Drawing a Response to the NSEAD’s Survey Report (2015-16)

Rachel Payne

Dr. Emese Hall (University of Exeter) and myself were part of a team of four who designed and interpreted the National Society in Education for Art and Design (NSEAD) survey report 2015-16.  We asked over 1100 art educators in England how policy had impacted their experience of delivering the subject in schools (http://www.nsead.org/downloads/survey.pdf).

We presented our qualitative response to the survey report at the International Journal of Art and Design conference, November 2016.  The aim was not to discuss the content of the report but instead to present a series of drawings which represent our experiences of it.  In the process we constructed a visual narrative enquiry by curating drawings created collaboratively during an afternoon in August.


I am currently co-authoring a journal article with Emese examining the implications of the NSEAD survey report findings, with a focus on educational policy and subsequent marginalisation of visual arts education experienced by many.  We wanted to explore a more original angle than just regurgitating findings, and in the process of deconstructing them, ‘value’ emerged as a core theme.  This refers to what teachers tell us about experiencing an undervaluing of the subject and themselves in schools, and to creating a counter argument.  We recognise a need to champion the value of the subject in a challenging political climate.

When we met in August we started the drawing process by writing down words that resonated with us as a result of writing the article and interpreting the survey findings.  We began by considering how to visually interpret some of these words through mark-making.

Starting was difficult until we realised that our emotional responses were the most immediate and tangible.  We have both experienced the effects of government policy in our own professional contexts, through our students and school partners, and we intentionally drew on these experiences at the beginning of the drawing process.  For me, this was immediate, intuitive and spontaneous. I tried not to think too hard about the process of making and just responded with the materials at hand.

We made art standing on opposite sides of a large table, sharing a range of media and drawing onto a large roll of brown paper.  Unconsciously we began to share a visual and spoken dialogue, something we became more conscious of through constructing the conference presentation.


This image is my first drawing.  I was thinking about two different positions: the ‘devaluing’ and the ‘valuing’ articulated through the survey findings and our journal article.   Devaluing is represented by the blackness; I wanted to created depth which absorbed energy although in reality I was frustrated by the limitations of the materials.   Valuing is represented by the fragile thread running through the centre of the drawing, a conscious reference to what we know is valuable in the subject.


Emese made this piece simultaneously to my first drawing.  It is based on the experience of constant devaluing of the subject, which she represents as a bleak landscape, a battlefield with echoes of a loss of hope.

Media intentionally references constraint where the red tape symbolises bureaucracy and the rope represents subjugation.

We had a follow-up meeting in Exeter in October where we made further sense of the drawings, their meanings and the importance of the collaborative component. In retrospect we recognised a shared visual language emerging right from the start, evident in the repetition of marks and shapes across both our visual responses that act as metaphor for experience.


This is my second piece, which indicates more of an internalised response where I re-experience being professionally devalued.  This links to Emese’s previous image of the battlefield through the suggestion of a fleshy wound (red element).   In this piece I managed to achieve the depth of black I was striving for in first drawing, and intentionally produced it on a piece of discarded wrapping paper.

During the creation of the conference presentation I realised I was engaging in a reflexive oscillation where meanings emerge from the act of making marks – then responding to marks – and finally reflecting on their meaning through discussion.  A cyclic process of connecting the concrete to the abstract and back to the concrete as a method for generating new understandings.  Here the collaborative component was operating unconsciously.  We didn’t recognise until we created the PowerPoint that we had been having a visual discussion all along.  I was also surprised at how visceral the experience was.


Emese created this as an external personal angle compared to my internal response (flesh fragment).  It conveys feelings of alienation, dejection and disregard, and speaks of relationships with other people in professional institutions.  In its crudest form it can be read as symbolic of exclusion of the arts from the E-Bacc.


This drawing is a deliberate, process-driven response to the word ‘restriction’.  It is one of a series of images constructed using recycled materials, such as cardboard packaging, which I used as a barrier placed between the paper and the drawing implement to restrict my mark-making.  I was exploring which media enabled the best mark qualities through restrictive play where the final image wasn’t revealed until the restriction (e.g., packaging) was removed.

We deliberately chose to show the image from this distorted view.  It speaks of the relationship between the ‘desperate’ marks situated within the confines of the environment, a reference to how we are shaped by our environments and in turn shape them through our acts.  In the process of making these drawings I realised the complexity of meaning in my actions, some of which are deliberate, spontaneous, confined, restricted, and liberating.


