Category: Art education

A matter of Art in the Primary Curriculum

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

By Dr Claire Osborne, Senior Lecturer in Education

The Labour government’s ‘Curriculum and Assessment Review’ (2025) is now out of consultation. As government ministers reflect on the implications for education policy and fulfil their quest to build a “world class curriculum for all”, I want to take a moment to reflect on the future of art learning and teaching across primary education in England.

Art is a serious matter. It involves the development of authentic knowledge and skills such as learning how to master a range of art and design techniques including drawing, painting, and sculpture to knowing about great artists, architects, and designers in history (DfE, 2013). Moreover, studying art at primary level involves having the opportunity to experiment with different kinds of materials and art tools creatively; this could include how to work with charcoal to create light and shade or mastering a range of craft tools to design and make a clay pot. Engaging in the processes and practices of art not only ignites the imagination but can also develop children’s critical thinking skills (see Tambling and Bacon, 2023, p.13); skills which are much needed by industry to support economic growth. The ability to think critically and independently is especially important today as we witness a rise in AI reliance for educational purposes which may potentially impact on people’s cognitive activity and problem-solving skills (see Kosmyna, 2025).

However, due to enduring knowledge hierarchies, as previously identified by Eisner (2002), the teaching and learning of art and visual cultural knowledge can often be sidelined or undervalued in today’s primary school curriculum (see Cooper, 2018; Tambling and Bacon, 2023; APPG, 2023). My own research also suggests that in some cases, children’s engagement with art processes and practices can sometimes be seen as a treat when the “important” schoolwork has been done (Osborne, 2025). This can reinforce an idea that the creative arts and cultural learning experiences are ‘nice to have’ rather than essential elements to the school curriculum (see CLA, 2017).  More still, when arts-based disciplines are taught in primary schools, some teachers reportedly lack sufficient time and resources to plan high quality learning experiences where the development of arts knowledge and skills are at the forefront of curriculum planning (see Cooper, 2018).

Yet despite recent government and Ofsted pronouncements around the importance of children’s access to a broad, balanced, and knowledge rich curriculum, the decline in art teaching and learning, remains an ongoing concern. In many ways the “problem” (my inverted commas) can be attributed to  a succession of central government policy making decisions over the past 30 years which have shifted the role of primary teaching and learning towards standardisation, accountability, and a focus on measuring ‘useful knowledge’ (see Ball, 2017; Nsead, 2016; Biesta, 2010) rather than offering state educated children a more holistic schooling experience (see APPG, 2023; Tambling and Bacon, 2023). However, a lack of access to art in the primary years not only limits children’s exposure to a well-rounded primary education but may restrict, what Aristotle (2018) advocated in his ninth book on Metaphysics, children’s ‘potentiality’ thus raising issues around social equity and personal fulfilment. For some children, engaging with art also serves as a cathartic experience and therefore plays a much-needed role in any school curriculum in supporting children’s general well-being (see CLA, 2018). Yet, although great things are happening in some schools where the arts are supported well by leadership teams with sufficient funding (Osborne, 2025), we still find ourselves in a position where fostering human creativity and children’s self-expression are not always high on the agenda in every state funded school in England whilst the teaching and learning of essential art knowledge and skills can be undermined as generalist teachers are increasingly deskilled or lacking in confidence (see APPG, 2023, p.10; Tambling and Bacon, 2023; Osborne 2025).

To reverse this situation, art needs to be reestablished as a serious and challenging intellectual endeavour within primary education whilst maintaining the creative freedom and enjoyment it can provide for some children. As such, all children need sufficient time in the school week to experiment freely with art materials and processes whilst critically engaging with visual cultural knowledge which can inspire and challenge children’s thinking. Such rich learning experiences can complement other types of learning and subject disciplines across the curriculum and enhance children’s critical thinking skills. Moreover, schools are active sites of learning which can cultivate new knowledge in the field. This includes knowing about a diverse range of contemporary artists, craft makers, and designers who often act as social commentators on our human condition whilst still dedicating lesson time to appreciating and critiquing some of the more familiar traditional artists and art forms widely displayed in public galleries.

