Manya Benenson Participation Specialist—Nottingham Playhouse Intimacy and Storytelling As a theatre and arts practitioner, over the past eighteen years, I have been devising and delivering theatre and arts projects for a diverse range of groups and communities. My professional practice practically interrogates inclusive models of engagement and performance making in a range of community settings. I create intimate experiences using storytelling, play

260 

M. CROSSLEY

and cross-disciplinary practice to stimulate imaginations and senses in different ways. Over the last three years I have been delivering sessions in a hospital, exploring approaches to create meaningful and sensitive experiences for children who have life-limiting illnesses. The Hospital school is on the top floor of a large hospital in Nottingham. The school consists of two small classrooms and a team of dedicated teachers assigned to all inpatient children. Whilst it is beneficial to bring children off the ward where possible to these classrooms, due to the complexities around treatments and cross infection this is often not possible. More often sessions take place on the ward, by the bedside of the child with a teacher or teaching assistant present. Occasionally a session may be in a bay where two children in adjacent beds can take part. On arrival I receive a list of children, across the age groups and wards, which the teachers have created with the children’s and parents’ consent.2 The children can be aged between five and sixteen years. They can be long or relatively short stay. Some can be in more than a year, some are recurrent visitors, and others are in, recover and are discharged. Intentionally the teachers do not pass on the child’s diagnosis, only essential information that will be relevant to our session. The children may be restricted in their movement, speech, and energy. I may have met the child before and can build on what we do together but often will have not previously met them. Inherent in our time together is providing opportunities for the children to respond and drive the play, movement and stories. The power of stories provides an encompassing focus on stimulation, on nurturing and taking them out of their here and now, even if only for a short time. At a time when the children have limited or no control over what happening to them and potentially invasive treatments, what feels most important is that they have control and agency in our sessions. One of the ways into engagement I have discovered is through the offer of carefully chosen intriguing objects or items. The focus is not on the child or practitioner, instead on the objects, generating enough curiosity that we can find a gentle connection or way in together, whilst not being too onerous or threatening.

2  Note—How the sessions are described is key. Framing the sessions as a sharing of stories or ideas or movements is less intimidating for the child.

7  PRACTITIONER VOICES: SCOTLAND, ENGLAND AND WALES 

261

S ensory Story Board Creating story bags, story cubes and handmade sensory boards filled with sensory, open-ended and non-prescriptive objects of interest, which can potentially work for every child on the ward round if offered in the right way. They allow for gentle turn taking and for each object to stimulate a different imaginative response. The object might smell or feel interesting or might not always be what it first seems, for example, an onion might be made from foam and plaster. This allows another kind of conversation for children that are struggling to find an imaginative response, ‘what can you notice about it?’, we talk about what they notice about it (Fig.7.1). Whether it be a cube, bag or board the child can control the order and process. To start our exploration, I might start off, and then allow the child to decide what happens and respond in turn. This process of turn taking and role play stimulates the children in imaginative play and engages them to feel confident to experiment in creating characters and stories. By using a multi-layered approach of sensory interaction with objects and materials to touch, taste, smell, hear and see, children can take different things and participate in their own individual ways. Allowing the child, the space to express whatever they feel like expressing and responding in a way that is affirming and stimulating, gives them the confidence to build on their offer however small. Sometimes their offers are wacky, preposterous, dark and sometimes limited. For some, too much emphasis on speaking is difficult so it can almost be a non-verbal interaction. If their contribution is small, it becomes crucial in the story, for example, a knock on the door—the door becomes central. Some children kill off characters, the story perhaps provides a space for them to express, without any need to explain or for judgement. One-to-one sensory story making gives time to engage and understand the individual child’s needs. Where, it is possible to gently draw out interests or offer new challenges. For one child, Henry—it is the voices—he wants to be the characters and command what happens. I have audio recorded his voices and he has featured as part of a main stage production. For another child, Archie—he loves puppets and is fascinated with how they are made—together we have made puppets and brought those processes into our interactions. This opportunity to observe and empathise with the children’s experiences is especially important. When the child sees the excitement and fascination taken in sensory exploration and can join in with the story play, exciting developmental processes can take place, which can both extend their imagination and aid their ability to express

262 

M. CROSSLEY

Fig. 7.1  Manya Benenson story objects. (Photographer: Manya Benenson)

themselves and communicate. Teachers who have observed have been able to follow this approach into new realms of play and invention. Many of these games parents and teachers report continue for many weeks after the original session.

7  PRACTITIONER VOICES: SCOTLAND, ENGLAND AND WALES 

263

Christopher Davies Artistic Director—Bamboozle Theatre, Leicester How Intimate Theatre Can Engage SEND Children by Removing Judgement Along the front of the stage is a shoreline. Flotsam. Driftwood and nets, remnants of plastic bags washed up along the beach. Three actors animate lengths of driftwood; rising and falling with the swell; the sound of the waves vocalised gently—in and out, in and out—rhythmic, repetitive, mesmeric. The tide builds then subsides—the driftwood waves come to rest on the beach. The actors gather bits of plastic and float them on the wind—their breath in time with their harmonised chanting. Measured. Relaxed. No need to rush. Slowly, gradually plastic floats towards the audience—occasionally fleeting eye contact with a child—an invitation. An invitation not an imperative. Children are hesitant, tentative, not sure of the rules. Gradually some take up the offer and one girl blows plastic back towards the actor who responds and blows it again. A game ensues, back and forth, to and fro. A boy screws up a bag and throws it onto the shore. An actor takes another bag and does the same. Then waits. This is the opening scene of Storm; Bamboozle’s show for children on the autistic spectrum based on Shakespeare’s Tempest and it demonstrates a central principle of our ethos. The Bamboozle Approach believes that when we remove judgemental praise we enable engagement and learning. The actors do not say ‘Well done’ or ‘Good girl’ when the girl blows the bag on the shore. No words are used—they simply engage in the activity with her. Playing together is the reward. The children do not need a sticker or verbal praise—they need our attention. It is, therefore, our job as theatre-­makers and educators to create an enabled space in which children can explore the world without fear of getting it wrong, of not doing it how the adults want them to. They often don’t need us to say anything. Just to give them time to think and to explore without judgement. The scene on the shore lets the audience know that they can get involved, that they can experience the show in whatever way they choose. They can simply sit and watch, or dive in and animate bags—and later other props—or walk around the set. The actors use a range of strategies to enable this message to be clear. Matching what the children do with the bags, called Intensive Interaction, is an elegant way to build rapport and

264 

M. CROSSLEY

to enable them to see that there is no right way to do this—there will be no tangible rewards [or punishments!] just the joy that comes from playing, finding out stuff and communicating with the actors, being part of the story that is being enacted. Later magazines are used to represent gulls and occasionally a page gets torn out by a child—so the actor tears out another. This emphasises that we are in this exploration together. And if the child is seeking attention by ‘doing something wrong’ then he has the attention but without the reprimand. Engagement usually follows. Shows for this audience use props that are either indestructible or don’t matter—magazines work just as well as a gull with a few pages missing—bags can be replaced. We aim to create an enabled space where the focus is on interaction and engagement not protecting the props or getting it right. Chris Elwell Artistic Director—Half Moon Theatre, London Authentic Voices For a professional theatre company like Half Moon, which engages specifically with young people from birth to the cusp of adulthood, the driving force behind all of our work is a responsibility to engage meaningfully and respond honestly with these young audiences and participants—a gateway to engagement. This comes from my often cited belief that when making and producing work for young people, it is important to: • respect the intellectual maturity of the child or young person • acknowledge that a child or young person’s level of expression—how they act or posture—can hide their true levels of comprehension, masking their powerful ability to conceptualise and reason, especially if age or ability means they don’t have the physical or verbal language to express this • assert that young people and children are as complex and profound as an adult: they have much to teach us • champion that they are not an audience or creative of the future, but an active citizen and arts maker and consumer of now. By acknowledging these—which I have done now for the past 20+ years—the work we make will grow and change in unexpected and fresh ways. While we makers still want to surprise and challenge the young

7  PRACTITIONER VOICES: SCOTLAND, ENGLAND AND WALES 

265

person’s expectations, by letting them into our world as equals means that their authentic voices will permeate and inform the theatre education work we make for the better. Those who do not do this will present work which is at best boring, at worst irrelevant, because they are continuing to use a methodology, or working in a style, or presenting an aesthetic, which is stagnant or outdated. Often work for children and young people is too focused on what we adults think ‘they’ want to experience, at worst driven by the ego or ‘I’ of the adult arts maker. So how can we ensure that this doesn’t happen? Young people are, of course, as diverse as the world within which they live, as global and local citizens. As theatre-makers, we must recognise and feel empowered by this diversity and give young people a place to participate actively with us to make work. Like a form of democratisation, we must open up these creative art-making processes, break down the barriers that stop participation, as a result of cultural, ability (disability, including neuro-diverse or those affected by mental health conditions) and socio-economic restraints, and allow them to be an integral player in the processes of making the work (i.e. by workshopping ideas; deconstructing a script; making music). Where this happens, the interface can become an inspirational, dynamic and creative catalyst: a place where participating in this non-hierarchical process, allows them—be they nineteen or nine  years or nine  months old—in turn to be enriched in their own creativity going forward, so championing young people from our immediate communities as creatives in their own right. It is at such moments that innovative, startling and sector-moving pieces of work are conceived, a place where human and universal stories are revealed, where issues and concerns are debated and explored. This approach has given rise to a whole canon of exciting and award-­ winning work. Most recently, for example, this has been a play for teenagers exploring mental health (Crowded, 2019), a heartfelt exploration of intergenerational isolation for 4+ (Dust, 2020) and a spoken word–driven piece for libraries about loss and bereavement for 6+ (The House That Jackson Built, 2019): work, along with the many other plays that have proceeded them over the years, which honours the authentic voices of the young people we have the pleasure of being with on a joint creative journey. Janet Vaughan Designer and Co-artistic Director—Talking Birds, Coventry

266 

M. CROSSLEY

Theatre of Place When we make work in a place, we make it in collaboration—with the assembled creative team of course but also, and more importantly, in collaboration with the place itself. For us, a place is composed of two interlocking elements—the physical attributes (geography, environment, structure, aspect, factual history) and the people that live and work there (and have lived and worked and visited there throughout time—every person whose actions, memories, thoughts, opinions, ambitions have acted on it, everyone who has contributed to making it what it is). People and Place: one cannot be understood except in relation to the other. Work begins with a ‘Breathing In’—a total immersive exploration of the place, and a voracious, yet thoughtful, collecting of materials—archival, geographic, anecdotal, controversial, whimsical, mundane… Reading, asking questions, walking routes, meeting people, finding things out, following trails—gaining a deep, four-dimensional, tangible understanding of the place: one that can only be born out of spending time in and with it. Theatre of Place is created out of the interplay of people and place— where our consideration and work, as artists, with all the rich materials that have been amassed during the ‘breathing in’ are processed and combined into something like a suspension (i.e. a liquid which, when shaken, holds small solid particles within it—not dissolved, but suspended and in constant movement—as if they are all one substance). Our suspension is whichever holding form (which may be something approaching site-­ specific performance or installation or street theatre or…) best allows these materials (the time and space and matter of the place) to be viewed or examined by us and our audience in changing relation to each other. As the suspension shifts around and the materials are presented and perceived in different ways, it gently provokes new perspectives and insights. So it may be that the most appropriate expression grown out of the materials breathed in is not necessarily what everyone would recognise as ‘theatre’ but, because it is grown through this process and is created by Talking Birds’ artists, (i.e. it has been created with the company’s particular theatre-makers’ process, insight and sensibilities) it is Theatre of Place. Much of the material is breathed in via conversations with people who live and work (or have lived and worked) in the place under consideration. And the resulting work produced is characterised by the company as ‘conversation rather than broadcast’. This perhaps allows us to distinguish work created by Talking Birds from what we might think of as a more

7  PRACTITIONER VOICES: SCOTLAND, ENGLAND AND WALES 

267

traditional theatre format of ‘presenting’ something for an audience’s edification—this work is more collaborative than that, and it cannot succeed without being ‘in suspension’ with its place and its audience. The dynamic is livelier: we ask the audience to be a part of the experience. We work hard to create the atmosphere and group feeling that we want, and we strive to offer them the right kind of welcome, ensuring that they—and we—are all alive to our own part in this temporary community of interest, to the new connections it enables, to the thoughts and questions it might generate, and the conversations with strangers which the experience might subsequently provoke or enable. James Yarker Artistic Director—Stan’s Cafe Theatre Company, Birmingham The Joy of Long-Term Relationships In 2012 we decided to try an experiment: What would it be like to be ‘artists in residence’ at a school? By this time we had spent ten years delivering more or less spectacular one-off projects in a succession of schools for the Arts Council England’s Creative Partnership initiative, which had just been axed. We were ready to settle down and to find out what would happen if we didn’t move on. Having now worked with one Primary School for more than seven years and two Secondary Schools for six and five years, respectively, we are pleased to report that we never want to work with a school on a one-off basis again. With one-off projects lots of energy goes into building mutual trust and understanding. It takes the conclusion of a successful project to consolidate that relationship, which means that each project ends just at the point you feel you could start doing better work. One joy of a long-term relationship is this ‘better work’ happens in the next project and the one after that and so on. By returning to a school again and again, building trust and understanding, teachers become more confident and ambitious. In our experience repeated engagement leads teachers who are initially sceptical of our approach to become enthusiastic and eventually start adopting these methods. By working alongside classroom teachers sharing our skills we have made ourselves redundant at that level and moved to more sophisticated interventions. In the Primary School, over the last two years we have moved from running projects in individual classrooms to initiating and supporting ambitious whole school creative projects shaped and delivered by teachers.

