Tag: ECRG

Inclusive climate education: a call to action from additional learning needs and alternative provision settings

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

By Dr Verity Jones, Associate Professor in Education

Report launch

This week sees the publication of the Climate Change and Sustainability Education in Additional Learning Needs and Alternative Provision Settings report, authored by Shannon O’Connor, Dr Jennifer Rudd, Dr David Thomas, and Bryony Bromley. Drawing on research from 26 additional learning needs (ALN) settings across Wales and a micro-Delphi study, the report highlights urgent gaps in resources, training, and support for educators working with learners who are often excluded from mainstream sustainability discourse.

Intersecting with ECRG’s Sustainability Strand

As co-leads of the Education and Childhood Research Group’s Sustainability Strand at UWE Bristol, myself and Dr Tessa Podpadec welcome this report’s publication. It aligns closely with our commitment to embedding climate and sustainability education across diverse educational contexts, and particularly with our work on inclusive pedagogies that centre learner agency, creativity, and justice.

The report’s findings reinforce our belief that sustainability education must be differentiated – not diluted. Learners  deserve access to meaningful, age-appropriate content that reflects their lived experiences and capacities.

Insights from Sparks, Bristol

These themes resonate strongly with the work that Tessa, Dr Jon Mulholland and I have been developing at Sparks, Bristol with Global Goals Centre, a sustainable education hub where we have been working with special educational needs settings. At Sparks, we’ve explored how young people engage with sustainability through sensory-rich, place-based and creative approaches – from growing food and cooking with seasonal produce, to crafting with recycled materials and engaging in community-based environmental action.

These activities not only support curriculum goals but also foster a sense of belonging, purpose, and ecological connection among learners who may not otherwise see themselves reflected in climate narratives.

What needs to change

The report calls for:

  • A national bank of ALN-specific CCSE resources
  • Dedicated CCSE networks for ALN educators
  • Sustainability embedded across all Areas of Learning and Experience (AoLEs)
  • Easier access to ALN-friendly school trips and experiential learning.

These recommendations align with our Strand’s goals to support practitioner-led workshops and collaborative research that foreground inclusive climate pedagogies.

Why it matters

As Wales moves toward its net-zero targets, and as the curriculum for Wales embeds sustainability across all AoLEs, greater emphasis needs to be made to ensure that no learner is left behind. This report offers a roadmap for doing just that in Wales and beyond -and we encourage colleagues across education, policy, and research to engage with its findings. 

Read the report

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

The 13th International Conference of Critical Education: Revolutionary theory in a time of monsters

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

By Stephen Beresford

In early July, alongside fellow UWE Bristol PhD student, Anna Burchfiel, our supervisor and ECRG Lead, Professor Alpesh Maisuria, I had the privilege of attending and presenting at the 13th International Conference of Critical Education (ICCE) at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece.

The theme of this year’s conference was ‘Critical Education in Times of War’ and the global political context was one that weighed heavy on proceedings; every contribution recognised that we live in barbaric times, in a time where the contradictions of capitalism have ushered in the global intensification of oppression and repression and an age of imperialist violence, war and genocide. As one presentation reminded us, we are living – in the words of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci – in a ‘time of monsters’.

To this end, it was important to be at a conference where those at the forefront of struggle across the globe could share their experiences. Contributions were both outstanding and wide-ranging: we heard about the effect that the genocide in Gaza has had on adult education, and about the efforts being made – in the most unimaginable circumstances – to keep the flame of education alive; we heard about the repression being meted out against educators in Brazil and Turkey; about the perniciousness of discourses of SEND ‘inclusion’ in the UK; about the relation between capitalism, economic growth, ecological crisis, and dominant education forms, and from Anna, we heard about the reality of the financial ‘crisis’ in UK universities.

Important too was the fact that the conference agreed to a statement in solidarity with the people of Palestine, standing against the genocide and with the Palestinian struggle for freedom from occupation and apartheid. As one participant from Lebanon pointed out, when compared to her experiences at other more ‘mainstream’ conferences and academic organisations, it was notable the ease with which such a statement could be agreed. To be involved with ICCE is, in this sense, something that fills me with pride. It too should give food for thought for those organisations who fail to stand up at such a horrific juncture.

This touches on another theme that emerged in many of the contributions: the question of resistance and hope. Not only was it consistently noted that to feel despair, or to acquiesce in such times is a moral and theoretical error, it was also noted that across the world, forces of resistance are building that are waiting to be untapped. As Alpesh’s presentation implored, this means we must be more committed than ever to forging accurate, rigorous, scientific explanations of social reality; without doing so, practices aimed at social transformation will be blind, and the forces of liberation and emancipation will fail to seize on the moment of crisis.

