The ippr would like to thank the supporters of the Arts in Society research project without whom our work would notbe possible: The Association of Independent Music Producers; Arts & Business and Youth Music.

We would also like to thank DCMS for kindly hosting the event.

ippr seminar summary

Education and the Arts: Creativity and theCurriculum

20 May 2003, 2.30 – 5.30pm

Department for Culture, Media & Sport2 – 4 Cockspur Street, London, SW1Y 5DH

2

Education and the Arts: Creativity and the Curriculumwith:

Rt. Hon. Tessa Jowell MPDavid Miliband MP

20 May 2003, 2:30 – 5:30pm

Department for Culture, Media & Sport – RM GCR1/22 – 4 Cockspur Street, London, SW1Y 5DH

Programme

2:30 Chair’s Welcome & Introduction

2:35 Rt. Hon. Tessa Jowell MP, Secretary of Statefor Culture, Media and Sport

2:40 Professor Gerald Lidstone, GoldsmithsUniversity – Creativity and EducationalInclusion

3:00 Q&A

3:15 David Miliband MP

3:25 Discussant – HMI Peter Muschamp

3:35 Q&A3:45 Coffee Break

4:00 Round table discussion

5:10 Close and Vote of Thanks

5:15 Coffee

Chair Joe Hallgarten, Associate Director, Education,ippr

Discussant HMI Peter Muschamp, OFSTED

Speakers Rt. Hon. Tessa Jowell MP, Secretary of Statefor Culture, Media and SportDavid Miliband MP, Minister of State for SchoolStandardsProfessor Gerald Lidstone, GoldsmithsUniversity

3

Attendee List

Stephen Allen Head of Education, National Portrait GalleryDr Carl Bagley Senior Lecturer, Sociology of Education, University of DurhamJohn Bangs Assistant Secretary, Education and Equal Opportunities, National Union

of TeachersGareth Binns Education Director, NESTATony Breslin Chief Executive, Citizenship FoundationPatty Cohen Director, Slough Creative PartnershipsChristina Coker Chief Executive, Youth MusicClare Cooper Director of Policy and Communications, Arts & BusinessJamie Cowling Research Fellow, ipprAlan Davey Head of Arts, DCMSChris Davis National Spokesperson, National Primary Headteachers’ AssociationDick Downing Senior Research Fellow, NFERSue Eskdale Head of Arts, London ConnectionDavid Fitzgerald Head of Arts Education, DCMSToby Greany Policy and Information Director, Campaign for LearningKate Griffin Director, Secondary Heads’ AssociationJoe Hallgarten Associate Director, ipprRoberta Hamond Education and Community Manager, Cambridge Arts TheatreValerie Hannon Director, Innovation Unit, DfESAnne Harrison Headteacher, Hounslow Pupil Referral UnitPeter Hewitt Chief Executive, The Arts CouncilLord Clive Hollick Chief Executive, United Business MediaPeter Jenkinson Director, Creative PartnershipsRt. Hon. Tessa JowellMP

Secretary of State, for Culture, Media & Sport

Emily Keaney Team Administrator, ipprMo Laycock Headmistress, Firth Park Community Arts CollegeProf. Gerald Lidstone Director, Arts Administration and Cultural Policy, Goldsmiths UniversityEmma McMullan Research Manager, Creative PartnershipsKatherine Mellor Assistant Producer, Project Catalyst, Lever FabergeDavid Miliband MP Minister of State for School StandardsLiz Moran Director, MacRoberts Arts CentreGary Mundy Principle Research Officer, Analytical Services Division, DCMSHMI Peter Muschamp OfstedChristopher Naylor Director, EngageSimon Richey Assistant Director (Education), Calouste Gulbenkian FoundationDr David Sands Director of Education, London Borough of CroydenDr Julian Sefton-Green Head of Media Arts and Education, WAC Performing Arts and Media

CollegeFrancis Sorrell Co-Director, The Sorrell FoundationJohn Sorrell Co-Director, The Sorrell FoundationSally Tallant Head of Education, Serpentine GalleryChrissie Tiller Co-Artistic Director, Art of Regeneration, National Theatre EducationRachel Tranter Acting Head of Arts, Orleans House GalleryColin Tweedy Chief Executive, Arts & BusinessMela Watts Divisional Manager, Curriculum, DfESHelen Williams Head of Primary Division, DfES

4

Introduction‘Investment in the arts is not only an end in itself, it is also a means ofachieving our promises, our policies and our values.’

Rt. Hon Tessa Jowell MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media & SportLabour Party Conference, 1 October 2002

This seminar was the first in ippr’s Arts in Society research project. Theproject aims to investigate the impact of investment in the arts on wider publicpolicy goals, to identify best practice and provide a strategic framework forfuture investment by public and private sector organisations.

The project aims to examine how the arts can best contribute to the widersocial aims of society.

Since the 1999 Policy Action Team 10 (PAT 10) report the Arts Council andother cultural organisations in the UK have taken significant steps to widenaccess and participation in the arts; such as the ‘Arts for Everyone’ scheme.The 2001 Green Paper, Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years,reaffirmed The Government’s commitment to widening access and increasingparticipation in the arts. The Green Paper outlined policy proposals to achievethese aims including the ‘Creative Partnerships’ scheme to enable schools towork with cultural organisations.

Arts bodies have become increasingly used to measuring outputs. Ticketsales, theatre spaces provided, workshops and education sessions arecounted and collated. Yet little evidence exists for the outcomes that reflectsocial policy goals – improved education, mental health, offender rehabilitationand community cohesion – of investment in the arts.

Business sponsorship represents a significant source of funding for the arts inthe UK, but in a difficult economic climate businesses may focus theirphilanthropic activities on the Corporate Social Responsibility agenda.

The efficacy of arts funding in achieving broader social goals will becomeincreasingly important in securing public and business support for the arts.

This project accepts that a key goal of arts funding must be excellence,innovation and creativity. However, investment in the arts need not only be forart’s sake; there remains a vital need for a robust assessment of artsinvestment beyond aesthetics (Matarasso, 1996) and an evaluation of the artsimpact on the wider goals of public policy.

Education and the ArtsThe role which the Arts and creativity more broadly can play in improvingeducational outcomes has been the subject of recent debate and policyformation including the All our Futures (1999) report, David Miliband’s recentannouncement that the “3 Cs” (Creativity, Culture and Community Activity)should be at the heart of the curriculum and the current Creative Partnershipsscheme.