However, teachers need real time, space, and investment to be and become knowledgeable others who are confident, well-trained professionals, who are constantly learning from and with children about art processes and practices which foster creativity, self-expression, criticality and original thought. Moreover, teachers need time to be and become inquisitive researchers at the forefront of curriculum reform who promote the value of both ‘powerful knowledge’ (Young, 2008) and ‘purposeful’ knowledge and skills within their localised contexts. But this can only be achieved if reinforced by top-down education policy reform. This may in turn help to reprioritise the place of art within initial teacher education (ITE) whilst influencing school leadership teams in providing ongoing support for teacher’s continuing professional development (CPD) when in role.

Time and resource will always be a challenge despite recent talk about supporting teachers’ professional autonomy over curriculum planning and design (DfE, 2025).  Hence, as we witness the implementation of the Labour government’s recent Curriculum and Assessment Review (DfE, 2025), I would argue more needs to be done, to ensure the power of arts and visual cultural knowledge and skills remains firmly on the agenda in primary education. Moreover, every child attending a state funded primary school in England should have the opportunity to engage in high-quality art learning and creative exploration facilitated by well-trained and knowledgeable teachers who can adapt learning to reflect their local contexts. This is especially pressing today as we consider the growing influence of artificial intelligence (AI) on many facets of school planning and teaching, and the potential impact this may have on learning at every level and in every subject.  As the decline in localise planning continues and there is a growing demand for time saving ready made plans, the question is, how will the tool of AI impact on creative innovation and original thought? What creative possibilities will AI bring to the primary classroom and how can AI be used well to support children’s artistic engagement and authentic learning?

In the years ahead, AI will certainly shape the future of education; and in many ways, AI and the rise in Edtech could address the marginalisation of art in some schools by freeing up teachers to focus more time on providing children with memorable learning experiences rather than being overburdened with administrative tasks. Moreover, AI may provide teachers with better access to generalised artistic knowledge and skills to inform their curriculum planning and innovation thus responding to how learners learn. Nevertheless, AI is only a tool — it cannot replace teacher’s professional knowledge or professional autonomy or address ongoing issues around subject hierarchies. Furthermore, an over reliance on AI for planning, learning or teaching may inhibit both teachers and children’s critical thinking skills and decision-making processes. These are interesting times for primary education especially in terms of the purpose and philosophy of education. As we look to the future, educationists and policy makers will need to think carefully and mindfully about how AI is used as a supportive planning aid whilst considering how teachers can provide children with greater access to authentic, meaningful, and enjoyable art lessons, where everyone can fulfil their creative potential and engage with a “world class curriculum”. Giving children more access to the creative arts during their primary education may also counteract any notions around a potential decline in human cognitive functioning due to AI reliance by enabling us to continue to think for ourselves, both critically and creatively.

References

Where has all the creativity gone?

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

By Ros Steward, Senior Lecturer in Education, UWE Bristol

Art has been acknowledged (Hewlett & Unsworth in Driscoll, Lambirth & Roden, 2012; Herne et al, 2009) as becoming marginalised in the primary national curriculum even prior to the current iteration (DfE, 2013), due in part to the timetabling of Foundation subjects being increasingly reduced as the focus on the core subjects, particularly Maths and English as a result of the Government’s focus on standardised testing in these subjects, has increased.

This has been seen to impact upon the integrity of many of the foundation subjects, but in particular the arts. The reduction of art and design at KS4 (no longer being a statutory subject) has also had an impact upon the teaching and learning in Primary teaching and learning, with the debate ensuing around the importance of the arts in general and the necessity for them in the 21st Century.

Added to this, there is an issue where future teachers are being trained to teach Foundation subjects, (the allocation of time with training programmes mirroring that of school based curricula), including art, for which they have little affinity due to a variety of reasons including their personal perception of ability and subject knowledge. Indeed, many have the perception that art has little value as a subject other than being an minor adjunct to other areas of learning in education, suggesting that art as a force for creative and innovative thinking, the opportunity for imagination to flourish and the understanding of how artists over time have expressed their view of the world, may well be increasingly diminishing within our classrooms. Robinson (2006) expressed:  “We are educating people out of their creativity” and there might well be some truth in his assertions with the current political climate and assessment driven agenda.