Emese constructed this piece, which in its original form explored the feeling of imposed structures such as timetables on professionals, drawing on previous visual devices such as an echo of the red tape from an earlier artwork.  By destroying the artwork she subverts reference to imposed structure by taking something conservative and reproductive and transforming it into a productive form.

Core meanings underpinning this piece include representing the positive difference between the visual arts and other curriculum subjects.  Emese is articulating visually what makes our subject special (its non-conformity) although it wasn’t until after the presentation that we realised we had found a way to articulate the value of the subject.  We achieved this using our language, a visual language.


Building on the previous piece Emese was inspired by the word ‘imbalance’ and the social divide that is exposed in the NSEAD survey findings report. This is a metaphor for discrepancies in cultural capital experienced by learners in some State school settings.

The golden ball symbolises the privilege of the independent sector with its emphasis on rich cultural learning experiences, access to visual practitioners, cultural institutions and unfettered opportunity to study the subject at GCSE and A Level.   On the opposite side is the State sector and its less consistent cultural offer, where marginalisation is a real experience for some groups of learners across England.


We were concerned that our overall response was very negative and we wanted to  locate and communicate a genuinely positive component to our drawn responses.  To achieve this we originally planned a second drawing session to focus on the survey report’s recommendations, although this didn’t happen in the end.  Instead we revisited our initial drawings to make more sense of them.

Through discussion we recognised that this piece demonstrates glimmers of hope and rebellious energy.  It symbolises the good practice we know exists which can’t be constrained by existing marginalisation.  The threads represent the subject’s ability to transcend the current political agenda; an indication of the potential for generative growth through bearing witness.  Collaborative support is key in articulating new positions of value: to value and be valued.

The NSEAD survey report findings provided opportunity to begin addressing issues that it raises.  As academics we recognise the need to balance professional passion for a topic and the researcher’s role of generating trustworthy knowledge claims; this has been an unashamed passionate enquiry.  However, it has also been liberating.  We have reclaimed value in and for our subject through implementing a visual language to articulate our understandings.  As a result, art-making processes supported through collaboration, reflection and dialogue reveal fresh insights into the political educational climate we are living in.


Heeding Dewey in 2016

Dewey Conference 2016

What the normal child continuously needs is not so much isolated moral lessons instilling in him the importance of truthfulness and honesty, or the beneficial results that follow from some particular act of patriotism, etc. It is the formation of habits of social imagination and conception. (1)

What Dewey has to say about culture and enculturation has resonated strongly with me this year, in the run up to the conference. I take heed of Dewey’s view that education needs to start in understanding the mutual dependency of society and children. Children experience and experiment within the social milieu while absorbing the culture and mediated experience of adults. Children acquire a moral sense, through learning in all subjects in which they are actively engaged and from their experience develop dispositions and habits. Education should be a process of developing good habits.

I have been particularly bothered by a UK Home Office…

View original post 252 more words

The Double Standard of Ethics in Educational Research

Group members David Aldridge and Georgina Glenny presented alongside Hamish yesterday, and we’re very pleased to post his comments on ethics and research at BERA conference here.


I am at the BERA 2016 conference this week. For an unapologetic empiricist, its a bit of an odd place to be.


Yesterday I attended a small seminar at the conference, convened by BERA’s Practitioner Research Special Interest Group (SIG). There has been a lot of talk recently about the challenges faced in helping teachers to engage with research. A combination of lack of support from senior management, unhelpful writing styles, limited access to journal articles, and perfunctory or non-existent research methods courses in initial teacher education means that teachers tend not to engage fully with the research that is there to help inform what they do. This is in contrast to other, comparable, professions. For example, as a part of the everyday responsibility of being a nurse or a doctor there is the expectation that one will not only keep up to date with relevant research but be actively involved…

View original post 737 more words



Today I have been at a ResearchEd event in Oxford focusing on Maths and Science. I’ve been keen to engage with this movement, which aims at improving the research literacy of teachers. That can only be a good thing, especially since Tom Bennett’s initial accompanying rhetoric about ITE institutions not actually being very good at doing or teaching research seems to be softening. I got a complimentary ticket in any case, which I’m pretty pleased about. There was certainly a lively and intelligent atmosphere. I say this even though I offered a philosophical/ ethical presentation (on the use and abuse of certain narratives from the cognitive sciences to improve student motivation) that was rejected by the event’s organisers.

