Curious Minds Symposium: Teaching Artistry in Action (#TAA25)

Curious Minds Teaching Artistry in Action Symposium at the Royal Court Theatre Liverpool

Really pleased to be invited to speak on Tuesday at the Curious Minds Teaching Artistry in Action (#TAA25) Symposium at the Royal Court Theatre Liverpool. I was invited to sit on a panel discussion with Saul Argent, Jennifer John and Hafsah Naib and reflected on 'what power do artists hold to shape people, policy and culture?'

I've tried to capture my responses to the questions below:

1. What power do artists have to make change to people and places in educational or community settings?

I have been teaching the philosophy and the importance of artists who teach for over 25 years on PGCE’s and MA’s at the IOE UCL. For me, Artists Who Teach hold a unique kind of power in educational and community settings — not because we arrive with all the answers, but because we create the conditions (the climate or the ecology if you like) for new or different answers or knowledge to emerge. I see being an artist teacher is fundamentally about opening up spaces where people can imagine differently, express themselves safely, rehearse new ways of being and develop new habits of mind – but also we bring real-world creative practice into education. And that is profoundly political and transformative.

In schools, colleges and community settings artists disrupt the predictable. We bring alternative ways of thinking, making and questioning that aren’t always available in tightly prescribed school curricula. We help learners recover a sense of agency — the belief that their ideas matter, that creativity isn’t a luxury but a way of engaging with the world. That builds confidence, identity, gives voice and a sense of belonging. You see attitudes shift: “I can’t” becomes “I might,” and eventually “I can” and maybe even ‘we can’ – That is change.

In communities, artists create shared experiences that strengthen relationships, bridge differences and make space for voices that are often overlooked. We work with people rather than delivering to them, and that collaborative, co-created process can reshape how a place understands itself. Whether it’s a sculpture trail made by young people in an abandoned or forgotten space, an intergenerational storytelling project about belonging in a museum, or a workshop that helps a community visualise a greener future — the process itself builds social cohesion and collective imagination.

And at a wider level, teaching artistry carries the power to influence culture and policy. When we show what creative engagement makes possible — improved wellbeing, mental health, resilience, civic participation, problem-solving — we provide evidence for why the arts must be central, not peripheral, to education and community life. Networks like these and platforms like this symposium today help amplify that impact, connecting individual practice to systemic change.

I would argue we are experiencing in our present system a “crisis of human resources” — many people live lives unfulfilled, unaware of their true talents, and our society wastes enormous potential as a result. In a rapidly changing, complex world, with an uncertain future, we need creativity, diversity of skills, and adaptability — not just conformity and rote knowledge.

A change in the education ecology could help unleash human potential, support more fulfilling lives, and build more resilient, equitable, and creative societies. As Ali was drawing to our attention earlier.

So, the power artists hold is ultimately the power to transform how people see themselves, each other, and their space and place in the world — and that is the foundation for any meaningful change. (I just want to say I liked the description earlier 'raw human connection' – nice statement)

2) What is the difference between change in the moment and long-term change? 

If we think back to Sir Ken Robinson (born here and very proud of this fine city), he argued that education doesn’t just need reform — it needs a revolution. A complete rethinking of how learning actually happens. And many of us recognise the truth in that. The old industrial model of standardisation, linear pathways, uniformity… it may have worked for the 19th century, but today it suppresses far more potential than it unlocks. We see the consequences all around us: a marketised system where schools compete rather than collaborate, the academisation model that drift into boot-camp cultures, and selection and exclusion on the increase.

So, what’s the alternative? For me, it’s not a factory model but an organic one — an ecological model of learning. One where young people are nurtured the way a good gardener nurtures a diverse garden: tending the soil, paying attention to conditions, cultivating difference rather than forcing uniformity. This connects directly to my thinking about ecologies of practice, which sit at the heart of art education. In my recent IJADE presentation I reminded the NSEAD members that learning happens through relationships — relationships with people, with spaces, with materials, with conversations and shared rituals. These are not components on a production line. They’re living conditions. They’re the ecosystem in which artistry, curiosity and agency grow.

So when we ask, “What’s the difference between change in the moment and long-term change?”, I think we need to shift our language. Change in the moment is what happens inside this living ecology. It’s what happens when an artist teacher adjusts a material, rearranges a space, frames a new kind of invitation, or attends differently to a learner. Suddenly something shifts — the atmosphere, the relationship, the possibility. It’s that spark when a young person connects with their element and you see their energy rise. These micro-shifts matter. They are powerful. But they are also fragile. They don’t last unless the wider conditions support them.