268 

M. CROSSLEY

Students also benefit from these long-term relationships. Members of our company become familiar around school, honorary members of staff. Students come to expect to work on Stan’s Cafe projects and are comfortable with our demands in this more creative and philosophical realm. On a more pragmatic note, repeat business with a few customers is much more reliable and less taxing than seeking endless ‘one off’ engagements. Schools interested in long-term relationships are schools that have a strategy for the arts and are more likely to support our work properly; we are less likely to be window dressing. Extended collaborations stop our relationships with schools feeling ‘transactional’. Although we are paid for the work we do, the schools know we are emotionally and professionally invested in the success. Our shared overriding goal is for students to have the best education possible, this allows us to share problems and challenges more openly, share embryonic and speculative ideas and develop work together in a more organic way. An example of this open, organic approach came when one of the secondary school heads emailed me late at night enquiring if I had an idea for what the school could be doing should a Government Minister show up to present them with their UN Rights Respecting School Award. Half an hour later I replied suggesting the whole school should sign up to the Articles and that their signatures should be in different coloured pens so as to make a big picture when displayed in the school’s reception. He liked the idea and by midnight we had agreed how it would work and what fee would be appropriate. The minister didn’t come but signing The Pledge is now established as a regular part of the Year 7 induction programme and used as an opportunity to learn about power of a signature. The whole project cost £500. If we hadn’t been ‘in residence’ the headteacher would probably never have thought about asking an artist to help and if they had, the small scale of the project and short turnaround time would have made tendering and selection impractical. Our long-term relationships mean schools trust us to take on whole school projects or sensitive interventions or granular level challenges that artists would never otherwise be invited to help with. Ultimately, Stan’s Cafe is a small core team of five and long-term relationships with schools allow us to feel part of a bigger team. The improving results of our Partner Schools are of enormous pride and satisfaction to us. When ‘our’ Primary School was judge by Ofsted to be outstanding in all areas I wept with joy for them all, remembering how it had been at

7  PRACTITIONER VOICES: SCOTLAND, ENGLAND AND WALES 

269

the start, all the work they’d put in and all the adventures we’d had together. James Yarker Artistic Director—Stan’s Cafe Theatre Company, Birmingham Experimentation in Contemporary Devising with Young People I have almost nothing to say about devising with young people, except everything I always say about devising with anyone else. Devising is just everyone in the room working collaboratively together to make the thing. We start with our collective experience, knowledge, personalities, skills and interests and with that we do what we can. Young people often bring different interests and experiences, so the content will be different but our approach remains consistent. Perhaps a more pertinent distinction is between amateurs and professionals. The young people we devise with aren’t being paid, so we are more conscious than we otherwise would be to ensure that the process is fun. We don’t shy away from putting in hard work, but maybe we’re less dogged or relentless than we would be in a professional context where it’s people’s job to be dogged and relentless. Similarly, these amateur devisers are often with us to learn and are usually less experienced than our professional teams. For these reasons we are more likely to spend more time exploring why something does or doesn’t work; we expose and explain the theatrical mechanics more. These young casts tend to be much bigger than any we can afford to work with professionally, so devising with young people allows us to be more lavish with our use of performers. This abundance of actors allows a greater chance for some of them to sit out, watch others performers at work, share their opinions and step back in, informed by what they have witnessed. This self-reflexive process helps young people to be confident in what they are performing, even if it is not like any theatre they’ve seen before. Devising allows young people to take on extremely challenging ideas and forms because their sense of ownership and understanding of the material is so strong. They are proud to be in something sophisticated that others find challenging. Once, a teacher, overhearing me being complimented for getting a young cast to perform in an extremely minimal fashion, countered: ‘that’s not difficult, once they realised it was cool to do so little your problem must have been getting them to do anything at all!’ She was right.

270 

M. CROSSLEY

Creative thinking, problem solving, critical thinking, collaborative working and resilience are all qualities schools aspire to develop in their students and they are the very bedrock of devising practice. So it makes sense to take devising into schools. The challenge is that schools—particularly secondary schools—are very structured environments and these structures aren’t built around a devising culture. A group of teachers, feeding back on a devising process we had completed with their students commented how shocked they were at the amount of time we spent in silence. For teachers under pressure to ‘keep lessons moving’, our genuine attempt to solve a problem alongside students by thinking, suggesting ideas, reflecting, rejecting and thinking again was hugely provocative. In our devising practice working within ‘formal constraints’ is a valid creative strategy. Hemmed in by bells and registers and rows of tables and chairs schools can sometimes feel like nothing but ‘formal constraints’— what an amazingly stimulating context in which to try and do anything that’s any good at all. It could be argued that we should demand a loosening of school structures to accommodate our methodologies, and in some contexts, schools do offer this, but we are pragmatists about the complex logistics of large schools and whilst we like what we do in schools to be thought of as ‘special’ we also aspire for it to be replicable when we’ve gone. It’s not just the students we want to learn devising skills, it’s teachers too.

Wales Catherine Bennett Movement Director—Volcano Theatre, Swansea Ordered Chaos I trained at Ballet Rambert and danced with, amongst others Wayne McGregor, Siobhan Davies and Fin Walker. I moved to Wales more than a decade ago and have been working for the last five years with children on different ways of structuring and presenting creative movement. During this time the various groups I have worked with have made approximately ten shows. One of these shows was called Ordered Chaos. It was performed three times. I made Ordered Chaos with children aged eight to ten. I made it with a will and passion to reveal the innate movement potential that all children

7  PRACTITIONER VOICES: SCOTLAND, ENGLAND AND WALES 

271

of this age possess. It was the first time that I had experimented with building up an effective performance environment within which each child could play and improvise in front of an audience. The children performed Ordered Chaos and had the freedom to make significant choices and never the same choice twice. The structure allowed each child to anticipate movement possibilities and they responded to this structure with intelligence and imagination. This was possible partly due to the piece being centred around the performance space and how they could work with it. A sensitivity and awareness of their embodied capability grew out of these interactions with the space and their empathetic interaction with each other. The children transformed movements by the very act of doing. The excitement and the possibilities of movement that revealed themselves were in the act of doing and not in the act of making. Many things happened which were very much better than I could have conceived. The piece revealed accidents but also design because within this chaos I selected which part of the accident we could choose to preserve. Once I had the chaos I could select the images but then let them come about by chance. To the children it was a game. We then had to deepen the game. I wanted their energy to come directly to the audience, into the nervous systems of those who were watching. My wish was for the children’s pure intuition and sometimes luck to take advantage of, and be present within, the ‘now’. I wanted each child to leave a trail of their human presence like a beautiful snail that reveals where it has been but not perhaps where it is going. The audience watched and got, little by little, closer to the child. What as a group did we mean by chaos? We meant for chaos to be a cocktail of instinct, skill and energy, where everything happened very quickly as a mixture of consciousness and unconsciousness. The role of order in this learnt structure was simply which section happened next. There were possibilities for enormously instinctive and accidental things to happen at any time. We performed precariousness. We developed a technique to perform for a particular situation within a particular performance space. We playfully learnt how to undo and re-do structure. We rewarded ourselves by having had an experience that was fuelled by pure visceral excitement. Paul Davies Artistic Director—Volcano Theatre, Swansea

272 

M. CROSSLEY

Children, Theatre and Radical Thought Marx’s claim that ‘the educator must himself be educated’ may have found a political response with the development of a disciplined cadre of fearless party activists but more generally the question still looms over how we educate the children of today and the teachers of tomorrow. In the digital age the power and influence of teachers may be overstated. It is true that the odd teacher might inspire (or ruin) us but chances are that a context of poverty or wealth and the web will provide a determining frame of reference for our lives. Perhaps we can reverse our relationship to the agony of education and ask what we can learn from children? How can their spontaneous relationship to play, improvisation and non-sense help us re-think the challenges we face? When did we last play without any sense of an end, outcome or impact? Did we ever do that? What is it about becoming an adult that seems to require an excess of order, rationality and good governance and, most importantly, an absence of fun? Is this enthusiasm for order and administrative rectitude all we hope to transmit to the generation that will follow us? As an Artistic Director of a theatre company and a parent, these thoughts have swirled around in my head for many years. In Wales we have a long tradition of theatre in education and much of it is very good. I began to think, however, that if Volcano were to work with young people it would not be a case of adult actors playing out the dramas that young people face, explicating their lives, coming to conclusions, offering reason in the face of the hell of today. Rather it would be young people performing for themselves and for us. I felt like I needed to take seriously the freedom that children could bring to a performance process. Naturally there were risks attached to this, there would be disorder, a lack of clarity and perhaps worse, complete failure. Not having anything to perform might, however, be preferable to an entirely pedagogical exercise in repetition. The radical possibility that children present is the invitation to restore a dimension of the real, authentic and simultaneously utopian, to our theatre practice. Our addiction to representation and narrative ensures much theatre remains—on the one hand—sterile and content to preside over the stewardship of cultural, usually, literary treasures and, on the other hand, the educator in chief of future generations. Theatre occupies this position with all the thoughtless, casual cruelty that Marx had identified the educators fulfilling in his 1845 Theses on Feuerbach. The solution is not, however, a re-codification of theatre along acceptable ‘Party’ lines—rather to

7  PRACTITIONER VOICES: SCOTLAND, ENGLAND AND WALES 

273

throw open our studio doors to the energy, chaos and love that children can bring. In so doing we may find new ways of being and society will no longer be ‘divided into two parts one of which is superior to the other’, and we might make some decent theatre too. (Both quotes from K. Marx Theses on Feuerbach—1845.) Timothy Howe Communities and Engagement Co-ordinator—Sherman Theatre, Cardiff Professional Values Within a Theatre for Children Context At the heart of Sherman Theatre’s output lies its work with young people. This is something I’m incredibly proud to be leading in my current role as Creative Engagement Manager. Our youth theatre, in particular, places a great emphasis on nurturing the development of the future of the arts sector. This is not just about the makers (Directors, Actors, Designers, Stage Managers and Technicians) but also about the backroom staff (Finance, Marketing, Front Of House, Box Office) and most importantly of all, the audiences of tomorrow. How do we achieve this? For me it is all about valuing the work and creating a symbiotic respect between the young people and the professionals within the building, thereby promoting professional values within the process and production. This begins by ensuring that all the work we do encourages them to see the whole creative process and the multitude of roles that involves. For instance, our National Theatre Connections group takes a guiding role in the creation of the project. I say guiding as we cannot expect young people to lead—they do not yet have the skills to do so—but they can point us in the direction that they want to go. For their production of The IT, by Vivienne Franzmann (in the 2019–2020 Connections cycle), the young people guided a whole range of production choices. We led sessions that allowed them to create a poster image (which was later shot and used as the marketing image—featuring them), using approaches familiar to any professional rehearsal room they undertook to mine the text for design choices from set and costume, right through to lighting and sound. One of most successful elements of this was also one of the simplest. We asked the young people to create a Spotify playlist of songs that they felt embodied the themes and emotional story of the production. They gathered 120 songs which the directorial team could then select from for transitions. Any that were not deemed suitable for this were then used as pre- and