5

ippr brought together a small group of experts to discuss:

• What role can arts based education play in raising educationalattainment?

• What form should evaluation of arts and creative education take?

• What is the best method for delivering arts education to pupils?

The following paper presents a summary of the discussion at the ippr seminar,Education and the Arts: Creativity and the Curriculum, prepared by ipprresearchers. The paper also presents draft ippr policy proposals. We welcomeand comments and suggestions on the draft policy proposals set out below.Also attached is the seminar discussion paper from Dr. Gerald Lidstone,Goldsmiths’ University.

ippr would like to thank all of those who attended the seminar and who’scontribution was so vital to making it a success.

We will be holding a series of in depth seminars during 2003. The nextseminar, “The Arts and Re-Connecting Communities” will take place on 25th

June 2003, at BALTIC Centre for Contemporary Arts. If you would like toattend the seminar please contact either Jamie Cowling (j.cowling@ippr.org)or Emily Keaney (e.keaney@ippr.org) for further information.

6

The following is a summary of the themes of the ippr seminar,Education and the Arts: Creativity and the Curriculum,prepared by ippr researchers.

Opportunity & ExcellenceWe must work to create an opportunity society where all young people havethe opportunity and the confidence to enjoy and participate in cultural events.Government, schools and cultural organisations should work together toextend this opportunity to all.

It was suggested that we need to move beyond the false dichotomy betweenopportunity for all and excellence. As one participant noted, excellence andenjoyment go hand in hand. Young people are intelligent consumers and willquickly recognise poor work. However, the definition of excellence will comefrom the young people themselves rather than a narrow elite. The key is towork with young people as clients.

It was suggested that extending opportunity to all and large-scale participationshould not be seen as “dumbing down”.

It was recognised that cultural organisations have been and are continuing towork hard in this area. Public debate lags behind the reality of the currentsituation. It was recognised that the amount of work and projects at themoment can lead to the danger of duplication. The key is to ensure thatorganisations work together to add value.

The key question is how do we ensure that the current level of activity issustainable in the future?

EvaluationIt was agreed that there is a clear and pressing need for tough and rigorousevaluation. An evidence base is the key to sustaining funding from both publicand private discretionary investors. One participant disagreed noting thatpolicy can be made before the evidence base is available.

It was agreed that a shared language needs to be developed between artspractitioners, teachers and funders to enable evaluation. Participantssuggested that what is currently measured may not take account of the uniqueaspect of cultural intervention. One attendee noted that we need to identifywhat occurs at “the moment of impact” when there is a cultural intervention.

There is a clear need for long-term longitudinal studies. Participants noted thatthe full impacts of cultural interventions are often only fully recognised later inlife. Another participant pointed to the danger of “premature evaluation”. Onthe other hand, one guest noted that there is a need for some form of earlyevaluation which would enable an assessment of how the project isprogressing and inform any changes which need to be made in the short-termto improve the projects’ effectiveness.

7

The seminar debated the best form evaluation should take. It was suggestedthat evaluation needs to be independent but to take account of the value ofself-reporting in certain circumstances.

Others felt that any evaluation needs to take account of the differing forms ofcultural intervention. There is an issue around generalising from one project toanother. However, it was suggested that there are enough similarities toprovide knowledge benefits to other practitioners. Any evaluation would needto be based on the shared language developed between arts practitioners andteachers to enable reports to speak to both parties.

There remains an issue around un-read evaluation. Most projects areevaluated. The key is to enable others to learn from the knowledge containedin evaluation reports.

Creativity and the curriculumStandards and creativity go hand in hand. Creativity is not limited to artssubjects. The available evidence suggests that success in arts subjects canmotivate students across the curriculum. It was also suggested by onespeaker that schools which place the arts at the centre of the schoolexperience can derive benefits for their pupils, teachers and the widercommunity.

One speaker presented research looking at creativity across the curriculumand the creative process. The key finding was that most successful projectsbenefited from extensive links with outside agencies.

There are different styles of learning. Visual and performing arts may engagewith young people who are excluded from standard learning practice.

The group questioned whether in school or out of school engagement withcultural practitioners was most beneficial for young people. It was suggestedthat young people should have the opportunity to benefit from both.

One participant raised the need for creativity in the built environment inschools. It was suggested that well designed schools could have a beneficialimpact on school ethos and learning outcomes.

Two participants were keen to point out that learning is a life-long process andshould not only be considered to occur in a school environment. The benefitsthat could be derived from engagement with the arts should also take place ina learning context outside of schools. This is particularly important for themost socially excluded groups.

One attendee raised concerns that partnerships between arts practitionersand schools are not always on an equal basis. The speaker emphasised thatdifferent parties, whilst working towards the same ultimate goal – engagingyoung people in the creative process - have different funding requirements,different defined outputs and sometimes differing perceptions of how best toproceed.

8

Despite one speaker vigorously arguing that creativity is central to thecurriculum another raised concerns that this is not the case. The concern forone speaker was that the emphasis on targets has pushed creative subjectsand creativity in the broadest sense to the margin. Another participantsuggested that schools are also driven by accreditation. Targets for teachersare not just set by Government but also by pupils. Pupils are concerned withhow what they are learning will hep them in their career. This can be an issuefor arts subjects as the direct benefits for gaining employment are not alwaysimmediately clear for young people.

A speaker suggested that the unique point about arts subjects is that theyalways require an active engagement from pupils. This brings the pupil intothe lesson and can often establish bonds of trust between the teacher and thepupil. Arts activities outside of normal school hours can also create improvedrelationships between teachers and pupils.

Arts practitioners and educationIt was suggested that the ongoing involvement between arts practitioners andeducation represents a professionalisation of the “arts educator”.

Arts practitioners who work in a learning context often join the field because ofa strong personal interest. It was suggested that there should be some formaltraining available for artists who work in this area.

The expansion in teaching assistant places could enable closer collaborationbetween individual arts practitioners and teachers in the classroom.