This idea of the emancipatory nature of rigorous social explanation was also one that my presentation touched upon too. I argued that theorisations of the school that attempt to view it in terms of the reproduction of ‘unequal’ classes must not merely think of this in terms of class discrimination and the inheritance of advantage. Such an approach misses that the more fundamental purpose of the schooling system is to contribute to the reproduction of capitalist social relations; it is an ideological state apparatus, structured to ‘interpellate’ individuals in subtly different ways to generalise ideologies amenable to capitalism. The inherited nature of educational achievement must always be thought within, and as occurring because of, this more fundamental role of the school. Any theory that does not do this fails to explain the fundamental imperatives that shape schooling forms, and in the process, risks reinforcing conceptions of class amenable to the ideologies that reproduce capitalism, and its exploitation and oppression.

The contributions of Alpesh, Anna and I, like so many others at the conference were guided by the cause of the exploited and oppressed global working-class majority. What the conference reinforced in me was a belief that this cause is inseparable from – and in fact depends upon – accurate and scientific explanations ofthe social world. Research that does not proceed from an unrelenting commitment to explanatory rigour can only serve the forces who benefit from ongoing exploitation and oppression; as the Marxist theorist and education thinker Louis Althusser put it, ‘true ideas serve the people, false ones the enemies of the people’.

And this is precisely what ICCE is about: it is a site where in a spirit of comradely rigour and debate we hone our theoretical armoury; where we hear about the struggles in the realm of education from across the globe, and where we think together about how to understand such struggles. Such debates are conducted in order to guide our theoretical and political practice, sharpening our understanding of how practices of education might fit into – or thwart – the global struggle for liberation.

However, not only did the conference sharpen theoretical skills, it also sharpened motivations and resolve too. To hear from, and connect with, people from across the globe at the forefront of struggle is a tonic for anyone committed to a transformed world. The creation of these bonds of solidarity are a reminder that across the globe there are people committed to the idea that the social ills that provoke us all cannot be merely ameliorated through piecemeal change, but that they can only be vanquished by theoretically informed revolutionary practice.

ICCE gives an insight into how this revolutionary pulse of liberation, of justice and peace plays out in the realm of education. In this ‘time of monsters’, a space to reflect on these insights and theorise together is needed more than ever; to contribute at ICCE therefore is an honour, and indeed a responsibility, for anyone committed to thinking about education in terms of the global struggle for liberation and justice.

Stephen Beresford is a PhD student at UWE Bristol and can be contacted via email: stephen2.beresford@live.uwe.ac.uk

Crafting change: How craft is empowering children for a sustainable future

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

By Dr Verity Jones

In the face of escalating ecological and social crises, education must evolve to equip the next generation with the tools to imagine and enact a more sustainable and just world. In our new paper published in the International Journal of Social Pedagogy, we explore how eco-craftivism – the fusion of ecological awareness and craft-based activism- can serve as a powerful pedagogical tool in primary education.

Conducted with 120 pupils aged 8 to 9 in two UK primary schools, our research investigates how creative, hands-on learning can foster eco-social pedagogy (ESP). ESP expands traditional social pedagogy by integrating ecological consciousness with social justice, emphasizing the interconnectedness of people, planet, and the material world.

We call to for a de-bordering of solidarities: to move beyond human-to-human empathy and include solidarity with the environment and non-human “things.” This form of solidarity, with human-made objects, is crucial in cultivating sustainable behaviours. Craft and craftivism are powerful tools for building creative relationships with things in ways that build solidarities with those things, but also serve as gateways to holistic solidarities with the environment and human others. By engaging with recycled materials like copper wire, cardboard, and old socks, we explore how pupils developed material literacies – an understanding of the origins, value, and lifecycle of everyday items. This awareness, in turn, sparked deeper ecological and social insights.

The project’s workshops – where children crafted bracelets, puzzles, and sock puppets – were more than just craft lessons. They were immersive experiences that connected students emotionally and intellectually to the climate crisis. Pupils expressed joy in creating, pride in reusing materials, and a newfound sense of agency. One student reflected:

“It’s like doing something for the planet but also doing something that you can use.”

This dual purpose – personal enjoyment and environmental impact – embodies the essence of eco-craftivism.