274 

M. CROSSLEY

post-show music. The joy on the young people’s faces when their songs would come on in rehearsal room runs and technical rehearsals validated this part of the process for us all. Empowering them then to tell us the volume they wanted and which parts of the track were key to continuing their artistic involvement, with every adult involved from chaperone to Lighting Designer allowing for these moments, the professionals supporting the young people’s vision; respecting and valuing. The team of adults was there to serve their vision, and because we respected them they respected us, the process and ultimately increased their investment in their performances and production. Of course, it is somewhat easier to achieve these results across the disciplines when working in a leading producing house but it is about scale. The key thing for me is to empower young people to guide those creative choices. This is quite simply done through the encouraging of group discussions and really listening to what the young people have to say. It is all too easy to listen and ignore—not maliciously of course—but simply because time and budget do not flex enough to encompass all the decisions. So be honest about this. Make sure you can track back your final production choices for the children to understand why you have reached the decisions. The dialogue should remain open throughout. As theatre-­ makers and teaching artists this is something that we are really good at doing, but keep the ‘checking in’ present in all areas. ‘Are we happy with this?’, ‘Any thoughts on this moment?’, ‘I’m struggling to see where we are—does anyone in the group know?’, ‘What would you do?’ are some of my key questions when rehearsing. These questions should never stop, simply evolve at each stage of the rehearsal process, right into the technical rehearsal where young people can often feel like they no longer ‘own’ their work. Keep asking. Keep enquiring. Keep empowering. Ultimately this is my process of working and it may not work for all. But if we as professionals do not value and respect the work then how can we promote that in the young people we come into contact with, both as audiences and artistic contributors? Respect promotes a value, a value produces pride and pride produces respect—for life. We can but hope. Sarah Argent Freelance Theatre-Maker and Associate Artist with Theatr Iolo, Cardiff and Kevin Lewis Freelance Theatre-Maker and Formerly Artistic Director Theatr Iolo, Cardiff

7  PRACTITIONER VOICES: SCOTLAND, ENGLAND AND WALES 

275

International Influences We are passionate in our belief that theatre at its best can transcend national and cultural boundaries and communicate to human beings wherever they are gathered, with children’s and young people’s lives being enriched by exposure to the best of world theatre. Since the early 1990s we have both been involved with ASSITEJ (Association Internationale du Théâtre pour l’Enfance et la Jeunesse) the International Association of Theatre for Children and Young People: Sarah was the first full-time Director of the British Centre of ASSITEJ from 1991 to 1997 and is an Honorary Life Member; Kevin has been an active member as well as joining the board for a number of years. In the first decade of our involvement, through attending ASSITEJ festivals in various parts of the world—Cuba, Quebec, Norway, Russia— we both became conscious of belonging to a worldwide family of artists, producers, programmers and academics who all had one thing in common: they were united in their passion for ensuring that children and young people, whatever their circumstances, received a diet of high-­quality theatre made especially for them. These invaluable theatre experiences could help young audiences make sense of and celebrate the world they found themselves living in. At that time, although not exclusively so, the home-grown work tended towards naturalism, so it was interesting when we saw work from overseas (particularly mainland Europe) which was overtly theatrical, exploring elements of the surreal and the poetic. Much of the British work placed the child or young person firmly at the centre, but this often took the form of a child or young protagonist with whom the audience could identify; on the continent, productions often explored other points of identification. Non-verbal work also seemed to feature more, as well as work for very young pre-school children—even babies. Whether or not it was classified as theatre in education (TIE), much British work had an educative slant, while the majority of artists in countries such as Denmark and Belgium regarded their role as being simply to expose young audiences to artistic experiences. We were both hugely excited, inspired and influenced by much of the work made by our overseas counterparts. We learned a great deal from the seminars, symposiums, workshops and masterclasses in which we participated—and from animated discussions late into the night with many colleagues who have become life-long friends, often fuelled by a glass or two

276 

M. CROSSLEY

of some kind of alcoholic beverage! All of these influences impacted our practice. Sarah began to lead the creation of the Theatre Iolo’s productions for very young children and these were informed by the aesthetic, the pedagogy, the creative practices of the work she had seen and the companies she had met; maybe this internationalist outlook is what resulted in this work which was created in Wales being invited to international festivals in the UK and in Finland, Belgium, Austria, the Czech Republic, Australia and South Korea. Kevin directed a number of European plays in translation and presented them to audiences in schools in Wales and one of these, The Flock/ Pigebanden by Jesper Wamsler, was translated into English by Sarah who had learnt Danish when she was an au pair in Copenhagen in the early 1990s. Theatr Iolo developed a relationship with Consol Theater in Germany, co-commissioning the writer Charles Way and working together in Germany and in Wales to R&D scripts and production concepts, before mounting separate productions of his work. Imaginate’s annual festival in Edinburgh (now known as the Edinburgh International Children’s Festival) became a watch-word for programming ground-breaking international work and had a huge influence on UK theatre-­makers and programmers. We were, therefore, honoured that two of Sarah’s devised early years’ productions Are We There Yet? and Under the Carpet and Kevin’s production of Bison and Sons by Pauline Mol (translated by Rina Vergano), were invited to perform there, alongside work by some of the artists who had been major influences on both of us. Together, in more recent times and further afield we have worked with ThinkArts in Kolkata, India and, based on Sarah’s research into and productions for audience ages between six and eighteen months, developed theatre productions for babies with three Indian artists, work which is still touring in Kolkata, Mumbai and Delhi. In 2019, we returned to work with ThinkArts associate artists to devise and develop a stage adaptation of Deepa Balsaver’s picture book The Lonely King and Queen which toured to venues across West Bengal. Being part of ASSITEJ and being exposed to international influences and practices has had a huge impact on the theatre we have made for children and young people. It has made the work richer, more diverse and fundamentally more interesting. Many elements of childhood are the same across the globe even if the context is different: growing up, friendship, family, the power of story to make sense of and also to celebrate the world.

Bibliography

“A Culture Strategy for Scotland”. 2020. Scottish Government. https://www. gov.scot/publications/culture-­strategy-­scotland/. “A Manifesto for Children’s Arts | Action for Children’s Arts”. 2020. https:// www.childrensarts.org.uk/what-­we-­do/manifesto/. “A Policy for the Arts: The First Steps”. 1965. House of Commons. “Acting Up Report”. 2017. Labour’s Inquiry Into Access and Diversity in the Performing Arts. Labour Party publications. https://diversityuk.org/wp-­ content/uploads/2017/08/Acting-­Up-­Executive-­Summary.pdf. Adams, David. 1996. Stage Welsh: Nation, Nationalism and Theatre: The Search for Cultural Identity. Gwasg Gomer. ———. 2002. Welsh Drama—Drama Online. Drama Online. www.dramaonlinelibrary.com›genres›welsh-­drama. Accessed 6 May 2020. Adams, Charles N. 2013. TIE and Critical Pedagogy. In Learning Through Theatre: The Changing Face of Theatre in Education, ed. Anthony Jackson and Chris Vine, 287–304. Abingdon: Routledge. Allen, Richard. 2016. The Theatricality of Objects: Object Theatre Beyond the Puppet. Tidsskrift for Figurteater 1: 34. Alston, A. 2016. Beyond Immersive Theatre: Aesthetics, Politics and Productive Participation. Palgrave Macmillan. “An Introduction to Creative Learning”. 2020. Arts Council of Wales. https:// arts.wales/creative-­learning/about-­creative-­learning/lead-­creative-­schoolsscheme.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Crossley, Contemporary Theatre Education and Creative Learning, Palgrave Studies In Play, Performance, Learning, and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63738-5

277

278 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Benedict. 2016. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso Books. Argent, Sarah. 2007. Words in the Woods: A Report on an Early Years’ Project by Sarah Argent. Theatr Iolo. Arnold, Matthew. 1932. Culture and Anarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. “Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation”. 2020. https://citizenshandbook. org/arnsteinsladder.html. “Arts Council England’s New 10 Year Strategy ‘Let’s Create’ Is Published”. 2020. https://culturallearningalliance.org.uk/arts-­council-­englands-­new-­10-­year­strategy-­lets-­create-­is-­published/. Asian Dub Foundation. 2000. Real Great Britain. https://www.discogs.com/ Asian-­Dub-­Foundation-­Real-­Great-­Britain/master/77571. Atkins, Judi. 2016. (Re)imagining Magna Carta: Myth, Metaphor and the Rhetoric of Britishness. Parliamentary Affairs 69 (3): 603–620. https://doi. org/10.1093/pa/gsv057. Aughey, Arthur. 2007. The Politics of Englishness. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Ball, S. 2013. Regional Learning Theatres as Resources. In Learning Through Theatre: The Changing Face of Theatre in Education, Anthony Jackson and Chris Vine, 155–166. Abingdon: Routledge. Ballin, Ben. 2019. Engaging, Exploring, Expressing the Case for Theatre in Education. Big Brum Theatre. Barlow, Will. 2013. Drama Education. In Scottish Education Fourth Edition: Referendum, ed. T.G.K.  Bryce et  al., 549–554. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Beadle-Brown, J., David Wilkinson, and Lisa Richardson. 2017. Imagining Autism: Feasibility of a Drama-based Intervention on the Social, Communicative and Imaginative Behaviour of Children with Autism. Autism 22 (8): 915–927. “Beastly Ongoings Promotional Material”. 2019. Catherine Bennett and Clare Hobson/Volcano Theatre. “Belgrade Launches Inspiring Curiosity Celebrating 50 Years of Tie”. 2020. http://secure.belgrade.co.uk/news-­and-­blogs/news-­list/belgrade-­launches-­ inspiring-­curiosity-­celebrating/. Bell, Charlotte. 2016. Seeing Like a Classroom: Theatre and Performance in Education. Studies in Theatre & Performance 36 (2): 145–158. https://doi. org/10.1080/14682761.2016.1149931. Bennett, Stuart, ed. 2005. Theatre for Children and Young People: 50 Years of Professional Theatre in the UK. ASSITEJ Aurora Metro Publications Ltd. Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge. Billig, Michael. 1995. Banal Nationalism. SAGE Publications.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

279

Billington, Michael. 2010. A Good Night out in the Valleys—National Theatre Wales. https://www.nationaltheatrewales.org/ntw_shows/good-­night-­valleys/. Birds, Talking. 2020. Theatre of Place. Talking Birds. https://www.talkingbirds. co.uk/pages/theatreofplace.asp. Black, Jack, and Stuart Whigham. 2017. ‘Team GB’ or ‘Team Scotland’? Media Representations of ‘Britishness’ and ‘Scottishness’ at London 2012 and Glasgow 2014. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917736002. “Blair’s Speech on the Arts in Full”. 2007. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/mar/06/politicsandthearts.uk1. Blishen, Edward. 1969. The School That I’d Like. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Boden, Margaret A. 1994. Dimensions of Creativity. Cambridge: MIT Press. Bradbury, Jonathan, and Andrews Rhys. 2010. State Devolution and National Identity: Continuity and Change in the Politics of Welshness and Britishness in Wales. Parliamentary Affairs 63 (2): 229–249. Brown, A. S., Novak-Leonard, J. L., and Gilbride, S. 2011. Getting in on the Act: How Arts Groups are Creating Opportunities for Active Participation. San Francisco, CA: The James Irvine Foundation. Brown, Ian. 2013. Scottish Theatre: Diversity, Language, Continuity. BRILL. Butterworth, Jez. 2011. Jerusalem—Show Trailer—Apollo Theatre. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=up3M7WOPsg4. Campbell, Tom. 2017. Cool Britannia Symbolised Hope—But All It Delivered Was a Culture of Inequality. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/inequality/commentisfree/2017/jul/05/cool-­b ritannia-­i nequality-­t ony-­b lairarts-­industry. “Case for Change | Arts Council England”. 2020. https://www.artscouncil.org. uk/case-­change. “Case Studies”. 2020. https://www.cityclassroom.org/case-­studies/121204. “Changing Lives: The Social Impact of Participation in Culture and Sport— Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee—House of Commons”. 2019. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/734/73406.htm#_idTextAnchor024. “Children Being Failed by Progressive Teaching, Say Tories”. 2008. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2008/may/09/schools.uk. “Children in Scotland Manifesto for the Next UK Government”. 2019. Children in Scotland. https://childreninscotland.org.uk/news/ Clapp, Susannah. 2019. All Change! Meet the New Artistic Directors Shaking up British Theatre. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2019/ jun/23/artistic-­directors-­shaking-­up-­british-­theatre-­lynette-­linton-­suba-­das-­ tarek-­iskander. Clarke, Simon, and Steve Garner. 2010. White Identities: A Critical Sociological Approach. Pluto Press.