The Dutch modelOne speaker raised the example of cultural education in the Netherlands. Inthe Netherlands cultural education is a core subject in the curriculum.Students are issued with six vouchers which enable entry to cultural events.What is “culture” is defined by discussion with the teacher and can vary frompupil to pupil. Pupils are required to write reports of the cultural activitiesattended, reports of thematic studies and the results of practical work. Pupils’portfolios are assessed. The pupil must give his or her assessment on theirchoices, experiences and findings in a report prepared for a teacher.

Where next?

ippr presents draft ideas and suggestions for future work arising from theseminar discussion. We would welcome any comments and feedback onthese suggestions.

Shared languageArts practitioners, educators, business, government and above all youngpeople must work to develop a shared language which would encompass thefull aims of cultural interventions. A shared language establishing agreed aimsis essential to be able to develop robust evaluation.

9

The work of Re:source developing a shared language for the museums,archives and libraries sector could provide a valuable guide to furtherdiscussion.

EvaluationThere is a pressing need for robust evaluation of arts and culturalinterventions to speak to both public and private investors. Good evaluationrequires specialist knowledge and should be independent of those carryingout the project. The example of Ofsted demonstrates that qualitativeassessment, for example of a school ethos, can be seen as valid and robust.Evaluation must be proportionate to the aims and size of a project. Evaluationshould be based on outcomes rather than narrow output targets. There is adanger that output targets can divert attention from the central aims of thework.

GovernanceMost cultural institutions now have education projects. In many education andoutreach is at the heart of their mission. However, in others, educationprogrammes are seen as marginal to the core aims of the institution. There isno cleavage between opportunity and excellence. As a requirement offunding, education officers should be placed on the executive committee ofpublicly funded institutions.

All too often, education work is funded on a project basis. Whilst this hascertain benefits in terms of the range and diversity of work offered it can alsore-enforce education’s place at the margins of an institution. Project basedfunding means that thinking is limited to the short-term. This works againstlong-term evaluation of programmes and development of knowledge. It is alltoo often the case that a programme draws to a close for lack of fundingrather than lack of success. The possibilities for providing long-term fundingopportunities should be examined.

Knowledge resourceThere are a multiplicity of projects being run by numerous organisations.However, many arts organisations and schools are unaware of theopportunities in their local area. Teachers, parents, young people and artspractitioners would benefit from a central knowledge resource. Teachers,pupils and parents should be able to easily see what arts organisations andprojects are active in their local area. Arts practitioners would benefit fromeasy access to local schools and the ability to collaborate with otherpractitioners to add value.

A central knowledge resource should contain evaluation reports from artseducation work. This would enable the sharing of knowledge and best practicebetween arts practitioners and teachers.

A central knowledge resource should contain key contact names and bemaintained by DCMS/DfES or an organisation such as the Arts Council.

10

AcknowledgementsThe ippr would like to thank the supporters of the Arts in Society researchproject without whom our work would not be possible: The Association ofIndependent Music Producers; Arts & Business and Youth Music.

We would also like to thank DCMS for kindly hosting the event.

11

Education and the Arts: Creativity and the Curriculumippr seminar

20 May 2003, 2:30 – 5:30pm

Department for Culture, Media & Sport – RM GCR1/22 – 4 Cockspur Street, London, SW1Y 5DH

The Arts and Educational Inclusion: A Discussion Paper

Gerald Lidstone, Director, Arts Administration and Cultural Policy,Goldsmiths’ University

Introduction

This series of seminars is timely, and this paper is intended to be aprovocation to discussion. Timely because in the last five years there hasbeen a great shift in thinking in both arts and education policy, much of this isas a result of the publication of commissioned reports such as Pat 10 and Allour Futures, and has led to the creation of specific programmes such asCreative Partnerships1, SRB projects like the Art of Regeneration in Deptford2

and initiatives that cross ministries and communities in a new way such asSplash Extra3.

I think at this stage it is not useful to account in detail for the great range ofcurrent projects that involve arts and educational inclusion, as most here willbe familiar with many of them.

This year there have already been five seminars, events or conference daysthat I have been aware of, all dealing in part with aspects of the subject, andthere have no doubt been many others. However while all endorsed the valueof both creative and arts based education, they did not essentially get to gripswith mechanisms for proving the value of work in this area.

Now may be the ‘political moment’ to address the area of evaluation of botharts and education projects, long- term schemes, and teaching and learningstrategies, concerned with arts and educational inclusion in particular - andrecommend some action.

The majority of projects in arts and education receive support fromgovernment agencies in some form, at national, regional or local level, even ifat times this is through a number of intermediaries. Therefore there is quiterightly an expectation of ‘value’ from the projects that can be measured.

Defining what the value is, particularly in the short term, can be difficult as theimmediate benefits, such as improved self esteem, confidence, perseverance,commitment, team-work and respect for others4 may only demonstrate theirtrue value many years after the particular project or scheme has finished, inthe decisions that an individual may make in relation to their career,

12

employment and a variety of social ways under the broad heading ofcitizenship.

However, before going forward to look at issues relating to value andevaluation in relation to teaching and learning strategies and arts basedprojects, it is necessary to look at a few key areas that may contribute to thecurrent debate5.

If you ask any manager of an arts education project - to achieve the requiredfunding they often have to apply to many different sources, on one level this isgood as the partnerships developed often reflect the needs of differentstakeholders relevant to the project, however at the same time it can oftenunbalance the project in the administrative time taken to find and manage thefunding – most funders also require specific and in a few cases unrealistic,multiple or counterproductive reporting and evaluation procedures.

To many working in both arts and education there is a sense of déjà vu, asmany of the current initiatives/programmes combining arts and education withsocial objectives seem similar to those undertaken in the 70s and early 80s.Superficially they may appear so, however there is a crucial difference.Instead of being on the periphery of both arts and education policy they arenow central to both and for the first time there is a real commitment fromgovernment to funding this type of work on a scale that has never beenavailable before. Many of the recent increases in arts funding have beenspecifically for work in this sector. This has created a sense of optimism,which is however tempered with the knowledge that the funding will notcontinue indefinitely at this level unless there is proof of the ‘value’ of this typeof work. Proof that goes beyond the sound bite and enables these types ofproject to be permanently embedded in the policy and practice of arts andeducation in the future.

It would seem that we are at a point where it is essential to developappropriate ways in which to account for and analyse the full ‘value’ of thistype of work, and in doing so provide a body of knowledge that will assist withfuture planning - bringing together the skills in evaluating from both arts andeducation sectors.