The National Society for Education in Art and Design (NSEAD) stated only this year that ‘Art and design is popular, but it is complacent to say it is thriving – children are getting less art and design’ in their written response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review (DfE, 2025), followed by a further report by Thomson et al (2025), both reflecting what our Primary trainees are reporting to us- they see little or no art being taught in schools during their placements. So is it an issue with the pedagogical focus currently seen in ITE generally or specifically here at UWE Bristol? And can it be addressed?

Since teaching on an Initial Teacher Education programme at UWE, I have reflected on how art is taught in Primary education. I realised that, although I believed I was fostering creativity by teaching discrete skills and art knowledge, the structured and directive approach may have limited children’s creative expression and confidence. Conversations with trainees about their own experiences highlighted that this method might have contributed to the negative perceptions of art that many held, particularly during Key Stage 2.

This is not a new concern; previous research (Gatt & Karpinnen, 2014; Gibson, 2003; Russell-Bowie, 2004; 2012) has similarly found that student teachers’ perceptions of art are shaped by their own schooling experiences. These perceptions are often left unchallenged during initial teacher education, largely due to the prioritisation of core subjects. My own small-scale research supports these findings: qualitative data from an online questionnaire revealed that many students held preconceived views about the value of art and design in Primary education, often linked to low confidence stemming from limited personal skills or subject knowledge. Rokeach (1970) cited in Smith (1971) defines attitude as:

An attitude is a relatively enduring organisation of beliefs around an object or situation, predisposing one to respond in some preferential manner. An attitude is relatively enduring because it can be learned, it can be unlearned. Because it is learned, it can be taught.’

                                                                                                (Smith, 1971:82)

A key factor in developing a new approach was the allocation of sufficient timetabled sessions within the Foundation modules at UWE Bristol. Year 1 undergraduates received five 3-hour sessions focused on art and design, allowing for both skill development across various media (including photography) and the nurturing of creativity. The PGCE programme offered a comparable amount of time. In Year 2, undergraduates engaged with a module on integrating art into cross-curricular themes and could choose an art specialism that further explored how art and design could be embedded meaningfully across the Primary curriculum.

As a result of my research and reflection, I adapted my planning to allow for more open-ended outcomes from an initial stimulus, aiming to encourage students to develop original ideas collaboratively or individually, based on their existing skills. This approach did not eliminate the discrete teaching of skills, which remains essential—particularly since many teacher trainees, especially in EYFS and Primary education, have had little formal art education beyond GCSE or A level. Many trainees recalled enjoying art in early childhood, when exploration was encouraged, but later lost interest due to comparisons with peers. This aligns with Lowenfeld’s (1947) stages of artistic development: during the ‘Dawning Realism’ stage (7–9 years), children become more self-critical, and by the ‘Pseudo-Naturalistic’ stage (10–13 years), they evaluate their success based on realism, often resulting in frustration. In many Primary settings, children are still directed toward uniform outcomes, increasing the potential for comparison. Conversations with trainees revealed that teacher attitudes and feedback often contributed to diminished confidence—for example, work not being displayed or comments suggesting they weren’t good enough. As previously noted this issue is longstanding, but I believed it could be positively addressed through thoughtful preparation for practice. Shifting trainees’ negative perceptions toward enthusiasm became my central aim.

To begin adapting my approach, I reviewed a Year 6 unit I had previously taught for several years based on the QCA scheme of work ‘People in Action’ (DfEE/QCA, 2000). At the time, I believed the children had made progress—developing subject knowledge of artists like Duchamp and Chagall, and improving skills such as drawing and proportion. However, further reflection and research highlighted significant limitations in the way the unit was delivered. Although initial activities encouraged open dialogue and imaginative thinking through unprompted discussion of artworks, the creative potential was ultimately constrained. Children were shown examples of prior outcomes, told what medium to use (chalk pastel), and guided through a set sequence to produce work ‘in the style of’ a specific artist. This predetermined outcome left little room for genuine creativity, resulting in near-identical pieces. As Hickman (2010) noted, such an approach prioritises product over process. To reverse this, greater flexibility in media, scale, and open-ended outcomes, aligned with models of creative thinking like Bloom’s Taxonomy and the SOLO taxonomy, might foster deeper engagement and original thinking.