Teachers, too, reported a shift in perspective. Inspired by the workshops, they reconsidered their own classroom practices, opting to use more sustainable materials and integrate environmental storytelling into lessons. The study highlights how craft-making can transform both teaching and learning, making abstract issues like climate change tangible and emotionally resonant.

Importantly, the research also addresses the emotional toll of climate education. Many children initially expressed fear and helplessness. However, through creative engagement, these emotions often shifted toward hope and empowerment. Crafting became a medium for emotional expression and resilience, helping students process complex feelings in a constructive way.

This study is a vital contribution to the growing field of climate education. It demonstrates that eco-craftivism is not just about making things – it’s about making meaning. By fostering solidarity with people, nature, and objects, it cultivates a holistic understanding of sustainability that is both intellectually rigorous and emotionally grounded.

As we seek innovative ways to prepare young learners for the challenges ahead, this research offers a compelling model. Eco-craftivism shows that with the right tools – scissors, thread, and a bit of imagination – children can begin to stitch together a better future.

The full reference of this new article is:

Mulholland, J., Jones, V., Pawson, C. and Harrison, L. (2025). De-bordering solidarities: using eco-craftivism as an eco-social pedagogy in primary education. International Journal of Social Pedagogy, 14(1): 8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2025.v14.x.008.

Insights into the Learning to Care in the Food System article

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

By Dr Verity Jones (UWE Bristol) and Dr Chris Bear (Cardiff University)

We are pleased to announce the publication of our article, Learning to Care in the Food System: Education for Sustainable Development resources, food education and the farming of animals for food, in Environmental Education Research. This sees the first review of the place of animals in food education resources for 5-11 year olds, making an important contribution to research relating to the nature and role of learning resources for education for sustainable development.

Food politics and animal welfare have recently hit the headlines as the US and UK administrations begin to explore new agreements with regard imported/exported meats. Throughout these discussions, UK representatives have been clear that any imported meat must adhere to strict food and farming standards – for example, imports of hormone-treated beef will not be permitted. This practice was banned in the UK in 1989, along with the rest of the EU, after studies suggested it could pose potential risks to human health and animal welfare. Issues of animal welfare are central to our food system and geopolitics and, we would argue, critical for inclusion within education in every phase.

In our article, we explore 117 resources aimed at ages 5–11 olds, and reflect on the implications of these and how future resources might be designed to prompt not only critical reflection on the food system but more meaningful actions and engagement amongst learners regarding care of animals farmed for food.

Key findings

We found that food education resources focussed on animals for food include very limited discussion on the welfare of farmed animals. Similarly, there are few resources that explore the link between livestock farming, climate change and sustainability – a critical lens through which food production should be framed if we are to develop agile, resilient and adaptable food systems.

Overall, we note that resources often lack depth in promoting a more-than-human ethic of care, focusing more on human-centric perspectives. We argue that there is a need for resources that extend beyond healthy food behaviours to encompass critical thinking about sustainability and ethical questions around the place of nonhuman animals in the food system. Drawing health, sustainability and animal welfare together in educational resources is a key step towards addressing the complexities of the food system and the role of animals within it.

We call for:

1. Curriculum Development

  • Inclusion of Animal Welfare: integration of animal welfare topics into the curriculum in order to foster a more holistic understanding of the food system.
  • Sustainability Education: Highlight the connections between livestock farming, climate change, and sustainability in order to support learners navigate environmental impacts of food production.

2. Resource Creation

  • Ethically Inclusive Materials: Develop resources that promote a more-than-human ethics of care to help learners appreciate the ethical dimensions of farming and food consumption.
  • Critical Thinking: Develop materials that encourage critical thinking about the ethical treatment of animals so to lead to more informed and compassionate future generations.

3. Teacher Training

  • Awareness: Train educators to address food systems topics sensitively and knowledgeably in order to enhance the effectiveness of teaching about the food system.
  • Interdisciplinary Approaches: Encouraging interdisciplinary pedagogies that combine science, ethics, and environmental issues to provide a more comprehensive educational experience.

4. Student Engagement

  • Active Participation: Engage learners in discussions and activities related to food ethics and sustainability to foster a sense of responsibility and care for the environment.

We believe that resources informed by the food system, sustainability and animal welfare have the potential to inform, develop greater empathy, and an environmentally conscious generation, better equipped to tackle the challenges of sustainable food production and ethical consumption.

Read the full article

To find out more, contact Verity (verity6.jones@uwe.ac.uk).