280 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Clear Red Water”. 2002. https://www.sochealth.co.uk/the-socialist-health-association/sha-country-and-branch-organisation/sha-wales/clear-red-water/. Clemo HR, Keniston LP, and Meredith MA. 2012. Structural Basis of Multisensory Processing: Convergence. In The Neural Bases of Multisensory Processes, ed. Murray MM and Wallace MT. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press/ Taylor & Francis. Cohen, Anthony P. 1996. Personal Nationalism: A Scottish View of Some Rites, Rights, and Wrongs. American Ethnologist 23 (4): 802–815. Cole, Jill. 2020. ‘Overambitious’ About Placemaking? We’ve Only Just Started. https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/magazine/article/overambitious-­about-­ placemaking-­weve-­only-­just-­started. Conquergood, Dwight. 2004. Performance Studies Interventions and Radical Research. The Drama Review 46 (2(T174)): 145–156. Cooper, Chris. 2013. THE IMAGINATION IN ACTION: TIE and Its Relationship to Drama in Education Today. In Learning Through Theatre: The Changing Face of Theatre in Education, ed. Anthony Jackson and Chris Vine, 41–59. Abingdon: Routledge. “Creating an Innovative Curriculum Using the Expressive Arts | Esty”. 2017. https://www.estyn.gov.wales/effective-­p ractice/creating-­i nnovative-­ curriculum-­using-­expressive-­arts. “Creative Courage for Life Is Important | Stagecoach Performing Arts”. 2020. https://www.stagecoach.co.uk/Blog/blog/December-­2 018-­. 2./ Why-­Creative-­Courage-­For-­Life-­Is-­So-­Important. “Creative Learning Review”. 2017. Creative Scotland. https://www.creativescotland.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/38832/Creative-­Learning-­Review_ FINAL.pdf. “Creative Learning Symposium Report”. 2018. London Theatre Consortium. “Creative Learning Through the Arts Action Plan”. 2015. Arts Council of Wales. https://arts.wales/resources/creative-­learning-­through-­arts-­action-­plan-­for­wales-­2015-­20. “Creative Learning Through the Arts Project Case Study: Lead Creative Schools. Mountain Ash Comprehensive School”. 2019. Arts Council of Wales. “Creative Learning Through the Arts—Project Case Study: Bryn Primary School [Lead Creative Schools]”. 2016. Arts Council of Wales. “Creative People and Places. CPP.  Thematic Research ‘WHAT IT DOES TO YOU’ Excellence in CPP”. 2016. Consilium Research and Consultancy. https://www.creativepeopleplaces.org.uk/sites/default/files/What%20it%20 Does%20to%20You%20-­%20Excellence%20in%20CPP_0.pdf. “Creativity Across Learning”. 2013. Education Scotland. https://education.gov. scot/improvement/Documents/cre39-­impact-­report.pdf. Cresswell, T. 2014. Place: A Short Introduction. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

281

Crossley, M., ed. 2019. Intermedial Theatre: Principles and Practice. Red Globe Press. ———. 2020. A Recalibration of Theatre’s Hypermediality. In Beyond Media Borders, Volume 1 : Intermedial Relations among Multimodal Media, ed. L. Ellestrom. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Crossley, Mark, and James Yarker. 2017. Devising Theatre with Stan’s Cafe. London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama. Crouch, Tim. 2015. John, Antonio and Nancy. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10486801.2015.1020722. “Cultural Democracy in Practice”. 2018. 64 Million Artists with Arts Council England. Arts Council England. “Cultural Education: A Summary of Programmes and Opportunities”. 2013. Department for Education. “Culture at Kings: Step by Step: Arts Policy and Young People 1944–2014”. 2014. Kings College London. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/cultural/resources/ reports/step-­by-­step.pdf. “Culture White Paper”. 2016. Department for Culture, Media and Sport. “Curriculum for Excellence: Expressive Arts”. 2020. Education Scotland. https:// education.gov.scot/education-­scotland/scottish-­education-­system/policy-­for-­ scottish-­education/policy-­drivers/cfe-­building-­from-­the-­statement-­appendix-­ incl-­btc1-­5/curriculum-­areas/expressive-­arts/. Czikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Collins. Dale, Georgia. 2019. Young Vic. https://www.youngvic.org/taking-­part/learning. Davis, David, et al. 2014. Imagining the Real: Towards a New Theory of Drama in Education. Institute of Education Press. Deans, David. 2015. The State of the Welsh Language: Number of People Speaking Welsh Fluently Falls by 7,000 Over the Last Decade. http://www.walesonline. co.uk/news/wales-­news/state-­welsh-­language-­number-­people-­8538272. Denham, John. 2018. A Nation Divided? The Identities, Politics and Governance of England. Open Democracy. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/nation-­divided-­identities-­politics-­and-­governance-­of-­england/. Dickson, Andrew. 2011. Has Welsh Theatre Found Its Voice?. http://www.theguardian.com/stage/theatreblog/2011/sep/01/welsh-­t heatre-­t heatr­genedlaethol-­cymru. Dodd, Philip, and Robert Colls. 1986. Englishness: Politics and Culture, 1880–1920. London: Croom Helm. Dombroski, Robert S. 1986. On Gramsci’s Theater Criticism. Boundary 2 14 (3): 91–119. Duke University Press. Donaldson, Graham. 2015. Successful Futures: Looking at the Curriculum and Assessment Arrangements in Wales. https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/ publications/2018-­03/successful-­futures.pdf.

282 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Drama, Theatre and Young People Manifesto”. 2020. https://dramatheatremanifesto.co.uk/. Duggan, Patrick, Victor Ukaegbu, Holly Rose, Geoffrey Fielding, Jessica Mitchell, and Tim Elameer. 2013. Reverberations Across Small-Scale British Theatre: Politics, Aesthetics and Forms. Bristol: Intellect Books. “Durham Commission on Creativity and Education”. 2019. Durham University. https://www.dur.ac.uk/creativitycommission/. “Dwy Stori, Un Llwyfan. Two Stories, One Stage”. 2019. Theatr Genedlaethol Cymru. http://theatr.cymru/dwy-­stori-­un-­llwyfan/?lang=en. “Early Learning and Childcare. Elc. | Scottish Education System | Education Scotland”. 2020. https://education.gov.scot/education-­scotland/scottish-­ education-­system/early-­learning-­and-­childcare-­elc/. Edensor, Tim. 2002. National Identity, Popular Culture and Everyday Life. Oxford: Berg. “Education Inspection Framework 2019: Inspecting the Substance of Education”. 2020. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/education-­inspection­framework-­2019-­inspecting-­the-­substance-­of-­education/education-­inspection­framework-­2019-­inspecting-­the-­substance-­of-­education. “Education Secretary: Want to Keep Your Options Open? Then Do Science”. 2014. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-­news/ education-­secretary-­nicky-­morgan-­tells-­teenagers-­if-­you-­want-­a-­job-­drop-­ humanities-­9852316.html. Edwards, Emyr. 1959. Towards Welsh Theatre. Wales 41: 43–48. Welsh Journals—The National Library of Wales. https://journals.library.wales/ view/1214989/1218069/46. Ehsan, Rakib. 2020. A Very British Culture War. Spiked. https://www.spiked-­ online.com/2020/02/06/a-­very-­british-­culture-­war/. Elkin, Susan. 2015. Theatre in Education Marks Its Legacy at 50. London: The Stage, September 22. https://www.thestage.co.uk/features/the-­archive­theatre-­in-­education-­marks-­its-­legacy-­at-­50. Elleström, L. 2014. Media Transformation : The Transfer of Media Characteristics Among Media. Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan. Elsom, J. 1979. Post War British Theatre. London, Routledge. “England Reviews”. 2020. http://www.timcrouchtheatre.co.uk/shows-­2/england/reviews. “Enriching Britain: Culture, Creativity and Growth—Warwick Commission: The Future of Cultural Value”. 2015. Warwick Commission/University of Warwick. https://warwick.ac.uk/research/warwickcommission/futureculture/finalreport/warwick_commission_report_2015.pdf. Essex, Ruth, and Chris Coppock. 2020. Thinking Beyond the Snowline Ideas, People and Places...Transcending the Mainstream. https://arts.wales/sites/default/ files/202002/Thinking%20Beyond%20the%20Snowline.pdf.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

283

Featherstone, Simon. 2009. Englishness: Twentieth-Century Popular Culture and the Forming of English Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Fisher, Mark. 2020. Theatre Scotland: Scottish Theatre. https://www.theatrescotland.com/Scottish-­theatre-­writing/Articles/Scottish-­theatre.html. Fitzgibbon, Emelie, Cecily O’Neill, and Nancy Swortzell. 2012. In Theatre for Change: Education, Social Action and Therapy, ed. Robert Landy and David T. Montgomery, 87–89. Macmillan International Higher Education. “For Younger Audiences—Akram Khan Company”. 2019. https://www.akramkhancompany.net/2019/10/14/for-­younger-­audiences/. “Foundation Phase—Welsh Curriculum”. 2020. https://earlyyears.wales/our-­ work/foundation-­phase/. “Frãn Wen announce New Artistic Director | Arts Council of Wales”. 2020. https:// arts.wales/news-­jobs-­opportunities/fran-­wen-­announce-­new-­artistic-­director. Fraser, N. 1992. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. In Postmodernism and the Re-reading of Modernity, ed. F. Barker, P. Hulme, and M. Iverson. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Freshwater, Helen. 2013. Children and the Limits of Representation in the Work of Tim Crouch. In Contemporary British Theatre: Breaking New Ground, ed. Vicky Angelaki, 167–188. Furedi, Frank. 2020. The Birth of the Culture Wars. Spiked. https://www.spiked-­ online.com/2020/06/19/the-­birth-­of-­the-­culture-­wars/. “Further Stages Student Handbook”. 2019. Stagecoach. Gamal, Mostafa, and Dalene M.  Swanson. 2017. Nation State, Populism, and Discourses of Global Citizenship: Examples from Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence. In The Implications of ‘New Populism’ on Education, ed. Yaliz Akbaba and Bob Jeffrey. Stroud: E&E Publishing. Gardner, Lyn. 2002. The Quality of Children’s Theatre: After the Birmingham Seminar. Birmingham: Arts Council of England. ———. 2006. Blue—Oily Cart Review. In Oily Cart: All Sorts of Theatre for All Sorts of Kids. 2012, ed. Mark Brown. Trentham Books Ltd. ———. 2009. Review For the Best: Mark Storor. https://www.theguardian. com/stage/2010/nov/15/for-­the-­best-­mark-­storor-­interview. ———. 2015. Jennie Lee’s Vision for the Arts Is as Relevant Today as It Was 50 Years Ago. February 23. http://www.theguardian.com/stage/theatreblog/2015/feb/23/jennie-­lee-­policy-­arts-­white-­paper-­funding. Garner, Richard. 2014. What Is ‘the Blob’ and Why Is Michael Gove Comparing His Enemies to An. The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ education/education-­n ews/what-­i s-­t he-­b lob-­a nd-­w hy-­i s-­m ichael-­g ove-­ comparing-­his-­enemies-­to-­an-­unbeatable-­sci-­fi-­mound-­of-­goo-­9115600.html. Geliot, Emma, and Cathy Gomez. 2016. What Gives Theatre in Wales Its Radical Edge? British Council. https://theatreanddance.britishcouncil.org/ blog/2016/09/what-­gives-­theatre-­in-­wales-­its-­radical-­edge/.