1. The increase in the size of the sectorWe are five years on from the publication of Pat 10, although not primarilyconcerned with the ‘educational value’ it did specifically address the powerthat arts6 projects have to encourage participation and create a sense ofengagement with ‘those who may feel most excluded, such as disaffectedyoung people and people from ethnic minorities’7.

A number of recent initiatives have come directly from implementing thethinking behind Pat 10. They generally have a much wider agenda thanprevious arts education and often engage with a greater range ofstakeholders. For example those already mentioned, Creative Partnerships orThe Art of Regeneration. These programmes are now already making aconsiderable impact on the communities they are working with.

13

However these programmes are the latest manifestation of education and artsprojects that have been quietly delivering value, in education and socialobjectives for many years. I say quietly because the value they deliver isoften not commonly known except in their own narrow field. This would pointto the need for a shared language between arts and education bodies andagreed agendas to establish effective programmes and evidence to evaluate ifthe programmes have been effective.

Arts Organisations and their Education Programmes, a report for the ArtsCouncil of England, undertaken by the National foundation for EducationResearch in 1997, was a quantative national survey of education workundertaken by arts organisations8.

In short 78% of funded arts organisations reported that they had an educationprogramme. Just over half 54% confirmed they had a written education policy,and 63% had dedicated officers running them (although this was often a part-time post).

The most common focus for education programmes was young people aged12 and over. The least targeted groups were children under 5 and adults over50.

If this survey were carried out today, two major changes would be apparent,firstly there would be a noticeable increase in activity in all areas, and frommost arts organisations an acknowledgement that they have a social role aswell as an artistic one. In terms of inclusion in a current survey it would behoped that the section on monitoring and evaluation would be much moreconcerned with the numbers reached from specific communities9 rather thanin general and hopefully a more qualitative account of the value ofparticipation.

With access and education as two cornerstones of policy from the DCMS,most arts organisations have now developed education policies and are takingon a real responsibility as agencies for change, particularly within areas ofsocial inclusion – widening participation, and for addressing issues ofdiversity.

Similarly the DfES, DETR, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the HomeOffice, regional and metropolitan councils and regional development agencieshave developed a range of policies, and grants for arts based projects thataddress these same issues. This has increased the diversity and number ofprojects undertaken.

Although in some areas this has led to a layering of projects, many withsimilar objectives and in some cases within the same partners but fundedthrough different agencies. This increase in initiatives is to be welcomed butmaybe it is time to take a more holistic view of the layers of initiatives from thepoint of view of provision within a specific geographical area or for a particularage group.

14

There has also been increased investment in schemes for communityeducation and citizenship by the partnership of the charitable and corporatesectors within corporate and social responsibility initiatives (CSR).10 Both ofthese sectors are very keen to support rigorous evaluation as they are eitheranswerable to their stakeholders or shareholders.

The key question is whether the impact on participants is measurable in termsother than narrow output targets such as attendance, or internally to theproject - as there is little doubt that the effects of such a programme will be feltacross may aspects of their lives including that of work within school and infuture key decisions they make, particularly in relation to careers.

Although it can be safely said that there has been a great increase in artseducation work since 1997, there is no real record of what percentage of thisdeals specifically with inclusion as a main aim or as a substantial part of theproject. At present the scope and variety of projects within arts basededucation is not mapped. Although I am aware that DCMS and DfES arecurrently undertaking work to map the sector.

2. All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education.The case for the role of creative and cultural based education in addressingissues of access and inclusion within the National Curriculum has been madewith considerable force by All Our Futures: creativity, Culture and Education11.

Nearly all parts of the report deal with aspects of inclusion in different forms. Itis not useful here to summarise a complex and far reaching report, as Iassume most here will be familiar with it. However there are two areas thatare worth considering in this context.

In the section on creative education, it makes clear that creativity is not uniqueto the arts but does continue to emphasise the importance of the arts and theiressential place in developing the teaching of creativity and in developingcreative approaches to teaching.

However a central point of the reports argument is based upon the recognitionthat there are a number of different forms of intelligence12 and that this hasimportant implications for ‘education in general and creative education inparticular’.

Although it is slowly changing, the examination system still evaluates ability onthe basis of an academic ‘facility for prepositional knowledge and linear formsof reasoning’.

If we recognise the other forms of intelligence as valuable then we have to beable develop new methods of judging attainment. The evidence to date is thatarts based programmes that develop children’s capacity in these other areas,also transforms their ability to learn.

If this persuades us then it has considerable implications for both arts andeducation. Arts are only part of the picture, but a significant one as they

15

provide the context in which many of these other forms of intelligence can bedeveloped. There is a clear need to ensure standards within schools,however, the question is as David Miliband has emphasised how to ensurethat all children have access to the means to reach the highest standards theycan. This as All our Futures and David Miliband have made clear is part of ademocratic agenda – for everyone to succeed according to their ownstrengths and abilities.

If we recognise this range of types of intelligence and the ability of the creativeprocesses of the arts to harness this diversity then we will ‘include’ and givevalue to the work of all children.

However whatever teaching and learning strategies are created to addressthese areas they will only be effective if the appropriate value in assessmentis given to the ‘central processes of creative and cultural education’ whichgoes beyond ‘the arts’. The section of the report relating to standards dealswith this, and has implications for evaluating arts projects as well as in-schoolteaching. It argues for a greater emphasis on formative assessment, notinstead of summative assessment, but to reward the central processes ofcreative and cultural education, such as experimentation, original thinking andinnovation.

It also implies that there will have to be an amount of advocacy such as thatby David Miliband’s emphasis on the 3Cs13, to develop a public acceptance ofhumanities based subjects and forms of teaching and learning that encouragequestioning, exploring and debating.

As teaching and learning strategies are created in schools that addressdeveloping the different abilities that young people have, it would seemessential through rigorous monitoring and analysis to demonstrate the valueof this work, particularly in relation to the transferable nature of the skills andlearning achieved by the individual.

To maybe demonstrate, that success in one area not only can encouragesuccess in others, but does. But more importantly to put pressure on thosedeveloping the examination processes to create more advanced systems thatare able to recognise different abilities. Only then will the system be inclusive.