Which brings me to long-term change. Long-term change is when the ecology itself changes. Agency needs community. Individual innovations only survive when they are collectively held. That means structures matter — curriculum frameworks, assessment cultures, staffing, professional bodies, the value a school places on creativity. You cannot create lasting transformation by tweaking the system; you have to change the conditions that the system rests on. That is the move from curriculum as delivery to education as culture. From curriculum to ecology.

Long-term change is the difference between one brilliant art session and a school where artful, relational pedagogy is simply the norm. And this is where artist teachers are so important. We understand both layers instinctively. In the moment, we shift learning through gestures — how we hold materials, how we read the room, how we open up meaning. But over time, we build practices, rituals, shared understandings, communities of support. We cultivate the ecosystems that can actually hold those moments.

So if I were to sum it up: Change in the moment is immediate, relational and powerful — but delicate. Long-term change is cultural, structural and collective — and it lasts. Artist teachers sit right at the intersection of both. We make the moments and we help build the ecosystems.

And if we want a genuine learning revolution — not just isolated moments of magic — then the long-term goal is clear: we must build educational ecologies where personalised, creative, relational learning isn’t exceptional… it’s expected. That’s how change becomes more than a moment. That’s how it becomes a future.

3) What changes need to happen to support artists to do more of this work?

Saul asked me to talk about what the recent Curriculum & Assessment review and it’s significant in this work and why it might offer us some 'Hope'

.

As art educators, we know that our subject is not simply about producing artefacts — it is about developing young people’s imagination, criticality, cultural literacy, and ability to shape the world they are entering. Yet for too long, the curriculum has not reflected the society our learners live in, nor the future they will build. As NSEAD’s response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review makes clear: as society changes, art changes — and so must our curriculum.

The recognition within the review that current attainment and progress measures have harmed a generation of learners is an important first step. These measures — particularly the Ebacc and Progress 8 — have created a hierarchy of subjects that has limited student choice, squeezed creative learning, and contributed to a steady decline in arts participation. For art educators, the potential removal of the Ebacc is not just symbolic; it is an opportunity to rebalance the system, restore breadth to the curriculum, and give art, craft and design the status it deserves.

Reform also gives us the chance to address longstanding equity gaps. We know there are significant socio-economic and racial disparities in access, attainment, and representation within art and design education. Too many curricula fail to reflect learners’ identities or the diversity of contemporary practice. A reformed curriculum — one that is genuinely contemporary, learner-centred and inclusive — should actively promote representation, broaden cultural references, and value the full range of creative and craft traditions. This is essential if we want every child to see themselves as a creative agent with something to contribute.

Another major opportunity lies in redefining what “knowledge” means in our subject. Art and design is knowledge-rich — but current frameworks fail to articulate that knowledge clearly. We need a curriculum that recognises craft competencies, design thinking, embodied learning, material expertise, conceptual development, and, crucially, the development of imagination and creative thinking. By clarifying these domains, we support teachers to plan with confidence and give learners a clearer pathway through the subject.

The announcement of a National Centre for Arts Education is also hugely promising. For years, art teachers have been asked to deliver more with less — less time, fewer resources, reduced staffing, and increasing pressure. A National Centre, if properly funded, can offer sustained professional development, research, leadership support, and equitable access to high-quality arts experiences across the country. It signals that the arts are not an afterthought, but a national priority.

Alongside governmental change, NSEAD is already creating resources that help educators build the future curriculum now — from The Big Landscape curriculum design toolkit to our anti-racist art education guidance. These tools are designed to empower teachers to create learning that is relevant, inclusive and rooted in contemporary practice. We should avoid those commercial companies/websites and publishers profiteering from the ‘off the shelf’ lesson plans and projects – these money making machines are exploiting teachers rather than supporting teachers – we need to empower teachers to develop their own and not rely on the market driven education model  – this is an example of the fast food model of education – everything becomes standardised, the same, ready-made – I would argue we need to move in the opposite direction – a higher standard more like a Michelin starred restaurants, where the food is customised to local circumstances with locally sourced ingredients.

Ultimately, curriculum reform presents a rare chance to reshape the conditions and ecology in which we work. If we get this right, it will support art educators not only to teach better, but to advocate more confidently for the essential role our subject plays: helping young people understand themselves, think critically about their world, and imagine the futures they want to create.

Photograph by Bill Lam