284 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Georgi, Claudia. 2014. Liveness on Stage: Intermedial Challenges in Contemporary British Theatre and Performance. CDE Studies. Berlin: De Gruyter. “Get It: The Power of Cultural Learning”. 2009. Culture and Learning Consortium. Gibb, Nick. 2020. Nick Gibb: The Importance of High-Quality Arts Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/nick-­gibb-­the-­importance-­ofhigh-­quality-­arts-­education. Goldfinger, Evelyn. 2010. Theatre for babies: A New Kind of Theatre? In Key Concepts in Theatre/Drama Education, ed. Shifra Schonmann, 295–300. Sense Publishers. Gonzalez, Jo Beth. 2018. Towards Recognition and Regard: Creating Connectivity in Theatre Education Through Intentional Wakefulness. Youth Theatre Journal 32 (1): 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/08929092.2018.1445051. http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=ibh& AN=129234506&site=ehost-­live. Gove, Michael. 2008. Speech to delegates. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2008/may/09/schools.uk. Gramsci, Antonio. 1917. In Gramsci, Culture and Anthropology, ed. Kate Crehan, 73. Pluto Press. Gray, John. 2007. Review: The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/sep/15/politics. “Great Art and Culture for Everyone: 10-Year Strategic Framework 2010–2020”. 2013. Arts Council England. “Guide to Scottish Qualifications”. 2019. SQA. https://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa// files_ccc/Guide_to_Scottish_Qualifications.pdf. Hadley, Steven, and Eleonora Belfiore. 2018. Cultural Democracy and Cultural Policy. Cultural Trends 27 (3): 218–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954896 3.2018.1474009. Harris, John. 2014. England’s Identity Crisis: What Does It Mean to Be English?. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-­news/2014/may/20/ england-­identity-­crisis-­english-­euro-­scottish-­elections-­ukip-­patriotism. Hart, Roger. 1997. Children’s Participation: The Theory And Practice Of Involving Young Citizens In Community Development and Environmental Care. UNICEF. Haythornthwaite, Rick. 2019. Response to Secretary of State from Creative Industries Federation. https://www.creativeindustriesfederation.com/news/ open-­l etter-­s ecretar y-­s tate-­e ducation-­g avin-­w illiamson-­m p-­v alue-­ creative-­education. Haywood, Paul. 2017. Ideas, People and Places: “Reflections on a Journey of New Beginnings”. https://arts.wales/sites/default/files/2019-­11/Paul%20 Haywood%20-­English.pdf. Hearn, Jonathan. 2007. National Identity: Banal, Personal and Embedded. Nations and Nationalism 13 (4): 657–674. https://doi-­org.proxy.library. dmu.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1469-­8129.2007.00303.x.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

285

Hearn, Jonathan, and Marco Antonsich. 2018. Theoretical and Methodological Considerations for the Study of Banal and Everyday Nationalism. Nations & Nationalism 24 (3): 594–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12419. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db= aph&AN=131189551&site=ehost-­live. Hebb, Diane. 2019. New Curriculum for Wales Welcomed by Arts Council of Wales. https://arts.wales/news-­jobs-­opportunities/new-­curriculum-­for-­wales­welcomed-­arts-­council-­wales. Heddon, Deirdre, and Jane Milling. 2016. Devising Performance: a critical history. Palgrave Macmillan. Heim, Caroline. 2012. ‘Argue with Us!’: Audience Co-Creation Through Post-­ Performance Discussions. New Theatre Quarterly 28 (2): 189–197. Henley, Darren. 2012. Cultural Education in England. Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Hirsch, E.D. Jr. 2016. How Cultural Literacy Makes Us All Insiders | Arts Council England. November 4. https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/publication/createe-d-hirsch-jr-how-cultural-literacy-makes-us-all-insiders. Hitt, Carolyn. 2014. Why Welshness Is a State of Being, Not a Question of DNA. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/news-­opinion/welshness-­stat-­ being-­not-­question-­7840092. Accessed 12 July 2019. Holdsworth, Nadine. 2003. Travelling Across Borders: Re-Imagining the Nation and Nationalism in Contemporary Scottish Theatre. Contemporary Theatre Review 13 (2): 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/920087167. ———. 2010. Theatre and Nation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ———. 2014. Theatre and National Identity: Re-Imagining Conceptions of Nation. London: Routledge. Holdsworth, Nadine, and Mary Luckhurst, eds. 2013. A Concise Companion to Contemporary British and Irish Drama. Blackwell. Hopkins, Eirwen. 2005. Theatre for Young People in Wales. In Theatre for Children and Young People: 50 Years of Professional Theatre in the UK, ed. Stuart Bennett, 29–31. ASSITEJ Aurora Metro Publications Ltd. “How Good Is Our School?. Fourth Edition.—Hgios 4 | Self-Evaluation | National Improvement Hub”. 2020. https://education.gov.scot/improvement/self-­ evaluation/HGIOS4. Hutchison, David. 2011. The Experience and Contexts of Drama in Scotland. In Edinburgh Companion to Scottish Drama, ed. Ian Brown, 200–210. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. “Ideas People Places | Arts Council of Wales”. 2020. https://arts.wales/our-­ impact/how-­we-­reach-­wider-­audiences/ideas-­people-­places. “Imaginate: Strategic Plan: 2018–2021”. 2018. Imaginate Scotland. “ImagineNation: The Value of Cultural Learning”. 2017. Cultural Learning Alliance. https://culturallearningalliance.org.uk/about-­us/imaginenation-­thevalue-­of-­cultural-­learning/.

286 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Intergenerational | Leeds Playhouse”. 2020. https://leedsplayhouse.org.uk/ creative-­engagement/older-­people/intergenerational/. Iqbal, Jafar. 2018. Theatre | Mags. Cwmni Pluen. Wales Arts Review. https:// www.walesartsreview.org/theatre-­mags/. Isaac, David. 2019. Identity Politics Is Dividing Britons, Warns Equality Commission Chief. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/25/identity-­politics-­dividing-­britons-­says-­equality-­chief. Jackson, Anthony, and Chris Vine, eds. 2013. Learning Through Theatre: The Changing Face of Theatre in Education. Abingdon: Routledge. Jaisiah, R. 2015. Video Interview Somewhere to Belong. Available from: https://secure. belgrade.co.uk/news-and-blogs/blogs/spotlight-on-asian-youththeatre/. Jones, Gareth Elwyn, and Gordon Wynne Roderick. 2003. A History of Education in Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Kattenbelt C. 2008. Intermediality in Theatre and Performance: Definitions, Perceptions and Medial Relationships. Culture, Language and Representation, Cultural Studies Journal Of Universitat Jaume, VI:I. pp. 19–29. Kelly, Owen. 1985. In Search of Cultural Democracy. Arts Express. Kempe, Andy. 2010. Drama and the Education of Young People with Special Needs. In Key Concepts in Theatre/Drama Education, ed. Shifra Schonmann, 165–170. Sense Publishers. ———. 2012. Drama, Disability and Education: A Critical Exploration for Students and Practitioners. London: Routledge. Kershaw, B. 1999. The Radical in Performance: Between Brecht and Baudrillard. London, Routledge. Kershaw, Baz, ed. 2004. The Cambridge History of British Theatre Volume 3 Since 1895. Cambridge University Press. Kiely, Richard, Frank Bechhofer, Robert Stewart, and David McCrone. 2020. The Markers and Rules of Scottish National Identity. The Sociological Review 49 (1): 33–55. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-­954X.00243. Lavender, Andy. 2016. Performance in the Twenty-First Century: Theatres of Engagement. Abingdon: Routledge. Lazarus, Joan. 2015. On the Verge of Change: New Directions in Secondary Theatre Education. Applied Theatre Research 3 (2): 149–161. https://doi. org/10.1386/atr.3.2.149_1. Leadbeater, Charles. 2009. The Art of With. https://charlesleadbeater. net/2009/04/the-­art-­of-­with/. “Leader: The Break-Up of Britain”. 2017. The New Statesman. https://www. newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/leader-­break-­britain. “Let’s Celebrate! Creative Learning Through the Arts”. 2019. Arts Council of Wales. “Let’s Create. Our Strategy 2020–2030”. 2020. Arts Council England. https:// www.artscouncil.org.uk/letscreate.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

287

Lewis, Lisa. 2018. Performing Wales: People, Memory and Place. Cardiff: The University of Wales Press. Little, E. 2008. Towards a Poetics of Popular Theatre: Directing and Authorship in Community-Based Work. In Collective Creation, Collaboration and Devising, ed. B. Barton. Toronto: Playwrights Canada Press. Lucas, Bill. 2016. A Five Dimensional Model of Creativity and its Assessment in Schools. Applied Measurement In Education 29 (4): 278–290. https://doi. org/10.1080/08957347.2016.1209206. Machon, Josephine. 2013. Immersive Theatres: Intimacy and Immediacy in Contemporary Performance. Palgrave Macmillan. Mansell, Warwick. 2019. Ofsted Plan to Inspect ‘Cultural Capital’ in Schools Attacked as Elitist. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/sep/03/ ofsted-­plan-­inspect-­cultural-­capital-­schools-­attacked-­as-­elitist. McCrae, Julian. 2020. No, Britain Isn’t in the Middle of a Culture War—And Our Discussions with Voters Proved It. https://www.prospectmagazine. co.uk/politics/no-­britain-­isnt-­in-­the-­middle-­of-­a-­culture-­war-­and-­our-­focus-­ groups-­prove-­it. McCrone, David. 2005. Cultural Capital in an Understated Nation: The Case of Scotland. The British Journal of Sociology 56 (1): 65–82. https://onlinelibrary-­ wiley-­com.proxy.library.dmu.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-­4446.2005. 00047.x. ———. 2012. Scotland Out the Union? The Rise and Rise of the Nationalist Agenda. The Political Quarterly 83 (1): 69–76. https://onlinelibrary-­wiley-­ com.proxy.library.dmu.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-­923X.2012.02262.x. McGregor, J. 2002. If Nobody Speaks of remarkable Things. Bloomsbury. McKinnon, James. 2011. Creative Copying?: The Pedagogy of Adaptation. Canadian Theatre Review 147: 55–60. https://doi.org/10.3138/ctr.147.55. McMillan, J. 2018. The Scotsman. Creative Scotland’s decision to axe funding defies logic. 5th February 2018. McNaughton, Marie-Jean. 2013. Expressive Arts Education. In Scottish Education—Fourth Edition Referendum, ed. T.G.K.  Bryce et  al., 476–481. Edinburgh University Press. Moylett, Helen. 2020. Guest Blog from Helen Moylett. Thinking on Cultural Capital—Some Concerns and Questions | Early Education. https://www. early-­education.org.uk/news/guest-­blog-­helen-­moylett-­ofsted%E2%80%99s-­ thinking-­cultural-­capital-­some-­concerns-­and-­questions. Nairn, Tom. 1977. The Break Up of Britain. London: New Left Books. Nairn, Tom, and Paul James. 2005. Global Matrix: Nationalism, Globalism and State-Terrorism. Pluto Press. NASUWT. 2017. Creativity and the Arts in the Curriculum A Report of Policies and Practices in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. NASUWT.