Moral Fibres: Dr Verity Jones brings fast fashion into focus at The Big Retreat Festival 2025

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

This week, the serene landscapes of Pembrokeshire’s National Park will play host to one of the UK’s most uplifting wellness gatherings – The Big Retreat Festival. Among the 300+ experiences on offer, one session stands out for its timely relevance and transformative potential: “Moral Fibres”, led by Dr Verity Jones, Associate Professor at UWE Bristol.

Dr Jones is a leading voice in sustainability education and co-leads the sustainability strand of the Education and Childhood Research Group (ECRG) at UWE Bristol. With over 30 years of experience in environmental and social justice research. Her work spans food systems, biodiversity, climate education, and – most notably for this session – the impact of fast fashion on people and the planet.

By Dr Verity Jones

In “Moral Fibres,” festival goers are invited to take a closer look at the clothes they wear every day. Through a blend of creative practice and academic insight, I guide attendees on a journey through their wardrobes – unpacking the hidden stories behind the garments we often take for granted. From the cotton fields of China and the US to the garment factories of Bangladesh, I explore how the fashion industry is deeply entangled with issues of social exploitation and environmental degradation.

Not wanting to just lecture – the session will be a hands-on, reflective experience. As festival-goers soak in the natural beauty of Pembrokeshire, they’ll also be invited to reflect on how their personal choices connect to global systems. Participants will be encouraged to think critically about their own clothing choices: Where did these clothes come from? Who made them? What resources were used? And what happens when we throw them away? I’ll be offering practical strategies for making more ethical and sustainable fashion decisions. Whether it’s choosing natural fibres, supporting local makers, repairing rather than replacing, or embracing second-hand, upcycled or vintage fashion, attendees will leave with a toolkit of ideas to help them buy less, choose well, and make it last.

This session is especially timely. The fashion industry is responsible for around 10% of global carbon emissions and is the second-largest consumer of water worldwide. It also generates millions of tonnes of textile waste each year, much of which ends up in landfills or incinerators. Meanwhile, garment workers—many of whom are women and children- often face unsafe conditions and unfair wages. Most importantly our research has shown that fast fashion is the least understood term within climate and sustainable lingo and something we need to address (see full article: Young people, climate change and fast fashion futures).

“Moral Fibres” is more than a workshop; it’s a call to action. I believe that education is key to change, and by helping people understand the true cost of their clothing, I hope to inspire a shift toward more conscious consumption.

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

Addressing the awarding gap: A research event with Dr Paul Campbell

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

This blog was originally featured on UWE Bristol’s Research and External Engagement blog on 21 March 2025.

Date: Friday 11 April 2025
Time: 14:30–16:30
Venue: Room 2X242, Frenchay Campus

Education and Childhood Research Group (ECRG) is proud to present a thought-provoking and vital discussion on race, assessment, and higher education. Join us on Friday 11 April 2025, 14:30 to 16:30, for an insightful session featuring Dr Paul Campbell, Associate Professor in the Sociology of Race and Inclusion at the University of Leicester.

Why this event matters

Despite ongoing efforts to decolonise the curriculum, the ethnicity awarding gap remains a persistent challenge in UK higher education. Students from global majority backgrounds continue to face systemic barriers in assessments, leading to disparities in academic outcomes. Dr Campbell’s work directly addresses these challenges, offering research-driven insights and practical solutions to foster a more inclusive and equitable assessment landscape.

About Dr Paul Campbell

Dr Campbell is a leading scholar in race, education, and social justice. He is the author of Race, Assessment and Higher Education, “the first direct, evidence-based response on the challenges faced by students of colour in higher education assessments in the UK”.

His work not only advances academic discussions but also provides actionable strategies for meaningful change. His expertise spans sociology, history, education, and sport, with a particular focus on how racial exclusions continue to manifest in both academia and athletics.

What to expect

This session will be particularly valuable for colleagues involved in learning and teaching across UWE Bristol. Attendees will gain:

  • a deeper understanding of the ethnicity awarding gap and its structural causes.
  • evidence-based approaches to making curricula and assessments more inclusive.
  • practical strategies to implement change at an institutional and classroom level.

Book your place

Spaces for this event are limited, so early registration is encouraged. Secure your spot today and be part of the conversation that drives real change in higher education.

Don’t miss this opportunity to engage with critical research and contribute to a more equitable academic environment.