As the report makes clear in another section, to achieve any of the above arange of partnerships will have to be made. This advances the nature ofinclusion to involve parents, governors and arts and cultural organisations nottraditionally associated with formal education. If this is done effectively it canalso reflect the cultural and social diversity of a community as well as ‘enableyoung people to recognise, explore and understand their own culturalassumptions and values.’14

This creating of partnerships often takes time and resources over and abovethose dedicated to any specific programme. But when undertaken, it becomesevident as part of the ‘ethos’ of a school, and therefore measurable by Ofsted.

16

Arts Education and Community InitiativesCreative Partnerships, initiated in 2000 and funded now to 2006 is set to bethe most important cultural and creative programme in a generation15. It willgive thousands of school children in deprived areas throughout England theopportunity to develop creativity in learning and participate in culturalactivities. However the continuation past 2006 will no doubt have to be basedon a rigorous evaluation of the projects and the relationships established.

The Creative Partnerships ‘Vision’ makes it clear that the programme shouldnot be seen as another audience development initiative (therefore notmeasurable by increased attendance) but ‘at its core it is about engenderinggreater creativity in the process of learning’. Also that the partnerships intendto give ‘proper recognition to the needs and demands of parents and carersand of more informal school and children's support arrangements incommunities’. In this case extending the nature of inclusion beyond theprimary participants.The intention is that by concentrating on building the strategic partnerships itwill ‘have a major catalytic effect, vastly disproportionate to the resourcesinvested.’

Again the ‘effect’ will have to be measured, not just to provide a strongargument to continue the investment, but to look at the precise way in whichparticular partnerships realise the potential of the partners and thereforeprovide models for future projects.

Creative Partnerships is addressing key points from Pat 10 in relation toinclusion, simply by undertaking projects in particular geographical areas andwith social and cultural groups that have not benefited from this type ofinitiative before.

In terms of quantitative evaluation it is relatively easy to count the projectparticipants16. However in terms of educational value17 it will be much moredifficult to measure.The type of projects within Creative Partnerships are both innovative anddiverse, and on a scale that would seem to provide the ideal opportunity to beable to go beyond the more traditional forms of arts project evaluation18.

For example can the value of engagement and participation in a project bemeasured (in addition to the internal evaluation of the project) through thechange an individual exhibits in ‘being able to learn’ within the more formaleducation context.

If so it would imply that it should be possible to measure the impact of artsbased projects through existing systems within schools, but with a rethinkingof the current ‘learning outcomes’ and criteria.

For this to happen there needs to be agreed ‘learning outcomes’ between thearts organisation and the educational organisation.

17

The process based assessment schemes used in higher education anddeveloped through national agencies such as Palatine19 may well be a goodstarting point as the principals employed to develop this approach could berelatively easily rethought to apply to different age groups and contexts.

The key part of these assessment schemes is the development of learningoutcomes20. Essentially what can the student do after the course that theycould not do before. These learning outcomes are specific, measurable andavailable in course profiles. At the same time criteria for assessment for theoutcomes are available. They, in a way, form a contract between the studentand teacher.

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education suggests that learningoutcomes should be apparent (for each subject) in the following areas:

Knowledge and understanding -Cognitive skills - Subject-specific skills(including practical/professional skills) -Key (transferable) skills - Progressionto employment and further study - Personal development21

The Art of Regeneration is a partnership between six organisations22 . It isone of the most comprehensive arts based Single Regeneration Budgetprogrammes undertaken in the UK.23The purpose of the Art of Regeneration iscovered in six specific but interlocking areas, all of which deal with differentaspects of educational inclusion. AoR will:

Target - young people aged 7- 26 from areas of high deprivation in N.Lewisham and W. Greenwich, particularly those who are underachieving,disaffected, at risk and with special needs.Use creative activity as a catalyst – both within and outside mainstreameducation – for developing young people’s key skills (literacy, communication,problem solving, teamwork) motivation, aesthetic appreciation and sense ofcommunity.Provide opportunities for achievement – and recognition of their achievements– in the public domain and among their peers, enhancing personal andcommunity self esteem.Enhance the skills of adults who work with young people – through training,collaboration and networking; building an infrastructure of creativeprofessionals whose expertise will cascade through the education system andbenefit subsequent cohorts.Encourage parents and others, who guide young people – to recognise theeducational and social value of creative activity, and to support youngpeople’s involvement, by providing opportunities for families to participate inarts activities and events.Revitalise the centre of the catchment area – by transforming a neglected andunder-utilised community facility into a focal point for community learning, forcreative and social activity.

This is an extremely ambitious project however a key feature is that theimpact of the project will be evaluated throughout with the intent of developing‘a strategic model of effective practice capable of replication in other contexts.’

18

The evaluation of in-school outcomes is carried out by Lewisham SchoolImprovement team, ‘these targets and outcomes will be fully integrated intoeach schools’ existing planning and evaluation cycles24. These cruciallyinclude quantative targets for increasing literacy and numeracy. Out of schoolwork will be evaluated by a range of providers supported by ACE at a nationaland regional level. What is important is that these two areas of evaluationcome together and not just for this project.

One difficulty may be that the real impact can only be measured manyyears after individuals have left the project, as was the case with ActaCommunity theatre.

The Acta Community Theatre model is a good example of what wasessentially a community theatre in education project that grew in scale butalso took on new agendas. It accounted, evaluated and published a clearrecord of the process of a major project, Making a Difference, but also found away to start to evaluate the impact of the participation on the arts in theircommunity from the 1980s - ‘ in particular to evaluate individuals’ ownmeasurement of the impact of this arts based project in their lives subsequentto participation. The report tackles through a perceptive survey the difficultarea of qualitative or ‘soft evaluation’.25 One key observation was that ‘Thereis some evidence to suggest that the further away from involvement, thegreater is the perception [of the effect] of that involvement on the participants’lives.’26

EvaluationNearly all programmes and projects concerned with arts and educationalinclusion will be evaluated in some way. However exactly what is evaluatedwill be conditioned by a range of factors, determined in some cases by thetype of project but more often than not by the criteria determined by thefunding agency or more likely agencies. Some will concentrate on the ‘quality’of arts input to the project, others will engage with the benefits to theparticipants, others with the mechanisms of delivery.