288 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“National Curriculum in England: Citizenship Programmes of Study”. 2020. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-­curriculum-­in-­england­citizenship-­programmes-­of-­study. “National Identity in the Context of the National Curricula of Scotland and England”. 2014. https://nationalismstudies.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/ national-­i dentity-­i n-­t he-­c ontext-­o f-­t he-­n ational-­c urricula-­o f-­s cotland-­ and-­england/. Nicholson, Helen. 2009. Theatre and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ———. 2011. Theatre, Education and Performance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ———. 2014. Applied Drama—The Gift of Theatre. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. “Number of Island Gaelic Speakers ‘Plummeting’”. 2019. The Scotsman. https:// www.scotsman.com/heritage-­and-­retro/heritage/number-­island-­gaelic-­speakers­plummeting-­1404750. “Off the Grid”. 2018. Half Moon Theatre Programme. Ofsted. 2006. Towards Consensus? Citizenship in Secondary Schools. London: Ofsted/HMI 2666. Ogden, Gill. 1997. History of Theatre in Education in Wales 1979–1997. In Staging Wales: Welsh Theatre 1979–1997, ed. Anne-Marie Taylor, 47–60. Cardiff: The University of Wales Press. “On the Scent—A Work by Curious Performance”. 2020. https://www.curiousperformance.com/works/on-­the-­scent/. “Our Inspection Frameworks | Standards and Evaluation Framework | Inspection and Review | What We Do | Education Scotland”. 2020. Education Scotland. https:// education.gov.scot/education-­scotland/what-­we-­do/inspection-­and-­review/ standards-­and-­evaluation-­framework/05-­our-­inspection-­frameworks/. Pammenter, David. 2013. Theatre as Education and a Resource of Hope: Reflections on the Devising of Participatory Theatre. In Learning Through Theatre: The Changing Face of Theatre in Education, ed. Anthony Jackson and Chris Vine, 83–102. Abingdon: Routledge. “Panic! Social Class, Taste and Inequalities in the Creative Industries”. 2018. Universities of Sheffield and Edinburgh and Create. Parkinson, A. et al. 2019. Value of Arts and Culture in Place-shaping. Wavehill Social and Economic Research. Available from: https://www.artscouncil.org. uk/sites/default/files/download-file/Value%20of%20Arts%20and%20 Culture%20in%20Place-Shaping.pdf “Patterns in GCSE and A Level entries 2010 to 2018”. 2018. Cultural Learning Alliance. https://culturallearningalliance.org.uk/further-­drop-­in-­arts-­gcse-­and­a-­level-­entries-­for-­2019/. Pearce, Mike. 2013. Roy Williams. In MODERN BRITISH PLAYWRITING: 2000–2009 Voices, Documents, New Interpretations, ed. Dan Rebellato, 145–168. London: Bloomsbury.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

289

Pearson, Mike. 1997. Special Worlds, Secret Maps: A Poetics of Performance. In Staging Wales: Welsh Theatre 1979–1997, ed. Anne-Marie Taylor, 85–99. Cardiff: The University of Wales Press. “People, Culture, Place: The Role of Culture in Placemaking”. 2017. Local Government Association. https://www.local.gov.uk/people-­culture-­place­role-­culture-­placemaking. Peter, M. 2009. ‘Drama: Narrative Pedagogy and Socially Challenged Children’. British Journal of Special Education, 36 (1): 9–17. Petherbridge, J., and Kendall, D. 2012. The Process and Impact of Intergenera­ tional Theatre Making. Quality in Ageing and Older Adults, 13 (4): 301–306. Porter, Katherine. 2008. Schools and Experimental Theatre. Stan’s Cafe Theatre Company. http://www.stanscafe.co.uk/helpfulthings/essays-­schools-­and-­ experimental-­theatre.htm. Pritchard, Steven. 2019. Place Guarding: An End to the Slow Violence of Creative Placemaking and Gentrification?, Colouring in Culture. https://colouringinculture.org/uncategorized/placeguardingslowviolence/. “Promoting Fundamental British Values Through SMSC”. 2014. https://www. gov.uk/government/publications/promoting-­fundamental-­british-­values­through-­smsc. “R/Scotland—Creative Scotland Admits Cover-Up Over Controversial Funding Cuts”. 2020. https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/7zjmq3/ creative_scotland_admits_coverup_over/. Radosavljević, Duška. 2013. Theatre-Making: Interplay Between Text and Performance in the 21st Century. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ———. 2015. 10 Traits of Theatre-Making in the 21st Century: Duška Radosavljevic´ on the Changing Face on Contemporary Theatre-making. Pub 11th February 2015. Available from: http://exeuntmagazine.com/features/ten-traits-oftheatre-making-in-the-21st-century/. Rebellato, Dan. 2013. From the State of the Nation to Globalisation: Shifting Political Agendas in Contemporary British Playwriting. In A Concise Companion to Contemporary British and Irish Drama, ed. Nadine Holdsworth and Mary Luckhurst, 245–262. Blackwell. Reekie, Tony. 2005. Revival of Theatre in Scotland—The Cinderella Story of Scottish Children’s Theatre. In Theatre for Children and Young People: 50 Years of Professional Theatre in the UK, ed. Stuart Bennett, 38–42. ASSITEJ Aurora Metro Publications Ltd. ———. 2019. Takeoff Festival: Guest Programmer—Theatre Hullabaloo. https://www.theatrehullabaloo.org.uk/takeoff-­festival-­guest-­programmer­tony-­reekie-­2/. Reid, Trish. 2013. Theatre and Scotland. Palgrave Macmillan. Ricketts, Kathyrn. 2010. Untangling The Culturally Unscripted Self Through Embodied Practices. In Key Concepts in Theatre/Drama Education, ed. Shifra Schonmann, 135–140. Sense Publishers.

290 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Robert Colls, and Philip Dodd. 2014. Englishness: Politics and Culture 1880–1920. Bloomsbury Academic. Roberts, Nerys. 2019. The School Curriculum in England: Briefing Paper. House of Commons library. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-­ briefings/sn06798/. Robinson, Ken. 1999. All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education. National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education. http:// sirkenrobinson.com/pdf/allourfutures.pdf. Roms, Heike. 2004. Performing Polis: Theatre, Nationness and Civic Identity in Post-Devolution Wales. Article. Studies in Theatre & Performance 24 (3): 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1386/stap.24.3.177/0. Ros, Nic. 2004. Croesi’r Llinell/Crossing the Line: Bilingualism in Post-­ Referendum Welsh Theatre. Studies in Theatre & Performance 24 (3). https:// doi.org/10.1386/stap.24.3.205/0. “Russell Group Sticks by Informed Choices Guide”. 2016. Schoolsweek. https:// schoolsweek.co.uk/russell-­group-­sticks-­by-­preferred-­subjects-­list-­but-­still-­ has-­no-­evidence/. “School Workforce in England: November 2018”. 2018. https://www.gov.uk/ government/statistics/school-­workforce-­in-­england-­november-­2018. “Scotland’s Creative Learning Plan”. 2019. Creative Scotland. https://www.creativescotland.com/resources/our-­p ublications/plans-­a nd-­s trategy-­ documents/scotlands-­creative-­learning-­plan. “Scottish Education System Needs a Fundamental Reboot”. 2020. Times Educational Supplement. https://www.tes.com/news/scottish-­education­system-­needs-­fundamental-­reboot. “Scottish Play Strategy”. 2013. https://www.playscotland.org/about/play-­strategy/. Serota, Nicholas, ed. 2019. Durham Commission on Creativity and Education. Arts Council England, Durham University. Shank, Theodore, ed. 1996. Contemporary British Theatre. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. “Shaping the next Ten Years”. 2019. Arts Council England. https://www. artscouncil.org.uk/blog/shaping-­next-­ten-­years-­summer-­2019-­consultation-­0. Shaughnessy, N. 2012. Applying Performance: Live Art, Socially Engaged Theatre and Affective Practice (2012). London, Palgrave Macmillan. “Skills for the Future Discussion Day Report”. 2019. Stagecoach. Smith, Dai. 2013. An Independent Report for the Welsh Government Into Arts in Education in the Schools of Wales. Welsh Government. https://gov.wales/sites/ default/files/publications/2018-­0 4/independent-­r eport-­f or-­t he-­w elsh-­ government-­into-­arts-­in-­education-­in-­the-­schools-­of-­wales_0.pdf. “Space of Possibilities”. 2006. Talking Birds, Creative Partnerships, Common Purpose and Imagineer Productions.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

291

Spielman, Amanda. 2019. In Education Inspection Framework (EIF). https:// assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/801429/Education_inspection_framework.pdf. “Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. Hansard”. 9 June 1975. https://api. parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1975/jun/09/standing-committeeon-regional-affairs. Starko, Alane Jordan. 2018. Creativity in the Classroom. Abingdon: Routledge. Stevenson, David. 2014. Scottish Cultural Policy. Cultural Trends 23 (3): 133–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2014.925277. Taig, Thomas. 1945. Towards a Welsh Theatre (3). Wales IV (6): 16–21. Welsh Journals—The National Library of Wales. https://journals.library.wales/ view/1214989/1215897/17. Tanggaard, Lene. 2014. Fooling Around: Creating Learning Pathways. Information Age Publishing Inc. https://capitadiscovery.co.uk/dmu/items/964922. Taylor, Anne-Marie, ed. 1997. Staging Wales: Welsh Theatre 1979–1997. Cardiff: The University of Wales Press. “Teaching of Welsh History”. 2019. National Assembly for Wales. Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee. https://business.senedd.wales/ mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=15123. Telegraph. BBC. Daily. 2000. What Is Britishness? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ uk/966849.stm. “The National Curriculum in England Key Stages 1 and 2 Framework Document”. 2013. Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/425601/ PRIMARY_national_curriculum.pdf. “The Value of Arts and Culture in Place-Shaping”. 2019. Arts Council England/Wavehill. “Theatre in Schools Scotland 3 Year Pilot Report 2016–2019”. 2019. https:// www.theatreinschoolsscotland.co.uk. “Theatre of Place”. 2020. https://www.talkingbirds.co.uk/pages/theatreofplace.asp. Thomas, Jen. 2013. In Immersive Theatres: Intimacy and Immediacy in Contemporary Performance, ed Josephine Machon. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan. “Time to Listen”. 2018. RSC, Tate, University of Nottingham and Arts Council England. “Time to Shine—National Youth Arts Strategy”. 2020. https://www.creativ e s c o t l a n d . c o m / w h a t -­w e -­d o / m a j o r-­p r o j e c t s / n a t i o n a l -­p r o j e c t s / national-­youth-­arts-­strategy. Todd, Bella. 2010. Tim Crouch Proves That There’s Nothing Childish About Theatre for Kids. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/stage/theatreblog/2010/may/17/grown-­up-­theatre-­children.

292 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Tracking Well-Being Design Explorations through Object Theatre | Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction”. 2018. https://dl-­acm-­org.proxy.library.dmu.ac.uk/ doi/10.1145/3173225.3173335. Trimingham, Melissa, and Nicola Shaughnessy. 2016. Material Voices: Intermediality and Autism. Research in Drama Education 21 (3): 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2016.1195121. Turner, Jeremy. 2005. Young People’s Theatre in a Minority Language and Culture. In Theatre for Children and Young People: 50 Years of professional theatre in the UK, ed. Stuart Bennett, 32–37. ASSITEJ Aurora Metro Publications Ltd. “Uk 1.1 | Compendium of Cultural Policies & Trends”. 2019. Compendium. https://www.culturalpolicies.net/country_profile/uk-­1-­1/. “Update: Co-Creating Change 25 Apr”. 2018. Battersea Arts Centre. https://batterseaartscentreblog.com/2018/04/25/update-­co-­creating-­change-­25-­apr/. Upton, Andrew. 2015. Creative Conversations: Theatre, the Arts, Creative Learning and the Future. 159–164. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=ibh&AN=114606792&site=ehost-­live. Van de Water, Manon. 2010. Framing Children’s Theatre: Historiography, Material Context, and Cultural Perception. In Key Concepts in Theatre/Drama Education, ed. Shifra Schonmann, 277–282. Sense Publishers. Vaughan, Janet. 2017. We Belong to the City, and It Belongs to Us—UK City of  Culture 2021, Coventry. https://coventry2021.co.uk/belong-­city­belongs-­us/. Vincent-Lancrin, Stephan, et al. 2019. Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in Schools. OECD. Walmsley, Ben. 2013. Co-Creating Theatre: Authentic Engagement or Inter-­ Legitimation? Cultural Trends 22 (2): 108–118. https://doi.org/10.108 0/09548963.2013.783176. Waxman, Nicholas. 2017. Thinking Like a Theatre Director Can Change Education Outcomes. Mask: 16–17. https://search.informit.com.au/docume ntSummary;dn=556764572201737;res=IELHSS. Webb, Tim. 2012. In Oily Cart: All Sorts of Theatre for All Sorts of Kids, ed. Mark Brown. Trentham Books Ltd. “Welsh Arts Council. Hansard”. 13 December 1967. https://api.parliament.uk/ historic-­hansard/written-­answers/1967/dec/13/welsh-­arts-­council. Wessels, Anne. 2010. Devising as pedagogy. In Key Concepts in Theatre/Drama Education, ed. Shifra Schonmann, 131–134. Sense Publishers. “What Are Creativity Skills? | Learning Resources | National Improvement Hub”. 2020. https://education.gov.scot/improvement/learning-­resources/ what-­are-­creativity-­skills.

