Contemporary Theatre in Education

Roger Wooster

• Publisher: Intellect Books
• Year: 2007
• ISBN:
  9781841509846
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

The Theater in Education (TIE) movement emerged in 1960s Britain as a unique hybrid of performance and child-centered learning. Roger Wooster's Contemporary Theater in Education tells the story of the creation of this dramatic form and its adaptation in a rapidly changing political, economic, and educational environment.
In addition to interviews with prominent TIE directors and discussions of specific projects, this volume offers a snapshot of all the productions held in Wales during a single month during the summer of 2004. As the distinction between TIE and children's theater becomes even more blurred, this book is an invaluable resource for anyone studying the use of theater in schools. "A most useful, provocative and well-researched theoretical document which I will most certainly have on my essential reading list for students studying theatre in education."—Charmian Savill, University of Aberystwyth

Chapter One

Introduction

It is generally accepted that TIE¹ emerged as a distinct ‘hybrid’ of theatre and education forms in 1965 with the work of the Belgrade Theatre, Coventry. This company began working in a unique way, using theatre and performance with small cohorts of children in schools, and involving these audiences as participants within the drama. Theatrically the lineage can be seen as coming from such genres as ‘agitprop’ and community theatre where it was felt pertinent to take theatre out of its usual hallowed environment and transpose it to places where a wider audience might have access and benefit. Underlying this was a socio-political belief that theatre needed to be democratized and made relevant to all social groups. The subject matter of such theatre thus tended to be socially and politically derived with a specific audience or message in mind. Simultaneously British theatre was experimenting more and more confidently with non-traditional and creative forms. The ideas of Brecht were gaining in popularity amongst actors and directors for the creative freedom and political integrity they offered. The 1960s witnessed a seminal change in social and personal liberty and many theatre practitioners preferred to work outside the confines of the traditional artistic and financial theatre structures.

Simultaneously, there was an increasing belief in the centrality of the child within education. Perhaps as a result of the deprivations of war, the generation growing up in the 1950s and 1960s demanded more from schools than mere preparation for work. Unrestricted by notions of a centrally defined curriculum, this demand was responded to by an increasing number of teachers interested in heuristic educational approaches. ‘Progressive’ educational ideas, that can be traced back to Rousseau, were now being accepted by many teachers, educational theorists and even governments. In Britain this progressive strand in education had been growing in strength since the beginning of the twentieth century. In the field of drama it is especially to be seen in the work of Harriet Finlay-Johnson, Caldwell Cook and then, post-war, in the work of Peter Slade, Brian Way and Dorothy Heathcote. These new educational priorities sought to place the child at the centre of their own learning. It was believed that more effective learning took place when children were encouraged to investigate the world through play and through active approaches to discovery. Group and project work, it was believed, would teach them to cooperate and understand the world both rationally and emotionally. This approach, often referred to as being ‘child-centred’, prioritized the child’s emotional needs over the mere requirement to absorb knowledge and facts. Such ideas were never universally accepted and it would be perfidious to suggest otherwise, but this undercurrent gave the new subject of ‘drama’ a certain primacy. Within drama it was possible for children to address their personal and social needs, often within the wider demands of the [as yet undefined] curriculum.

Slade, Way and later Heathcote all recognized in drama and dramatic play the opportunity for children to come to terms with their own selves and the world. By using role play and reflection they were encouraged to find their place on their own world stage. Indeed, many drama theorists regarded this subject as having the potential to be at the centre of the education system, offering opportunities for cross-curriculum work and allowing for meaning-making within a holistic approach to learning.

Theatre in Education developed as a hybrid of these new theatrical and educational undercurrents and created a methodology that offered a child-centred approach to learning within a theatrical context. Christine Redington² has identified the quiddities of Theatre in Education as including child-centred learning, the use of play, learning by doing, project teaching and the use of drama in education techniques. She also maintains that projects should have an identified age group and include problem solving and language development. From theatre she sees the utilization of techniques of creative theatrical forms derived from Brecht’s ‘Epic’ theatre using both empathy and objectivity to encourage the involvement of audience as critical observers.³ The next chapter explores the degree to which this attempted fusion of emotional engagement and critical detachment became accepted as a defining characteristic of TIE by commentators in the twenty years following 1965.