Some will endeavour to measure the impact on individuals, others, the impacton a community. Some will be essentially quantative, others will take a morequalitative approach. Some will rely on peer evaluation internal to the project,others will commission external evaluators. While a rigid standardisation ofevaluation format would not be useful, as the types of project are so diverse,what would be useful would be agreed methods of evaluation that couldprovide a body of knowledge for those starting new projects.

There is a clear and pressing need for robust evaluation of arts projects whichcan enable skill sharing and benchmarking. However the methodologies ofevaluation developed must not only speak to arts bodies and funders but alsoto wider stakeholders, such as teachers, Ofsted and DfES.

19

The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority27

After the review of the National Curriculum in 2000 the QCA adopted the fourkey characteristics of creative processes28as the basis for further investigationthrough practical research projects on creativity and arts within the curriculum.

One of these projects is arts based and is ‘investigating ways to maximise thecontribution of the arts to pupils’ education and to school improvement.’29

To date the project has - ‘found that the arts (arts& design, music, dance,drama, literature and media arts) are able to dramatically improve pupils’educational experiences and can enrich the overall school experience andencourage the development of positive links with social communities.’The arts are highly valued within the schools investigated,30 [they] recognisethe benefits of the arts to pupils, including improved self-esteem, confidence,perseverance, commitment, team-work and respect for others.31

It was also noted that some schools were ‘concerned about a possiblenegative impact on standards if extra time and resources are given to thearts’. However QCA has stated that this is ‘not reflected in practice and thatmany head teachers believe that standards go up when there is more arts inthe curriculum.’32

The statement in the National Curriculum teacher’s handbook relating toinclusion, ‘Inclusion: providing effective learning opportunities for all pupils’, isfollowed by three basic principles:

• Setting suitable learning challenges;• Responding to pupils’ diverse learning needs;• Overcoming potential barriers to learning and assessment for individualsand groups of pupils.

The evidence to date from these QCA initiatives would suggest that creativeand arts based teaching is seen to be particularly appropriate in addressingthese areas.

The Green Book – Appraisal and Evaluation in Central GovernmentPublished by HM Treasury has a section devoted to evaluation, this, in theintroduction states that:

7.2 Evaluation examines the outturn of a policy or project against what isexpected, and is designed to ensure that the lessons learned are fed backinto the decision making process. This ensures government action iscontinually refined to reflect what best achieves objectives and promotespublic interest.7.3 Evaluation comprises a robust analysis, conducted in the same manner asan economic appraisal, and to which almost identical procedures apply. Itfocuses on conducting a cost benefit analysis, in the knowledge of whatactually occurred rather than what is forecast to happen.

The recommendations follow the standard procedure for evaluating objectivesachieved and wider outcomes, along with comparative assessment with a

20

control group. Analytical techniques recommended include multi criteriaanalysis and analysis of performance indicators amongst others.

The appraisal and evaluation process recommended is comprehensive,however it implies that both policy and projects have clear definable outcomesbefore starting that can then be measured. In relation to arts based educationwork the potential outturns are only just being realised through projects thatare taking on ambitious objectives.

The suggestion to conduct a robust analysis is fine, but that it should be ‘conducted in the same manner as an economic appraisal’ is maybe in thiscase, to miss the point.

While not denying the need for rigor, a more useful approach is suggested inthe recent Strategy Unit report: Creating Public Value: An analyticalframework for public service reform33

‘the concept of public value provides a rough yardstick against whichto gauge the performance of policies and public institutions, makedecisions about allocating resources and select appropriate systemsof delivery34’

The document suggests a pragmatic approach to evaluation is to be pursuedand is critical of the narrow perspective of ‘new public management ‘techniques that dominated the 1980s and 90s while acknowledging the gainsin relation to the ‘clarification of objectives and responsibilities, the use ofexecutive agencies and performance management mechanisms. The mainweakness being the:

‘Often emphasised narrow concepts of cost-efficiency over otherconsiderations (i.e. the focus was on technical rather thanallocative efficiency). Those things that were easy to measuretended to become objectives and those that couldn’t weredownplayed or ignored35.

In the section dealing with the ‘Value of Outcomes’ it suggests that:

Genuine outcomes are now seen as better targets than narrowoutputs or activity measures, which risk being distorted …Determining value through the impact of objective measures ofoutcomes is difficult. It may involve complicated (and contested)assessments of causation…. In most areas there are stillconsiderable gaps in our understanding of how to create valuethrough outcomes: either we have limited knowledge of whatcauses an outcome, or even if we do have a reasonable senseof the causes, we understand little about the effectiveness ofdifferent policy levers.36

In relation to arts based education programmes, the wealth of anecdotalevidence37 in terms of ‘customer satisfaction’ and the creation of ‘value’ is

21

already overwhelming, it now needs putting into an evaluative framework thatwill communicate effectively with the range of stakeholders.

However the way in which the evaluation is undertaken and the way in whichthe results of that evaluation are handled is crucial.

Arts and education organisations who are usually the main partners, initiatorsand providers of such programmes are naturally wary of one more layer oftarget setting and evaluation if these become an end in themselves ratherthan being an aid to either improving projects or gaining the recognition theydeserve.

Creating Public Value recognises that to achieve this there will be a need todevelop new reporting mechanisms:

‘Government has much to learn from the private sector and NGOs inthis regard38. It indicates that these may include ways ‘that gauge thesocial quality and vibrancy of community relations’ and that otherareas will have to be reconsidered as ‘existing performance models[used by public agencies] tend not to include the more intangiblecomponents of service delivery.’

This reconsideration of methods of accountability and reporting will in turnhave implications for the management of policy, suggesting devolution ofresponsibility to a more local level and a move towards “earned autonomy”:

‘Accountability arrangements need to be shaped to support thecreation of public value. An over reliance on process driveninspection/audit regimes, that target narrow measures ofefficiency, will be inappropriate. A more rounded accountability,which faces outward towards users and citizens, as much asupwards towards departments and inspectorates, is likely towork better.’39

At this stage we do not have to reinvent the wheel, the authors of CreatingPublic Value are right, there is considerable experience in the private sectorand NGOs where methods of developing new evaluative processes havegrown from a recognition of the inadequacy of many current systems.

A number of accounts of developing cross sector partnerships seeking publicmoney have highlighted the negative experiences of having to submit overdetailed proposals, which as the project develops become unrealistic, andprovide data and extensive progress reports on ‘complex activity’ that doesnot seem to be relevant to improving the project.