 Bibliography 

293

“What Does Pisa Tell Us About Scottish Education?”. 2019. https://www.tes. com/news/what-­does-­pisa-­tell-­us-­about-­scottish-­education. “What is Creativity?”. 2013. Creative Scotland and the Scottish Government. https://www.creativescotland.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/21394/ Scotlands-­Creative-­Learning-­Plan-­2013-­v-­d4.pdf. “What Is Curriculum for Excellence?”. 2020. Education Scotland. https://education.gov.scot/education-­s cotland/scottish-­e ducation-­s ystem/policy-­f or-­ scottish-­e ducation/policy-­d rivers/cfe-­b uilding-­f rom-­t he-­s tatement­appendix-­incl-­btc1-­5/what-­is-­curriculum-­for-­excellence/. White, Gareth. 2013. Audience Participation in Theatre: Aesthetics of the Invitation. Palgrave Macmillan. “Who Speaks for Wales? You Do.—Institute of Welsh Affairs”. 2020. IWA. https:// www.iwa.wales/agenda/2020/03/who-­speaks-­for-­wales-­you-­do/. Wicker, Tom. 2016. Polka Theatre; The Revolutionary Venue Built Around Kids. The Stage. https://www.thestage.co.uk/features/profile-­polka-­theatre-­the­revolutionary-­venue-­built-­around-­kids. Wilcox, David. 1994. The Guide to Effective Participation. http://ourmuseum. org.uk/wp-­content/uploads/The-­Guide-­to-­Effective-­Participation.pdf. ———. 2020. Summary of the Guide to Effective Participation. Available from: https://www.globenet.org/archives/web/2006/www.globenet.org/horizonlocal/partnership/wilcox.html. Williams, Kyffin. 2020. About—Cynefin. Open Fund PRS Foundation. https:// cynefinmusic.wales/en/about. Wilson, Nick, Gross Jonathan, and Anna Bull. 2017. Towards Cultural Democracy: Promoting Cultural Capabilities for Everyone. Kings College London. https:// www.kcl.ac.uk/cultural/resources/reports/towards-­c ultural-­d emocracy­2017-­kcl.pdf. Winston, Joe. 2005. Between the Aesthetic and the Ethical: Analysing the Tension at the Heart of Theatre in Education. Journal of Moral Education 34 (3): 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240500206147. Wood, Anne. 2016. Children and the Arts—A Hidden Culture. Arts Council England. https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/publication/create-­children-­and­arts-­hidden-­culture. Wood, D. with Janet Grant 1999. Theatre for Children: A Guide to Writing, Adapting, Directing and Acting. Ivan R. Dee, Chicago. Wooster, Roger. 2007. Contemporary Theatre in Education. Bristol: Intellect Books. ———. 2016. Theatre in Education in Britain: Origins, Development and Influence. London: Bloomsbury. Wright, Peter. 2010. Agency, Intersubjectivity and Drama Education: The Power to Be and Do More. In Key Concepts in Theatre/Drama Education, ed. Shifra Schonmann, 111–118. Sense Publishers.

294 

Bibliography

Yarker, James. 2015. Any Fool Can Start a War. Research in Drama Education 20 (2): 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2015.1022146. ———. 2016. Trailblazers: In a Visible City. Available from http://www.stanscafe. co.uk/trailblazers.html “Year 6 Transitions—Half Moon”. 2020. Half Moon ­Theatre.https://www.halfmoon.org.uk/participate/educators/early-­years-­primary/year-­6-­transitions/. Young, I. M. 1990. The Ideal of Community and the Politics of Difference. In Feminism Postmodernism, ed. L. Nicholson. London: Routledge.

Index1

A All Our Futures, 68, 70, 71, 74, 78, 85, 115 Anderson, Benedict, 41, 212 Argent, Sarah, vi, x, 10, 108, 112, 142, 185–187, 207, 247, 274 Arnold, Matthew, 42n9, 77, 81, 94 Arnstein, Sherry, 202, 214 Arts Award, 19, 20, 72, 92, 171–173 Arts Connect West Midlands, v, 117 Arts Council England, 67, 72, 73, 91, 210 Arts Council of Wales, 16, 67, 89, 97, 107, 108, 110, 119, 143, 165, 213 Artsmark, 19, 72, 72n15, 92, 171 ASSITEJ, 66, 156, 275, 276

B Bamboozle, v, ix, 12, 13, 65, 142, 152, 174, 189, 190, 192, 195, 237, 263 BAME, 204, 238n39, 240 Battersea Arts Centre, 197, 232 BBC Wales, 16, 113 Belfiore, Eleonora, 28, 30, 35, 36, 38, 251 Belgrade, see Belgrade Theatre Belgrade Theatre, vi, 12, 61, 68, 76, 124, 134, 147, 175, 250 Belonging, 3, 23, 26, 41, 44, 49, 50, 56, 218, 219, 226, 234, 237, 242, 275 Benenson, Manya, v, ix, 10, 13, 172, 194, 202, 230, 248, 259, 262

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Crossley, Contemporary Theatre Education and Creative Learning, Palgrave Studies In Play, Performance, Learning, and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63738-5

295

296 

INDEX

Bennett, Catherine, vi, x, 6, 10, 17, 113, 132, 192, 193, 233, 270 Bennett, Stuart, 141, 142, 145, 156 Bhabha, Homi K., 25 Big Brum, 14, 70, 147, 147n6 Billesley Primary School, 182, 222, 223 Billig, Michael, 26, 41 Birds of Paradise, 102, 169n2, 189 Blair, Tony, 14, 67, 68, 80n21 Bolton, Gavin, 5, 19, 70, 136, 139, 147n6, 156n13 Brexit, 4n1, 6, 9, 20, 29, 43, 46, 67, 105, 236 Bridge organizations, 72 Brith Gof, 51, 52, 52n14, 54, 154, 186, 216 Britishness, 7, 24–33, 49, 52, 154 Brown, Ian, 45–47, 81, 195n21, 199 Butterworth, Jezz, 32, 34 C Cairns, Sam, v, 13, 43, 75, 76, 82, 83, 91, 97, 117, 123, 164, 168, 171, 182, 249 Catherine Wheels, 48, 102, 102n39, 103n40, 144, 145, 155, 169, 169n3 Centre for Real World Learning, 110, 110n46, 115 Children’s Theatre, ix, 47, 139, 140, 143, 144, 146, 182, 254–256 Citizenship, 39 Citizens Theatre, vi, ix, 104, 104n41, 144, 179, 199, 206, 229n34, 231, 257, 258 Co-authorship, 125n55, 157n16, 197–209, 217 Co-creativity, 148, 157n16, 197–209 Cohen, Anthony P., 27

Collaboration, 10, 17, 20, 35n6, 37, 43, 55, 62, 100, 120, 125n55, 157, 168, 180, 182, 184, 189, 193, 196, 197, 206, 208, 213, 217, 221, 223, 228, 238, 239, 241, 266 Conquergood, Dwight, 12 Conservative, 39, 65, 67, 68, 74, 78, 100, 118, 146 Cool Britannia, 68, 80 Cooper, Chris, 70, 71, 137, 147, 148, 184 Coppock, Chris, 214 Coventry, v, vi, 10, 12, 19, 61, 76, 133, 134, 139, 159, 173, 176, 216, 218, 237, 250 COVID, 5, 6, 9, 13, 42, 165, 178, 248 Creative learning, 97, 98, 101, 104, 109, 114, 120n51, 124, 235n38 Creative Partnerships, 71, 72, 79, 89, 110, 118, 218 Creative People and Places, 35, 62, 93, 210, 213 Creative Scotland, 48, 67, 102, 102n38, 103, 105, 125, 126, 145, 155, 169, 213, 236, 248, 249 Creativity, 4, 8, 13, 28, 30, 40, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 79, 81n23, 83, 85, 86, 88, 88n30, 90, 90n31, 92, 94–96, 98–104, 107–126, 109n45, 110n46, 133n1, 144, 145, 210, 214 Cresswell, Tim, 211, 218 Crossley, Siân, 190n16 Crouch, Tim, 34, 149, 150, 225 Cultural capability, 38 Cultural learning, 69, 73, 74, 77, 79, 80, 80n20, 83, 84, 123, 123n54

 INDEX 

Cultural Learning Alliance, v, 13, 13n3, 73n16, 82, 82n25, 83, 86, 88, 94, 95, 117–118, 164, 249 Culture, 2, 6, 13, 15, 21, 24, 25, 30, 35n6, 36–40, 44, 46–48, 50, 52, 55, 60–64, 62n6, 64n10, 68, 69, 71–74, 76–79, 84n28, 85–88, 91, 92, 94, 98–101, 103–105, 108, 109, 109n45, 113, 115, 116, 122, 123n54, 126, 127n56, 133, 133n1, 134, 144, 153, 154, 156, 158, 171, 201, 209, 210, 225n32, 235n37, 236, 237, 250 Culture at Kings, 60, 61, 64, 64n10, 71, 72 A Culture Strategy for Scotland, 122, 236 Curriculum for Excellence, 4, 40, 96, 98, 99, 99n36, 101–104, 121, 126, 182, 248 Curriculum for Wales, 4, 52, 97, 106–108, 111, 165, 171, 247 Cynefin, 55, 235 Czikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, 114, 115 D Davies, Christopher, v, ix, x, 10, 65, 142, 170, 174, 174n9, 191, 195, 235, 237, 263, 270, 271 Davies, Paul, vi Davies, Rhian, vi, 53 Davis, David, 5, 6, 65, 66, 89, 156n13 Development Matters, 19 Domain, 2, 5, 7, 30, 40, 70, 80, 81, 114–118, 125, 138, 146, 156n13, 158, 178, 184, 197, 210, 223, 233, 249 Donaldson, Graham, 95, 108, 108n43, 109, 111–113 Dragon Breath, vi, 13, 73, 147, 174n9, 177, 179, 227, 250

297

Drama and Theatre Education Alliance, 250 Drama-in education, 138 Drama, Theatre and Young People Manifesto, 37, 37n7, 40, 234 Durham Commission, 40, 86, 88–90, 90n31, 93, 123, 127, 210 E EBacc, 75, 81, 82, 97, 126, 138, 146, 164, 172, 247, 250 Edensor, Tim, 41, 212, 214 Edinburgh International Children’s Festival, 20, 103, 142, 155, 276 Educational Reform Act (ERA), 63, 64, 80, 106, 139 Education Scotland, 95, 98–100, 121, 126, 145, 248 Elkington, Rob, v, 64, 69, 71–73, 84, 89, 93, 94, 96, 114, 117, 118, 123, 165, 197, 200, 214, 215, 221, 250 Elwell, Chris, v, ix, 73, 147, 153, 158, 169–172, 175, 177, 196, 208, 228, 231, 233, 248, 264 England, v–vi, ix, xi, 2–4, 3n1, 7–12, 16, 17, 20, 24–26, 29, 32–36, 39, 41, 43–45, 48–52, 60n2, 63n7, 64, 66–101, 70n13, 72n15, 75n17, 104, 105, 113, 118, 123, 126, 127, 141, 142, 145, 149, 164, 165, 168, 170n5, 171, 183, 189, 200, 209, 210, 213, 234, 236, 247–249, 253–276 Englishness, 25, 32–44, 234, 235 ERA, see Educational Reform Act Essex, Ruth, 214 Expressive Arts, 4, 19, 95, 99, 108, 111, 112, 165, 247