Register to attend

Parent poverty: The missing chapter in the Government’s Child Poverty Strategy

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

By Professor Alpesh Maisuria

Co-hosted by: All-Party Parliamentary Group for Schools, Learning and Assessment & All-Party Parliamentary Group for Parent

Chair: Peter Swallow MP

Date: 23 March 2025

Today I attended an APPG event that launched of the ParentKind/NEU The Missing Chapter Report in Parliament, which will soon be released. The “missing chapter” refers to parent poverty, which is overlooked when looking at child poverty. With a focus on parent poverty, this report aims to influence the government’s Child Poverty Strategy, which the ParentKind/NEU claims will have “very little impact” unless it reduces the cost of school. The report states that…

“…school is not free. The cost of school represents, on average, between a fifth and quarter of the disposable income for parents in poverty.…The cost of school can’t become a ‘missing chapter’ in the Government’s poverty strategy.”

Here is the scale of child poverty and its historical and political context.

Key headlines on child poverty:

  • The Child Poverty Act 2010 set a target to end child poverty by 2020, the Child Poverty Unit was established achieve this target.
  • In 2011, the government published A New Approach to Child Poverty: Tackling the Causes of Disadvantage and Transforming Families’ Lives.

Since 2010:

  • Child poverty has increased by 700,000.
  • There are now 4 million children living in poverty in the UK.
  • 800,000 children rely on foodbanks.
  • 23% of children in poverty are ineligible for FSM.
  • 55% of children living in families of three or more are in poverty.

These statistics are staggering. Two headlines summarise the situation:

  • Child poverty is at its highest point since records began.
  • Household income at the age of five is now the main predictor of a child’s future educational attainment.

The Child Poverty Unit, established in 2010 to deliver the original goal of ending child poverty by 2020, was shut down in 2024.

The Labour government has committed to addressing this issue by establishing a Child Poverty Taskforce to oversee the development and implementation of a cross-government strategy to reduce and alleviate child poverty. The ParentKind/NEU report aims to inform this effort by highlighting:

  • the impact of poverty on the everyday lives of parents and families.
  • the financial burden of sending children to school.
  • the unique challenges faced by parents of children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities.
  • the effects of poverty on parents’ mental health and well-being.

The link between poverty and poorer educational outcomes is clear. In a Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST) horizon scan article, I note that gaps in educational attainment are also linked to broader life outcomes, including employment, income, health, and criminality.

Recommendations for the government in this ParentKind/NEU report:

  • Commit to reducing the cost of school for parents living in poverty.
  • Set a long-term ambition and a clear target on the cost of school.
  • Set up a new independent advisory board to help reduce the cost of school.
  • Make school meals free.
  • Make every school a poverty fighting school.

This APPG meeting was well attended by MPs and Peers, and crucially officials from the new incarnation of the child poverty taskforce, so the call to action has been heard by those who have impact.

However, more research is needed to support the issue, especially with the spring budget that will announce welfare cuts.  If you have research in any of these areas and would like to disseminate it to policy makers, or you are interested in pursuing research about parent poverty, get in contact with me (alpesh.maisuria@uwe.ac.uk).

Going against the grain? Arts-based research and the EdD: resistance, activism and identity

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

By Dr Tim Clark (UWE Bristol/ECRG Strand Lead) and Professor Tom Dobson (York St John University) originally featured on the Society for Research into Higher Education blog.

Arts-based research (ABR) encompasses work which draws on aspects of visual, literary or performative arts as ‘methodological tools… during any or all phases of research’ (Leavy, 2018). There has been growing interest in the potential of ABR methods to enrich educational inquiry (Everley, 2021), however, minimal attention has been given to how accessible or relevant ABR is for practice-based researchers (including lecturers and teachers), who undertake the professional doctorate in education (EdD) pathway. We believe that this lack of attention is significant, partly because institutional frameworks for doctoral programmes are often informed by traditional models of PhD research, which may constrain the creative possibilities of practice-based study (Vaughan, 2021), and partly due to the nature and ‘uniqueness’ of the EdD as a research degree (Dennis, Chandler & Punthil, 2023). We also think this topic may be of interest to ECRG members, many of whom have experience of teaching, supervising or studying on UWE’s successful EdD programme.

We have previously argued that ABR potentially holds particular promise for EdD research due to its alignment with the programme’s highly relational and contextual nature and its engagement with diverse audiences. In our 2024 paper, which was part of a special issue of Teaching in Higher Education, we mapped the theoretical similarities in understandings of ABR and the EdD, exploring this alignment across aspects including practice, audience and reflexivity (Dobson & Clark, 2024). Our paper called for colleagues to ‘embrace hybridity’ and provide permission for creativity in EdD research and we attempted to illustrate this within the paper itself, entangling examples of creative nonfiction writing with a traditional scoping review to embody our theorisation. However, we also concluded with a realisation that maximising the potential of ABR requires careful attention to how design, practice and regulations support students’ identity development and agency (Savva & Nygaard, 2021).

