The public consultation about the National Cultural Policy 2021 (NCP) is certainly an occasion for debate and anticipation of possible changes in the cultural sector. Its exhaustive policy recommendations provide local stakeholders with a firm basis for arguments favouring a stronger national commitment towards culture and the arts.
As an academic specialised in art education at the University of Malta, I have a clear interest in the chapter on ‘Improving Artistic and Cultural Education’. In a year during which the arts were more or less abolished in state primary schools due to pandemic-related measures, it’s refreshing to see that the NCP places such an emphasis on arts education.
I am therefore in agreement with the NCP when it states that its first policy objective is to “improve the provision of artistic and cultural education in compulsory education”. Problems with the provision of arts education have rarely been as evident as they were during this last academic year.
Arguably, however, this chapter’s main agenda seeks to bring the work of cultural practitioners and organisations into different sectors of the educational sphere through “partnerships”. Again, this is positive because schools need to forge more robust connections with contemporary cultural practices, while cultural organisations can and should fashion their own educational initiatives, independently or in conjunction with schools.
The policy begins with a reference to UNESCO’s Road Map for Arts Education, launched in 2006. I was present at the UNESCO conference in Lisbon when that road map was launched, so I am aware of the importance it gave to partnerships between educators and artists. Such partnerships, according to that road map, “are dependent on mutual understanding of the goals towards which the partners are working, and mutual respect for each other’s competencies.”
Unfortunately, the competencies of professional arts educators clearly play second fiddle to the potential input of public cultural organisations, Heritage Malta and freelancers in the NCP.
We read about “the work of Public Cultural Organisations (PCOs) and Heritage Malta in the field of education” (to my knowledge, Heritage Malta currently employs two museum educators). We are told that the NCP recommends the employment of “creative arts coordinators, a group which remains undefined but appears to be distinct from “arts education professionals” described immediately afterwards.
What qualifications would these coordinators or “cultural mediators” have in order to “provide expertise” and “creative well-being” in the classroom? How would this “expertise” differ from that of qualified teachers? Would they, along with PCOs, be responsible for the “participatory” half of the recommended quota for middle and secondary schools?
Problems with the provision of arts education have rarely been as evident as they were during this last academic year- Raphael Vella
We read about “the role of the private sector” in relation to the Schools of Art, Music and Drama, which should “fall under the direct responsibility of the Ministry for Culture” according to the NCP. The policy states that this “shift is necessary to ensure that these schools…upgrade their programmes and offer further professional services”. Is the NCP simply assuming that the Ministry for Culture would do a better job than the Ministry for Education? On the basis of which evidence?
What we need to recognise is that problems in arts education are structural problems legitimised by a system dominated by conservative perceptions about what constitutes a core education. While the input of freelancers in schools has already been shown to provide positive results through existing funds like Kreattiv, vague recommendations about “cultural mediation” and “participatory” work will only be a cosmetic add-on at best if we do not first reconsider the status of the arts in education.
At worst, educational authorities would interpret such partnerships as a long-term stop-gap that conveniently ‘fills’ the creative void in the curriculum.
Qualified arts educators now study for a minimum of five years to become teachers, first specialising in an area and following that up with a master’s degree in teaching and learning. A recognition of this expertise would help to bring collaborative programmes between artists and schools proposed by the NCP closer to the kind of “mutual respect” envisaged by UNESCO.
We also need to recognise the fact that educational provisions offered by freelance cultural workers, PCOs and the private sector are generally not restricted by quality assurances, assessment procedures, audits, learning outcomes, national curricula, and so on. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s a different ball game.
Bringing artists into schools needs to be seen as a fantastic opportunity for all stakeholders. Why don’t we start by giving our teachers back the trust they deserve? Let’s build partnerships with artists and PCOs on this trust. If the arts and arts educators were allowed to play a stronger role in schools, then a more stable infrastructure could be created with other creative sectors.
Schools and children need these partnerships, but lumping partnerships on to a weak structure could end up weakening it further. While it’s clear that the NCP wants to complement what’s already in schools, and not replace it, we also need to take account of our educators’ fair demands for more time for the arts in school timetables.
An education in the arts that redefines arts educators as ‘replacement’ teachers is not the kind of system that can be patched up or saved by one-off external interventions. What it needs is a complete overhaul.
Raphael Vella, associate professor, University of Malta