Firstly the process should not be onerous. If it is, then maybe the wrong thingsare being measured or proposals are detailed in a way that is not reallynecessary. Or that those undertaking it do not have the experience to do iteffectively. The key point is that evaluation should enhance and advance aproject rather than inhibit it.

22

In the introduction to The Social Impact of Arts Programmes40, Gerri Moriartywho has worked as a community artist for 20 years warns of the dangers thatinappropriate use of ‘ evidence’ can be put to, but also cites positive exampleswhere:

“Collecting evidence did not seem a dispiriting exercise in justifyingone’s existence, or a distraction from core activities, but a pro- activetask, supporting development, owned and controlled by theorganisation generating the information. As the production of variouskinds of evidence is increasingly part of the contract for servicesdrawn up between funding agencies, arts organisations andorganisations working with artists, it is perhaps worth understandingwhy this was the case:• The reasons for collecting the evidence made sense to all thoseinvolved in the process. It produced, or could be seen to be likely toproduce positive results in terms of future development.• It was expressed in language which could easily be understood byall those involved• It did not overburden fragile administrative resources and couldtherefore be produced relatively painlessly.

This makes sense and ‘the application of a few such guidelines in earlystages of negotiations about evidence required by funders might preventmany organisations from dancing to the tune of unrealistic performanceand impact indicators’. 41

However at the same time it is crucial that those performance and impactindicators do not just serve a specific project but enable it to be evaluatedin relation to similar projects or strategies.

I started by mentioning that there had been a number of events this year alldealing with an aspect of arts and education however the area of evaluationwas also firmly put on the map nearly three years ago at the Arts MarketingAssociation conference Breaking Down Barriers in July 2000.

Keynote speeches42 acknowledged that the fear of evaluation by artsorganisations is real but that the climate has changed and that there are noworganisations that have developed appropriate forms of evaluation for artsprojects.

It can be argued that ‘those involved in measurement have to learn preciseskills so that they can ask tough questions, and ask the right questions’. It isthe process of deciding what are the useful indicators and outcomes that isalmost as important as the evaluation - and the process of making thosedecisions, as well as putting them to use, should be participative with all thestakeholders43.

The key point here is to decide exactly what it is that should be measured, is itthe emphasis on measuring outputs for funders, determining the success ofthe project in relation to inclusion, the ‘social energy’ 44created, or on an

23

increase in literacy? Should it be related to specific projects or to the wholeorganisation/ school/ community?

The process should not shy away from measuring the areas of impact thatare important but difficult to measure and concentrate on the easierquantative approach.

There is also a strong argument for arts organisations to change their culturefrom focusing on output, on doing things, and instead focus on outcomes - onwhat happens because of their work45. A distinct echo of the Creating PublicValue document.

This will also mean a shift in attitude by the funding system. They need towork with arts organisations to establish a common set of performanceindicators that arts organisations believe will enable them to evaluate theirwork in a productive way46.

There are some key points emerging.

If we agree that we now need to enhance the great range of arts basedteaching and projects working with a social and educational agenda bydeveloping robust evaluative techniques that demonstrate their true worth.

There then needs to be a mechanism or agency that:

Pulls together the record of experience from existing projects andprogrammes, including evaluation – particularly those generated by recentinitiatives – and makes it available as a national resource.

That deals in a more strategic way with the overlap of projects in the samegeographical area while making sure that projects and programmes aredelivered to a range of groups, particularly at present to the under 12 agegroup. The overlap maybe in areas of greatest need but also areas in whichthe greatest clarity of purpose is required.

Engages with the range of organisations that have led the way in developingthe thinking on arts, education, partnerships and voluntary sectororganisations such as Demos, Comedia, NEF, NCA and ippr as well as that ofthe different government departments and agencies - and then find ways inwhich to make that experience available – to inform planning , delivery andevaluation of future projects.

Understands the very real fears arts organisations and other partners willhave with regard to certain areas of evaluation and will have the capacity to‘establish a relationship of trust with their clients which means that evaluationis seen as a means of encouraging constant improvement rather than assomething that will be used as evidence against them in the next fundinground’47.

Understands the mechanisms of measuring the outcomes from arts basedteaching and projects rather than just the outputs and is therefore able to

24

measure their impact on individuals, schools and communities and has theability to train, both teachers, artists and project co-ordinators in appropriateevaluative techniques48

We have to turn the wealth of anecdotal evidence of the benefits that artsbased education provides directly through the curriculum or through projectsand partnerships into hard evidence that can be shared and used to informfuture projects and strategies.At the heart of this process will be teachers who are able to see the effects ona daily basis – some areas such as increased attendance and improvedperformance in standard testing are easily measured. If we are looking to givecredit to other areas such as the ability to problem solve, explore, questionand debate or show an increased ability to concentrate, participate orcommunicate, then more formative methods of assessment will have to beemployed.

If we agree that this is desirable then we have to develop criteria for these‘soft’ areas. Or continue to rely on seeing the results of these ‘abilities’ onlywhen they impact on more conventional modes of assessment.

A recent report for Re:source49 suggested a reworking of the learningoutcomes developed by the QAA might be appropriate to measuring theoutcomes of learning in museums: Knowledge and understanding –Skills -Values, attitudes, feelings- Creativity, inspiration, enjoyment and Behaviour .These are then broken down within this five category framework into a greatnumber of specific outcomes. However they also concluded that ‘The waysin which learning outcomes are conceptualised and developed in formalsettings do not fit cultural organisations, especially when the experience of allusers needs to encompassed…. and that any scheme must be able toencompass both formal and informal learning’.

To some extent they are reinforcing the point that it is possible to set upframeworks for evaluation for arts and cultural based learning from the point ofview of the arts organisation - that it has integrity and that the same can orhas been done in formal education.

However I think it is now the moment to take it to the next level and see if thesystems of arts and education can come together to agree on appropriatelearning outcomes for the great range of new initiatives that cross thedisciplines.

“Arts evaluation has to include and bear witness to the immeasurable,the unquantifieable, as well as recording more prosaic facts andfigures. That maybe difficult to articulate clearly within bureaucraticsystems. But as the writer Alice Walker says ‘ we create in order tomake things very different; otherwise I don’t really see the point.’ Ourevaluations should be no less purposeful”50.