Teaching itself is a ‘creative act’…and relies continuously on chance meetings of idea and materials, curiosity, flexibility and adventurous thinking”

(Barnes : 2007:137)

To further develop this new pedagogical approach, I revisited the QCA unit ‘Take a Seat’, but this time handed over the entire creative process to the trainees to help build their confidence and reduce self-criticism. After sharing my previous experience and the limitations I had identified, I invited the trainees to interpret the unit title independently, without further guidance. This encouraged a broad range of ideas to emerge. Working in groups, trainees planned their own direction, documented their thinking and adaptations, and experimented with different materials and techniques. While some discrete skill teaching was necessary—for example, when using unfamiliar materials like modroc or working with clay—the main emphasis was on exploration, discovery, and peer-supported learning, consistent with Bruner’s (1960, 1968) constructivist approach and findings by Dismore et al. (2008). The open-ended nature of the task allowed for an unexpectedly wide range of outcomes, including both 2D and 3D works. Trainees utilised diverse media—ICT (posters, videos, presentations), clay, wire, modroc, found materials, drawings, and paintings—demonstrating increased creativity, autonomy, and collaborative learning.

The reflections from the trainees were extremely encouraging and confirmed that by enabling them to explore different ideas and build upon their strengths and learn new skills, the majority had become far more confident in their own abilities as artists. It was clear that this approach had stimulated their creativity in unexpected ways, and in turn their attitude had become far more enthused for a subject previously viewed negatively. This in turn prompted many of them to try out this approach of teaching art in their own practice with positive results.

In recent years, the focus within Initial Teacher Education (ITE) has shifted once again toward the core subjects, with all year groups receiving dedicated input in English, maths, and science, while coverage of Foundation subjects, such as art and design, has notably declined. This narrowing of focus reflects the concerns raised by Susan Ogier (2022) who critiques the dominance of accountability measures that limit children’s access to a truly broad and enriching education, essential for preparing them for a creative and technological future. This is mirrored at UWE; Year 1 students now receive just one lecture and three 2-hour sessions in art and design, focused only on basic skills, with little to no opportunity for extended or applied creative learning. The Year 2 art specialism has been removed, and art is now taught within a cross-curricular module in a hierarchical format (Barnes, 2015), limiting deeper engagement with the subject. As Eisner (1972) argued, the arts uniquely enrich human experience and perception, particularly through aesthetic understanding—a contribution no other field can replicate. Without meaningful opportunities for participation in art and design, we risk depriving future generations of these vital humanising experiences.

So, where do we go from here? To offset the limited opportunities within current ITE training, some colleagues and I are planning to deliver regular twilight continuing professional development meetings, incorporating practical workshops, for our Partnership colleagues and also Year 2 and 3 trainees, where we can discuss how we can better deliver creative teaching and encourage teaching of creativity across the Arts for all Primary children, encouraging them to reflect on the theoretical aspects of discrete and cross curricular models, developing their own practical subject knowledge to enhance their confidence and suggesting how the shift from product driven teaching to process, enabling children to investigate and explore possibilities, will enable a vibrant community where successes can be celebrated and shared. It will be interesting to monitor how this is received by our Primary teaching colleagues, and our trainees, and study whether any appreciable impact can be identified on how the Arts are delivered in our Partnership schools in the future.

References

Barnes, J. (2007, 2nd ed). Cross-Curricular Learning 3-14. London: Sage

Barnes, J. (2015) Cross-Curricular Learning 3-14. London: Sage

Bloom, B. S.; Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: David McKay Company.

Bruner, J. (1960) The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Bruner, J. (1968) Towards a Theory of Instruction. New York: Norton

DfE (2025) Curriculum and Assessment Review: interim report https://www.gov.uk/government/news/curriculum-and-assessment-review-publishes-interim-findings

DfEE/QCA, (2000) Art and design scheme of work  https://www.qca.org.uk/232.html

Dismore, P., Barnes, J. and Scoffham, S. (2008) Space to Reflect. London: Creative Partnerships

Driscoll, P., Lambirth, A. and Roden, J. (eds) (2012) The Primary Curriculum- a creative approach. London: Sage

Eisner, E. (1972). Educating Artistic Vision. New York: MacMillan

Gatt, I & Karppinen, S (2014) An Enquiry into Primary Student Teachers’ Confidence, Feelings and Attitudes towards Teaching Arts and Crafts in Finland and Malta during Initial Teacher Training. International Journal of Art & Design Education 33.1

Gibson, R. (2003) Learning to be an art educator: student teachers’ attitudes to art and art education, International Journal of Art & Design Education, Vol. 22, No.1, pp. 111–20

Herne, S., Cox, S., Watts, R. (eds) (2009) Readings in Primary Art Education, Intellect Books

Hickman, R. (2010, 2nd ed.). Why We Make Art – and why it is taught. Bristol: Intellect

Lowenfeld, V. (1947) Creative and Mental Growth. New York: Macmillan Co.