The ‘progressive’ idea of encouraging children to think, to question and to challenge inevitably led to the work of both DIE⁴ teachers and TIE actor/teachers coming under suspicion and subsequent threat. The whole concept of child-centred learning was increasingly being questioned during the 1970s and such approaches found themselves being blamed for social disquiet and industrial disharmony. The post-war educational consensus can be seen to have been breaking down at this time and, with the election of a Conservative government in 1979, it was clear that accepted educational theory was going to come under scrutiny.

The concept of a ‘National Curriculum’ was not originally part of the plans for this educational overhaul, but by the time of the Education Reform Act [1988] the necessity and value of such an entity had been widely accepted by those on the political right. A subsequent change of government [1997] indicated that this consensus had spread across the political spectrum since there has been no indication of a willingness to challenge the notion of a centrally directed National Curriculum. The Curriculum for the first time set out the ‘Learning Objectives’ for a defined range of subjects within each of four ‘Key Stages’. The effect of this was to discourage project work and cross-curriculum approaches. More importantly to DIE and TIE was that drama was not accorded a place in the new Curriculum and was instead subsumed within English. This clearly offered a major challenge to drama and TIE in schools which was to some degree ameliorated by the insistence of the Curriculum that children should have access to professional theatre and that they should develop both skills of artistic analysis of product and also performance and devising skills. This preserved the presence of drama in Key Stages 1–3, though the emphasis had fallen on theatricality and play making rather than drama. However, another strand of the National Curriculum has offered a second lifeline to those schools who wish to employ drama methodologies, for there are many references to the need for personal and social development. The Personal Social and Health Education [PSHE] curriculum has allowed many drama teachers to exercise their skills in this area. At the same time, however, training in drama at teacher training colleges has seen a sharp decline and the availability of the particular skills of the drama teacher are less present in schools.

It will be examined, in Chapter Four, how the Education Reform Act [ERA] may have offered both threats and opportunities to TIE. As with DIE, its working methods might not fit easily into the strictures of the Learning Objectives and Key Stages of the Curriculum, whilst the requirement for theatre form to be part of a child’s education could also guarantee that there would be a demand for theatre within education. The stipulation that schools should access professional work could be offering touring TIE companies a security of patronage. It will be interesting to note whether there has been pressure to fulfil the curriculum delivery needs of schools in order to gain access to scarce time with pupils, and to identify whether such needs were at odds with TIE’s function and perceived benefits. Such pressure might come not only from the Curriculum, but also from the Local Management of Schools [LMS], also part of ERA, which delegated budgets from Local Education Authorities [LEA] to schools. There has been potential for pressure upon TIE companies not only from curriculum needs, but also financially, for without centralized LEA support many companies have found themselves without reliable core funding.

In Wales, as will be shown, 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. These particular circumstances will be examined in Chapter Five. Despite the TIE companies going through the same change in environment as their English counterparts, the situation is, in 2004, that each of the counties of Wales has its dedicated TIE team. These are still generally funded by partnership arrangements between Local Authorities and the Arts Council of Wales [ACW], though most companies also make charges to schools. Unlike the situation in England, though some companies have disappeared or been amalgamated, all parts of Wales have had some continuity of service. In 1998, the newly devolved Welsh Assembly found itself with control of the arts and education budgets, and this, perhaps, has also allowed TIE to thrive in Wales as compared to England. This generally positive approach to TIE has not been without its tribulations, and this chapter also examines the TIE review [1998–2003] that at one point threatened to completely change the nature of theatre in education in Wales.