25

1 Creative Partnerships: from the Arts Council of England , Launched 18 September 2002 -Creative Partnerships is drawing on the wealth of experience embodied by practitioners fromboth the arts and education sectors2 The Art of Regeneration SRB 6 Bid 1 June 2000, key partners The Royal NationalTheatre, Education and Training. The Deptford Albany, Borough of Lewisham, Borough ofGreenwich, Lewisham Partnership Challenge, Goldsmiths College.3 Splash Extra . Youth Inclusion Programme. Partners, Youth Justice Board, DCMS NewOpportunities Fund, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, ACE.4 These are benefits used as examples of outcomes of arts based school projects in an articleoutlining two development projects of the Qualifications and Curriculum authority. QCAProves arts in school work. Tony Knight and Margaret Talboys . P21 Arts News, TheMagazine of the National Campaign for the Arts Winter 2003 Issue 62 Editor Simon Tait.5 There are many, from a great number of documents, and also many accounts of projectsthat consider the issue of evaluation. However in this context I will only refer to a few.6 And sports projects7 Pat Ten DCMS 1998 p58 The study had three aims – to build up an understanding of the range and types of artsorganisations with education programmes across the country in different arts forms,examining ways in which their policies and practices vary in terms of staffing, range of activity,participant groups and funding sources9 For example the recent report on the Queens park New Media Centre from the ICA, whichspecifically charts Learner profiles10 For example The Prince’s Trust in partnership with a number of large companies hasdeveloped a project of school based clubs10 which aims to re-engage the interest of 14 to 16year olds who have been truanting from school. This is one of many that has a high artsbased content (although not exclusively so).11 All our futures: Creativity, Culture and Education (DfEE, 1999), the report of the NationalAdvisory Committee on Creativity, Culture and Education. Ed Professor Ken Robinson12 Howard Gardner (1993) as cited in AOF p35, identifies seven forms of intelligence:linguistic, mathematical, spatial, kinaesthetic, musical, interpersonal and intrapersonal.13 Community, Creativity and Culture14 All our futures: Creativity, Culture and Education (DfEE, 1999), the report of the NationalAdvisory Committee on Creativity, Culture and Education. P49

15 Creative Partnerships ‘Vision’ Statement.16 And those they impact upon.17 Or creativity in learning.18 The NCA responded to the initial Creative Partnerships framework document in thisparticular area by reinforcing the points made in All Our Futures. Response by the NationalCampaign for the Arts to the framework document for Creative Partnerships point 13.219 PALATINE (Performing Arts Learning and Teaching Innovation Network)20 All higher education Programmes will now have course profiles21 QAA (200) Subject Review Handbook September 200 to December 2001.22 The Royal National Theatre, Education and Training (project leader and manager) TheDeptford Albany, Borough of Lewisham, Borough of Greenwich, Lewisham PartnershipChallenge, Goldsmiths College.23 A SRB grant of £6946K24 The intention is that the project will also work with specialists in curriculum evaluation.25 Neil Beddow. Mary Schwartz Ed. Turning Points: The impact of participation in communitytheatre. South West Arts 200126 ibid p11727 The QCA is involved in many areas that are concerned with arts, education and socialinclusion, in this case these projects are mentioned , but it is only a partial view of theircontribution.2828 Identified in All Our Futures -Thinking or behaving imaginatively; purposeful imaginativeactivity; generating something original; outcomes that are of value in relation to objectives,29 QCA Proves Arts in School Work. The Project - analysed policy and curriculumrequirements in other countries, and searched the relevant research and literature –developed aims for arts education – explored and developed different ways of collecting

26

evidence – identifying specific contributions of the arts – explored the relationship betweencultural development and the arts – collecting information from schools – and carrying outfocused investigations in primary and secondary schools. Tony Knight and Margaret Talboys .P21 Arts News , The Magazine of the National Campaign for the Arts Winter 2003 Issue 62Editor Simon Tait.30 The discussion within the breakout sessions at the Arts 4 Schools conference on Monday20 Jan 2003, with many teachers present, would suggest that, if only in anecdotal form, this‘value’ maybe less than that implied here.31 QCA Proves arts in school work. Tony Knight and Margaret Talboys .32 ibid33 Gavin Kelly and Stephen Muers Creating Public Value: An analytical framework for publicservice reform34 ibid P435 ibid P 936 ibid p1637 Although this is at present based on a small number reports in the public domain. A greaternumber remain with the organisations engaged with the work.38 ibid p3439 ibid p3540Gerri Moriarty, The Social Impact of Arts Programmes, Taliruni’s Travellers: An arts worker’sview of Evaluation 1997 Comedia SIAP Working paper 7 p141 ibid p1642 Measurement and Evaluation. Sanjiv Lingayah and Prepare to prove it. Heather MaitlandA keynote speech, Arts Marketing Association conference Breaking Down Barriers in July2000.43 Sanjiv Lingayah identifies a six stage process of evaluation developed for anenvironmental project but suggests that it can be adapted for arts use. Bringing peopletogether – Identifying issues - Choosing indicators – Collecting data – Communicatingfindings - Taking action.44 This is a term used by New Economics Foundation which Lingayah suggests is the sameas ‘community spirit’ or ‘social capital’ and for purposes of evaluation is broken down into 3strands . About me – personal attitudes., About us - community relationships, Us and them -the way a community relates to external agencies.45 Prepare to prove it. Heather Maitland A keynote speech, Arts Marketing Associationconference Breaking Down Barriers in July 200046 Prepare to prove it. Heather Maitland A keynote speech, Arts Marketing Associationconference Breaking Down Barriers in July 200047 ibid p 2448 Creative partnerships is already addressing this in part with the development of aprogramme for experienced teachers to act as mentors for others creating new arts basedpartnerships.49 The Council for Museums Archives and Libraries . Learning Impact Research Project(LIRP)Developing a scheme for finding evidence of the outcomes and impact of learning inmuseums, archives and libraries: the conceptual framework Eilean Hooper-GreenhillPrepared for the LIRP team 2002 Research Center for Museums and Galleries Department ofMuseum Studies University of Leicester50 Cited in Gerri Moriarty, The Social Impact of Arts Programmes. Comedia 1997 – radiointerview with Alice walker, October 1996