NSEAD (2025) Curriculum and Assessment Review – NSEAD response and analysis  https://www.nsead.org/files/79b22a9c45f173a4ef2d2a8941248165.pdf

Ogier, S. (2022) A Broad and Balanced Curriculum in Primary Schools London: Sage

Robinson (2006) Do Schools kill Creativity? TED talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRnToFZQQP4

Russell-Bowie, D. (2004). Arts education: Are the problems the same across five countries?

Preservice teachers’ perceptions of the problems to teaching arts education in primary schools in five countries. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Melbourne

Russell-Bowie, D. (2012) Developing preservice primary teachers’ confidence and competence in arts education using principles of authentic learning, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 37, No. 1 Article 4

Smith, A. N. (1971) The importance of attitude in foreign language learning. Modern language journal. 55 (2), pp. 83-88.

Thomson, P., Hall, C., Maloy, L. (2025) The RAPS Project: Researching the Arts in Primary Schools  The University of Nottingham https://artsprimary.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/raps-final-feb-2025–4.pdf

School Art: Where Is It? A (re)exploration of the visual arts in secondary schools

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

By Dr Will Grant, Associate Director of the School of Arts, UWE Bristol, and ECRG member

This blog post is a brief, informal introduction to the report School Art: Where Is It? (Fursman, Grant, & Wild 2024), which I recently co-authored with colleagues from UCL and Birmingham City University. The report revisits work undertaken by Dick Downing and Ruth Watson in their 2004 School Art: What Is It? report, and asks what has changed in the pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment of the visual arts in secondary schools over the preceding 20 years.

In 2004, Tate Gallery and the National Foundation for Education Research did something unusual. They decided to fund research into the substantive content of secondary school art classrooms, with a particular concern for engagement with contemporary arts practice in the sector. Given the brevity of the National Curriculum entry for Art and Design at the time (2003), it was very difficult to otherwise guess, without taking the time to ask, what rationales, pedagogies, and curricula art teachers across the country might be activating.

The resultant report, School Art: What is It? (Downing and Watson 2004), while adopting a loose methodology that might best be described as illustrative, became a defining record of practice typical in secondary art education that has persisted as a reference point across the decades following. Among its many observations, the report tells of very high levels of teacher agency, where individuals or collegiate departments of art teachers might take inspiration from a local gallery exhibition or their personal artistic practices, and others who centred curriculum on celebrating pupils’ opinions, creating safe spaces to build pupils’ self-belief. It also suggested that canonical artistic references were commonplace, predominately early 20th century sources assessed on technical accessibility. These references were very narrow, with only one non-European/American artist mentioned at all (Ana Bella Geiger), and only two further female artists noted in conventional school curricula (Georgia O’Keefe and Bridget Riley) across the interviews. In one comment especially memorable from my first encounter with the report (as a progressively-minded pre-service teacher), the authors note that:

“One of the more experienced teachers explained that she/he hadn’t the faintest idea what post-modern art was about, and doubted that anyone else did either, while another corroborated that view by admitting that she/he didn’t understand contemporary art.”

Downing and Watson 2004, 61

Having referenced this report in our work in pre-service teacher education and within our individual research activities for many years, Carol Wild (UCL), Jo Fursman (Birmingham City University), and I decided it would be a worthy exercise to repeat the School Art report twenty years after its original publication. We wanted to both pay homage to this rare example of empirical data collection in art classrooms and simultaneously explore the changes that may have occurred over the preceding decades. We knew, from our own experiences in the classroom, that a lot of contextual factors remained the same in 2024 as in 2004 – a National Curriculum (2013) of limited operational value, a lack of expendable art materials, and a tension between artistic freedoms and increasingly conformative pedagogic and assessment policies (Grant 2023). However, there had clearly been huge political, technological, and disciplinary shifts over this period, and we knew research into how these changes have impacted on English secondary school art education was extremely limited. It felt somewhat ridiculous that pre-service art teachers were still being asked to reference source material on ‘contemporary’ classroom practices published before they were born!