To build on this, throughout 2024, we have been working with a group of nine EdD students studying at our respective institutions, who are all exploring the potential of ABR for their work. These students span professional roles from early childhood through to higher education, and disciplines including the arts, business and science. Following initial narrative interviews with each student, we developed an online cross-institution action learning set (Revans, 1982) to facilitate dialogue and learning relating to some of the key problems and opportunities students were experiencing in relation to their engagement with ABR. As a group we met 6 times, each time agreeing an area of focus, and providing opportunities for individuals to present and group members to ask clarifying and open-ended coaching style questions. This process culminated in creative analysis, where we collaboratively analysed and reflected on the learning that had taken place, and each student presented a creative interpretation of their learning to the group. We are currently working with a group of these EdD students to co-author a paper which captures and illustrates this learning and shares these creative outputs.

Alongside this, the second paper from our project (Clark & Dobson, forthcoming) explores some of the key learning arising from the initial interview phase – in particular the idea of ABR as a form of ‘resistance’ involving potentially either a deliberate, or more hesitant, decision to ‘go against the grain’. Using Glăveanu’s 5A’s theory (actors, actions, artifacts, audiences and affordances) to understand creativity as embedded in social relations, we developed the interview transcripts into vignettes for each student and identified three key strands of the students’ perceptions of their experiences – many of which continued to be key areas of focus as we worked through the action learning set process. The process highlighted the students’ understanding of how methodological expectations were reflected through key audiences and structures, how methodological choices aligned with their sense of self and identity and the role of ABR in promoting action and agency. The vignettes offered a nuanced illustration of the tensions in these areas, which we feel offers wider value due to the fact that, unlike any previous work we had identified in this area, the understandings related to students both with and without previous artist identities, backgrounds or experiences.

The focus on audience and structures highlighted the numerous audiences which exist for students’ EdD research, often spanning academic, professional and community spaces and how these can create tensions in terms of expectations of what research ‘should’ look like. Some students talked of an ongoing battle to justify and ensure their ABR projects were taken seriously, whilst others positioned their decision to use ABR as an active decision to resist academic or managerial structures they perceived had been unhelpfully imposed on them. This also highlighted that whilst valuing creativity in research within the micro context of an EdD programme itself (through teaching and supervision) was significant and built confidence, students also needed support to consider how to frame their work in wider contexts, including through institutional processes (such as those for ethics approval) and professional and academic communities. One student, for example, highlighted feeling ‘junior’ and ‘a bit insecure’ about engaging in wider university processes designed for what they felt was understood as more ‘serious research’.

In relation to identities and self, we explored a complex and nuanced understanding of students’ perceptions of the need for ongoing negotiation of the entanglement between professional, researcher, and in some cases, artist identities. Where students identified pre-existing artist identities, for some this created an obvious alignment with their research, but for others they identified tensions, including feeling ‘nervous’ about bringing this identity into their research and apprehensive of their relevance to an academic audience. Where students had no prior expertise or experience in the arts, they often expressed hesitance regarding using ABR, but strong feelings about its potential to align with aspects of their professional identity and values. For example, they appreciated ABR’s affordances in ensuring research was accessible to wider communities and supporting children’s voices to be heard.

This also connected with the final strand, action and agency, where ABR was positioned by the students as having the potential to facilitate an emancipatory process in education, promote agency and in some cases play a role in research as a form of activism. This was often associated with ideas of social justice, with one student, for example, talking of ABR as providing agency for him to ‘push back against’ an education system that marginalises certain groups. Alongside this, another highlighted ABR as having stronger potential to be participatory and action based, maximising the benefits of the research process itself on her participants who were also her students.   

As we continue our work on this project, the learning it has generated allows us to begin to reflect on its implications: implications that are both within individual EdD programs, where teaching and supervision have strong potential to offer spaces to explore, and reflect on, the potential value of ABR within EdD research, and at an institutional level, where regulations need to continue to respond to growing focus on the social and professional relevance of doctoral research and the range of models, and methodologies, they encompass. A key part of the action learning sets has also been their role in highlighting the value of facilitating methodological dialogue and creating a community of doctoral researchers exploring ABR. As one of the students reflected, this has helped with their sense of ‘validation’ for their work and provided a space to navigate some of the key tensions.

Authors:

Back to top

Follow this blog

Get every new post delivered right to your inbox.