But I’ve expressed my reservations about these events in the past, particularly because the tagline – ‘working out what works’ – seems to take normative educational considerations off the table. I’m not…

View original post 519 more words

Brain Power?


Next week we have a Faculty research conference on the theme of ‘power’ at which I will be offering the following paper (abstract below). I’d love to hear people’s thoughts.

The Power of the Brain Image: on the indoctrinatory use of neurobiological narratives to improve student motivation and achievement

A chapter introducing neuroscience to beginner teachers offers a ‘brain plasticity intervention’ as one of two headline illustrations of the power of brain science to improve children’s learning (Howard-Jones 2013). The claim – that ‘simply knowing about brain plasticity can improve the self-concept and academic potential of learners’ – seems well supported by intervention studies.

I begin by considering the possibility that alternative narratives might have similar effects on student motivation. I will discuss an intervention (Boddie 2015) that employs a narrative from Sartrean existentialist philosophy (‘existence precedes essence’) to make a comparable impact on student motivation.

It might be objected…

View original post 130 more words

More nonsense in a minute

Dave Aldridge has released an interesting blog post I want to respond to or at least use as a springboard for a personal rant. Where Dave asks “What, then, will become of the proposed LEA chains?” I guess he is dealing with that uncomfortable truth that the big businesses behind academies will – or may – not want to take on smaller schools, rural areas, some of the seemingly insoluble issues that lead to “poor quality pupils.” [NB: the website of the original report seems to have been taken down] That the state provides the “safety net” (I’m not sure of this shorthand metaphor) seems eminently reasonable; if the government has decided not to be the major player in what was a national initiative, well, we, the electorate, voted them in, sort of. Today it seems “we, the people” voted for a string of idiocies…

…Continue reading on Nick Swarbrick’s blog here:




How ought war to be remembered in schools?

Anzac Day 2016.  Reposted from Dave Aldridge’s blog here: https://zudensachen.wordpress.com/2014/11/18/how-ought-war-to-be-remembered-in-schools/

In November I published this short book in the Philosophy of Education Society’s ‘Impact’ Series (Impact21)


You can watch a video of the launch event here:


It was picked up by The Guardian here:


I also wrote an accompanying piece for The Conversation:

…as well as an invited piece for Wiley’s War Studies blog here:

Philosophy for Children boosts children’s progress in literacy and maths


We in Athens are particularly pleased at the recent connections made between ‘philosophy for children’ and children’s success in literacy and maths. Today we spoke directly to the originator of P4C’s method of questioning, Socrates himself:

“Yes, well I’m pleased because I’ve always thought that my method of questioning could be of use to state policy makers and educators of the young, but I’ve never been able to demonstrate this convincingly. I’ve always been inclined to communicate the value in terms of useless things like discerning the good and working out how best to live one’s life. One education endowment fund project was able to demonstrate that my interventions boosted the development of wisdom by as much as two months, but I don’t think this was publicised very well.

I’m very proud that gains can be demonstrated in mathematics and writing as a result of doing philosophy. This is despite…

View original post 207 more words

Agree to Disagree? Let’s not


Recently a colleague offered in conversation that we should agree to disagree.  This led me to some observations about the role of agreement and disagreement in dialogue.  Some conversations involve a sort of perpetual agreement or mutual affirmation.  These are instances where we’re really just ‘shooting the breeze’, and there’s nothing much at issue between us.  We exchange the gnomes of accepted wisdom and nod.  Other exchanges are characterised pretty much by disagreement.  These are the situations where we talk at cross purposes, or talk past each other – we can’t even seem to get started on the way in which the matter at hand needs to be interrogated. 

View original post 500 more words

Hermeneutics and Education


Bloomsbury have kindly allowed me to share a sample chapter of my newly released book via my institutional repository.  I include a summary of the chapter’s content below, and you can download the chapter and get full citation details here.

This chapter considers the implications of philosophical hermeneutics for the well-known ‘pedagogical triangle’ of teacher, student and subject matter. We find our way to what is specifically educational in the hermeneutic dialogue by considering examples of deficient or degenerate conversation. The close relationship between the ‘instructional’ (or pedagogical) triangle and the hermeneutic situation can then be emphasized, particularly once we acknowledge Heidegger’s requirement that the teacher must learn to ‘let learn’. All hermeneutic situations, it will be shown, are educational. How, then, moving beyond this global understanding, can hermeneutics inform those local situations that we wish to think of as specifically educational (i.e. schooling)? This leads us to consider…

View original post 50 more words