We replicated the methods of Downing and Watson as accurately as possible – not for the sake of scientific rigour (the data set too small and rich to bear out any meaningful statistical comparison), but to create reflective connections between then and now. Therefore, we went about interviewing 36 secondary school teachers of art from over 30 different schools, asking identical questions of their curriculum, its content, and influences. In our writing, we directly borrowed structure and phrasing from the first report, producing a palimpsest that could be considered an iterative companion piece to the 2004 publication.

In our report, School Art: Where is it? (Fursman, Grant & Wild 2024), we present in a dispassionate voice a record that we hope other researchers, writers, advocates and practitioners will assess as fair reportage on the nature of secondary school art curriculum content in 2024. We followed in the philosophy of the first report – seeking not answers, but ‘questions that might be worthy of addressing’ (Downing 2005, 275). Given some of our findings – the ahistorical persistence of ‘formal elements’ as uncontextualised framework for normative curricula, a collapse in professional agency (especially among early career art teachers), and a significant decline in sculptural practices – it was tempting to err into commentary critical of policy, paradigm, or practitioners’ priorities. This was especially true where our own research assumed a critical stance on school orthodoxies (Grant 2020, Wild 2013) but we knew the enduring value to the field of Downing and Watson’s (2004) report was its subtle, observational neutrality.

Aside from the concerns that might be drawn by some readers of School Art (2024), there was also much that might be celebrated in the voices of our interviewees. We found a deep, unanimous sentiment among art teachers that curriculum diversification was an urgent mission, and evidence that this intent was starting to manifest in classrooms (in 2024, 35% of the artists mentioned by interviewees as featuring on their curriculum were female). We also saw photography and digital media emerging, and an interest among teachers to employ contemporary artworks to open paradigmatic questions about the nature of art practice with their pupils.

As authors, we have been delighted to receive so much public interest in a report that was initiated from personal curiosity. It has been used, directly, as evidence of contemporary arts provision in the DfE’s ongoing Curriculum and Assessment Review, and we will be discussing the report further at a panel event during the National Society for Education in Art and Design’s annual conference on 19 June 2025.

References

  • Department for Education (2013) Art and Design Programmes of Study: Key Stage 3, National Curriculum in England. Department for Education; London.
  • Downing, D. (2005) School Art – What’s in it?, in The International Journal for Art and Design Education, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 269-276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2005.00450.x
  • Downing, D. & Watson, R. (2004) School Art: What’s In It? Exploring Visual Arts in Secondary Schools. National Foundation for Education Research; Slough. Available online here: https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/school-art-whats-in-it-exploring-visual-arts-in-secondary-schools/ (last accessed 10th April 2025).
  • Fursman, J., Grant, W., & Wild, C. (2024) School Art: Where Is It? (Re)exploring Visual Arts in Secondary Schools. National Society for Education in Art and Design; Corsham. Available online here: https://www.nsead.org/resources/research-reports-and-reviews/school-art-where-is-it-2024/ (last accessed 10th April 2025).
  • Grant, W. (2020) Liberal ideals, postmodern practice: a working paradox for the future of secondary school art education in England?, in The International Journal for Art and Design Education, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 56-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12228
  • Grant, W. (2023) Protecting Transformative Optimism in the Art Classroom: Exploring Aspirant Art Teachers’ Shifting Ideals. EdD Thesis: University of Glasgow. Available online here: https://theses.gla.ac.uk/84006/ (last accessed 10th April 2025).
  • Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2003) The National Curriculum Programme of Study: Art and Design Key Stage 3. QCA; London.
  • Wild, C. (2013) Who Owns the Classroom? Profit, Pedagogy, Belonging, Power, in The International Journal of Art & Design Education, vol. 32, pp. 288-299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2013.12029.x

Back to top

Follow this blog

Get every new post delivered right to your inbox.