298 

INDEX

F Facilitating subjects, 83 Fenby, Julia, vi, 121, 122, 126, 145 Fitzpatrick, Paul, vi, ix, 20, 48, 124, 125, 134, 139–142, 147, 155, 177, 182, 215, 253 Flello, Romana, v, 13, 124, 132, 140, 175, 176, 205, 232, 234, 239, 240, 251 Forced Entertainment, 150 G Gardner, Lyn, 127, 150, 152, 168, 195, 205n24 General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE), 14, 15, 15n5, 19, 19n7, 65, 70, 70n14, 75, 81, 82, 82n25, 84, 146, 173, 239 Gibb, Nick, 78, 81, 82n25, 84 Gove, Michael, 74, 78–80, 90, 91 Great Britain, 1–5, 3n1, 4n2, 11, 21–25, 29, 29n2, 30, 32, 33, 49, 60, 65, 66, 69, 85, 91, 132, 149, 154, 155, 159 Grid Iron, 47, 48, 186 H Hadley, Steven, 28, 30, 35, 36, 38, 251 Haldar, Trina, v, 163, 240, 241 Half Moon, see Half Moon Theatre Half Moon Theatre, v, ix, 13, 73, 169, 170n5, 177, 187, 192n18, 196, 227, 248, 264 Haptic, 195 Hart, Roger, 202, 214 Haywood, Paul, 213, 214, 217 Heathcote, Dorothy, 5, 15, 70, 135

Hebb, Diane, vi, 89, 97, 106, 108–111, 119, 120, 143, 165, 171, 178, 180, 201, 235 Hegarty, John, 116 Henley, Darren, 79, 80, 80n20, 87, 117 The Hidden, 124, 169, 180, 181, 196, 249 Hirsch, E.D., 77, 78, 87, 200 Holdsworth, Nadine, 12, 23, 31, 33, 40, 46, 225 Hollands, Guy, vi, 104, 104n41, 179, 234 Howe, Timothy, vi, x, 10, 105, 111, 113, 171, 204, 222, 231, 273 Hybridity, 1, 2, 21, 52, 53, 132 I Imaginate, vi, ix, 20, 47, 48, 103, 124, 139, 142, 144, 155, 177, 182, 253, 276 Immediacy, xi, 8, 186, 200, 225, 236 Immersion and intimacy, 153n11, 183–197, 236 Immersive, 152, 184, 188 Irvine, Dougie, vi, ix, 10, 20, 102, 123, 145, 176, 180, 218, 236, 254, 256 Isaac, David, 41 J Jackson, Anthony, 6, 60, 63, 137, 153 K Kelly, Owen, 38 Kempe, Andy, 154, 228, 229, 237

 INDEX 

L Labour, 41, 60n2, 62n6, 65, 67, 68, 71–74, 79, 80, 100, 118, 173 Lavender, Andy, 151, 185, 186, 190 Lead Creative Schools, 89, 109–112, 112n48, 119, 121, 168, 201, 235, 235n38, 248, 250 Lee, Jennie, 60, 127 Let’s Create, 35, 62, 92–94, 92n32, 96, 116, 118, 123, 165, 167, 197, 209, 213, 236, 240, 249 A Level, 19, 19n7, 65, 65n11, 70, 70n14, 82, 84, 84n26, 146, 239, 240n40 Lewis, Kevin, vi, x, 10, 50, 108, 109, 112, 124, 134, 142, 178, 187, 207, 235, 240n40, 247, 274 Lewis, Lisa, 50, 53, 154 Library, 124, 169, 181, 249 London Theatre Consortium, 37n7, 239, 240 Lucas, Bill, 110, 110n46, 114n49, 115, 116, 118 Lyford, Lee, vii, 174n9, 175, 234 Lyric Hammersmith, 233 M Machon, Josephine, 152, 184, 186, 195 Mashi Theatre Company, v, 13, 163, 240 Mise en événement, 151, 185, 190 Monbiot, George, 65 Morgan, Rhodri, 49 N National Curriculum, 4, 14, 39, 63, 64, 71, 75, 78, 82, 90, 97, 126, 139, 168

299

National identities, 7, 23 National Portfolio Organisations (NPO), 91 National Theatre Wales, 54, 145, 190 Neo-liberal, 66, 76, 119, 234 Nicholson, Helen, xi, 2, 6, 11, 21, 23, 41, 72, 119, 131, 136, 138, 148, 153, 156, 158, 200 1944 Education Act, 59, 64n8, 105 Nisbet, Derek, v, 175, 176, 178, 180, 182, 216, 217, 228 Nottingham Playhouse Theatre, v O Objects, 188–190, 194, 196, 206, 207, 260–262 Ochojna, Sophie, vi, 124, 145, 169 Ofqual, 75, 83 Ogden, Gill, 16, 134, 137, 138, 154 O’ Hanlon, Jacqui, vi, 13, 13n3, 87, 88, 117, 125, 127, 174n9, 230, 242 Oily Cart, 152, 154, 184, 188, 189, 195 O’Neill, Cecily, 70, 182, 183 Ordered Chaos, x, 16, 18, 270–271 Otherness, 34, 41, 226, 228 P Packham, Neil, vi, ix, 10, 199, 206, 230, 231, 257 Parr, Joan, vi, 101, 104, 109, 121, 122, 125, 126, 248, 249 Pearson, Mike, 51, 52n14, 55, 143 Pedagogy, 8, 13, 15, 20, 27, 52, 59, 64, 77, 131, 133, 134, 136, 137, 146, 151 Penny, Laura, vi, 124, 145, 169, 170, 177, 248

300 

INDEX

Place, 2, 41n8, 105, 149n7, 150n8, 154, 192n18, 209–213, 216–218, 236, 266 Place-making, 7, 9, 23, 43, 163, 208–219, 234, 235 Plaid Cymru, 29 Private sector, 125, 159, 165, 167, 168, 172, 173, 209, 233 Punchdrunk, 152, 181, 184, 188, 191, 196 R Radosavljević, Duska, 159, 174, 176, 180 Reekie, Tony, 77, 144 Regularly funded organisations (RFO), 102, 169, 169n2, 169n3, 236 Reid, Trish, 44, 47, 154 Representation, 21, 28, 33, 38, 45, 97, 147, 183, 216, 217, 234, 236, 237, 239, 241, 272 Roberts, Louisa, v, 11, 125, 166n1, 167, 168, 173 Royal Court Theatre, v, 13, 132, 205 Royal Shakespeare Company, vi, 117 Rumney, Peter, vi, 73, 177, 179 S Al-Salloum, Adel, 37, 92, 94, 150, 172, 175, 197, 201–203, 226, 228, 248 Scalpello, Jo, v, 11, 158, 165–167, 173 Scotland, v, vi, ix, xi, 2–4, 3n1, 6–11, 13, 16, 19, 20, 24–26, 29, 39, 40, 44–50, 46n11, 52, 52n15, 59n1, 61, 66, 67, 80, 89, 95–105, 99n36, 100n37, 102n38, 102n39, 103n40, 108, 108n43, 109, 121–124, 123n54, 126, 139, 141, 142, 144, 145,

149, 154, 165, 169, 169n2, 171, 182, 183, 186, 189, 200, 213, 216, 222, 234, 236, 237, 248, 249, 253–276 Scottish Children’s Theatre Festival, 47 Scottish National Party, 20, 29, 99, 100, 105 Scottishness, 25, 40, 44–48, 236 Scriven, Nettie, vi, 73, 147, 174n9, 179, 227, 250 Security, 225–229, 236 SEND, see Special educational needs and disabilities Sensoriality, 187 Shaughnessy, Nicola, 156, 157, 195n21, 218, 221, 222 Sherman Theatre, vi, x, 10, 105, 111, 113, 150, 171, 176, 195, 204, 206, 222, 224, 231, 232, 239, 273 Silos, 163, 177 64 Million Artists, 35, 35n6 Smith, Dai, 54, 106, 108, 110, 111 The Spark Arts for Children, v, 13, 37, 172, 226 Special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), ix, 17, 17n6, 184, 190, 190n16, 239, 263–264 Spiked, 42 Stagecoach, v, 5, 11, 21, 146 Stagecoach Performing Arts, v, 11, 125, 158 Stan’s Cafe, vi, ix, 10, 12, 13, 21, 124, 156, 156n14, 157, 168, 170, 179, 182, 196, 200, 208, 208n26, 217, 219, 221–223, 234, 239, 267–269 Stellar Quines, 102, 155, 169n2 Storor, Mark, 149, 150, 151n9, 152, 156, 157 Sturgeon, Nichola, 105

 INDEX 

T Taig, Thomas, 50, 55, 216 Talking Birds, v, ix, 10, 12, 21, 170, 174n9, 175, 176, 180, 182, 192n18, 204, 216–218, 225, 228, 265, 266 Theatre-centric, 117, 238 Theatre in education (TIE), 5, 6, 12–14, 16, 20, 64, 65, 68, 70, 132–135, 137–140, 143, 146–148, 151, 154, 156, 159, 168, 174n10, 175, 179, 182, 184, 186, 229, 275 Theatr Genedlaethol Cymru, vi, 53, 145, 154, 207, 235 Theatrical, 4, 7, 9, 10, 20, 28, 32–34, 39, 50, 51, 53, 55, 70, 80, 103, 124–126, 131, 134, 137, 138, 143, 145, 146, 148, 149, 151, 156, 158, 163, 174n7, 178, 180, 183, 186, 188, 189, 198, 199, 204, 206, 223, 230, 237, 258, 269, 275 Theatr Iolo, vi, vii, 112, 134, 175, 178, 185, 234, 274, 276 Themen, Justine, vi, 12, 76, 124, 133–135, 147, 173, 200, 215, 231, 234, 237, 238, 250 TIE, see Theatre in education Time to Listen, 40, 86, 88, 91, 99, 123, 127, 167, 173, 221, 250 Time to Shine, 103, 216 Towards Cultural Democracy (2017), 37, 95, 212 Transition, 52, 123, 179, 217, 225–229, 236 U Unicorn Theatre, 141, 151, 187

301

V Vallins, Gordon, vi, 11, 12, 61, 65, 65n11, 100, 126, 134, 135, 137, 141, 148, 164, 173, 175, 202, 229 Vaughan, Janet, v, ix, 10, 174n9, 204, 217, 218, 265 Visible Fictions, vi, ix, 20, 21, 48, 103, 103n40, 123, 124, 145, 155, 169, 176, 177, 180, 181, 196, 217, 218, 236, 248, 249, 254, 256 Volcano Theatre, vi, x, 10, 12, 16, 18, 113, 170, 192, 193, 270, 271 W Wales, v–vii, x, xi, 2–4, 3n1, 6–11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 24–26, 29, 29n3, 45, 49–55, 49n12, 53n15, 55n16, 60n2, 61, 61n4, 66, 67, 80, 89, 95–98, 104–113, 111n47, 112n48, 119, 121, 123, 126, 137, 141–145, 143n5, 149, 154, 165, 168, 170n4, 171, 178, 179n11, 180, 183, 185, 186, 189, 200, 201, 213, 216, 234, 235, 235n38, 240n40, 241, 247, 249, 250, 253, 270–276 Warwick Commission, 40, 88, 212 Welsh Assembly, 16, 49n12, 52 Welshness, 25, 49–56, 107 White, Gareth, 85, 151, 209 Wood, David, 140, 147, 153, 166 Wooster, Roger, 6, 53, 59, 64, 135, 137, 143 Y Yarker, James, vi, ix, 10, 124, 156n14, 170, 174n9, 179, 182, 196, 202, 208, 222–224, 239, 267, 269