The question arising from the offered definitions of TIE and the political, educational and financial pressures is the extent that TIE in Wales [or in Britain generally] has been able to hold onto its drama roots and keep the defining characteristics of TIE as outlined by Redington and others. If TIE in Wales has managed to continue to provide a TIE service to children and schools, how has it done so? Wales still has a National Curriculum [though there are areas in which Welsh national requirements have been reflected] and teachers are under at least as much pressure to deliver a wide range of Learning Objectives, often in two languages.

In order to investigate the current form/s of TIE in Wales and to note any changes in educational philosophy, in the summer term of 2004 each of the eight companies in Wales was visited. Where available, the associated teaching materials were analysed and a member of the company was interviewed about the programme’s content, approaches and methodologies.⁵ The aim was thus to find out how and why TIE has managed to survive in Wales. Through studying the programmes and through interviews with directors, it was intended to determine the current form of TIE in Wales, whether the genre is surviving, and to note whether the original precepts of TIE are surviving the changes in the educational, financial and artistic environment. The information thus derived may serve as offering models and warnings to TIE wherever it is employed.

It should be expected that any art form, and indeed any educational approach, will be subject to healthy developmental forces. The relation between theatre and education was evolving during the 1960s and 1970s as the individual elements developed and created new ways of maximizing the potential of their symbiosis. The techniques being used by companies in the late 1970s, drawn perhaps from Heathcote and Boal, would be distinct from the Slade and Way derived approaches of early Belgrade programmes. However, the centrality and needs of the child were a defining aspect of this genre that became known as the ‘TIE movement’. Through this study of TIE in Wales, it is intended to establish whether this evolution has continued from its genesis, and to discover whether contemporary TIE continues to give primacy to the needs of the child whilst having found ways of working within the constraints of the National Curriculum.

From the productions and the responses to the interviews it has been possible to make some broad observations and to draw some general conclusions about the current format and philosophy of TIE in Wales. However, the author is aware of the dangers of attempting to create a definitive classification of methodologies and policies from this one tranche of work. For example, few of the programmes visited contained extensive workshop elements, but many directors indicated that other programmes may contain more substantial involvement, dependant upon the perceived needs of the project and the target group.

Throughout this work a Darwinian metaphor has been employed which I hope the reader will not find too laboured. The argument is that a new ‘species’ evolved through the symbiosis of theatre and drama education techniques. Having defined the characteristics of this new species in the early chapters, this study proceeds to consider the extent to which these characteristics still identify work that is being called Theatre in Education. In Chapter Five the work of the Wales companies is analysed with a view to identifying these developments and considering the ‘genetics’ of the evolution of TIE. It may be that TIE has evolved to fulfil its unique potential in the new educational environment. However, it is also possible that the companies’ work has become so distinct from former TIE form that a ‘mutation’ may be regarded as having taken place. The final chapter seeks to draw conclusions about the current state of TIE in Wales and to identify whether TIE still exists as a distinct form, or whether a new term might more properly be coined.

Notes

1. Theatre in Education.

2. REDINGTON, C. Can Theatre Teach? Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1983.

3. Ibid., p. 3ff.

4. Drama in Education.

5. See Appendix Three.

Chapter Two

The Origin of the Species: The Genetic Legacy from Drama in Education

The development of Theatre in Education [TIE] in Britain since the mid 1960s and in Wales from 1972 has been closely interwoven with Drama in Education [DIE] praxis. Before proceeding to analyse current TIE praxis in Wales it will therefore be appropriate to critically evaluate the methodological and philosophical approaches underpinning DIE which informed the development of this genre and to arrive at a definition of TIE against which current practice can be measured. DIE approaches that have affected TIE have included a recognition of the value of play, the ability of drama to encourage social and personal development and the use of ‘role’ and ‘reflection’. To these TIE adds influences from theatre practice, especially Brecht but also the 1960s phenomena of ‘alternative’ theatre and agitprop.

This chapter will first set out to investigate the common theoretical roots of DIE and TIE and consider some definitions. It will be argued that TIE’s genesis was facilitated by particular educational and theatrical epistemologies of the 1960s within a post-war social context. However, in measuring current practice against a...