In light of recent government policies to scrap PGCE bursaries and scholarships for teachers training in humanities subjects;Â the Department of Educationâs decision to ban the use of any resources described as having âextreme political stancesâ in schools, and the government declaring itself as âunequivocally againstâ critical race theory, it appears that the humanities are currently under attack. As a humanities student myself, I feel it my duty to defend the humanities from such blows and provide a counter narrative which outlines why these three decisions have dangerous repercussions for the future of education in the UK.
There has long been an overlooking and underfunding of the arts and humanities in favour of STEM subjects, which are unequivocally viewed as more valuable and employable. However, the recent move to cut PGCE bursaries for arts and humanities subjects by 2021, and to only provide scholarships for Chemistry, Computing, Maths, and Physics sends a clear message: the arts are expendable to the current government.
The Department of Education argues that âthe financial incentives are set to attract those to the hardest to recruit subjectsâ â STEM subjects â which are both difficult to recruit into and have lower rates of job retention than humanities subjects. Yet there is an apparent oversight here; lack of bursaries for humanities subjects imposes a financial barrier to those from lower economic backgrounds.
The government will still provide the tuition fee loan of up to ÂŁ9250, and a maintenance loan of up to ÂŁ12,010. Yet for some, the difference between a bursary and relying on government loans alone could mean the difference between being able to afford teacher training, or not. This barrier to graduates from lower income backgrounds could also have an impact on the ethnic diversity of not only arts education, but also the UKâs future arts sector. As Harriet Clifford argues: âlimiting the pool of teachers in turn limits the cohort of students, which limits the pool from which our future musicians, actors, Netflix producers, authors, journalists, filmmakers will be drawn.â
In the midst of a global pandemic, with much focus (and hope) resting on a vaccine, it would be nonsensical to suggest that the investment into STEM subjects is too much and should be diverted to the humanities. (That said, think of the many arts-based things you have relied upon during lockdown, such as TV, literature, theatre, music…) But in truth, I think very few people would argue against the need to provide for the next generation of doctors, scientists, researchers and engineers. It is not, and never has been, a case of pitting STEM subjects and the arts against each other to see which is more important or useful to society. Yet this is what the government is seemingly doing in their stunting of creativity from the bottom up.
The financial discouragement on behalf of the government to enter into teacher training for humanities subjects seems all the worse when viewed in context of other education measures proposed to manage the teaching of the arts. The Department of Education has announced that schools cannot use resources produced by organisations that take âextreme political stancesâ on matters. It defines such extreme stances as âa publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow democracy, capitalism, or to end free and fair electionsâ, as well as the use of racist language (including antisemitism) and opposition to free speech, among other things. The DfE also stresses the importance of politically impartial teachers. Much of this seems sensible; nobody wants a teacher promoting or inciting racism or illegal activity.Â
Some, however, do not view these changes in this way. John McDonnell, former shadow chancellor, described such measures as symptomatic of growing âauthoritarianismâ, as they would effectively outlaw reference in schools to key events in British history. He argues that banning reference to large tracts of British history and politics, including the history of British socialism, the Labour Party and trade unionism (all of which advocated for the abolition of capitalism at some point) is part of a continuing âculture warâ. To McDonnell, this is evidence that the âdrift towards extreme Conservative authoritarianismâ is progressing, which âshould worry anyone who believes democracy requires freedom of speech and an educated populace.â
This âculture warâ is all the more threatening in light of the most recent government declaration that it is âunequivocally againstâ critical race theory. The equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, argued that âWe do not want teachers to teach their white pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guiltâ:Â âAny school which teaches these elements of critical race theory, or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law.â
Whether you see these measures as a fight against âwokenessâ and political correctness, as sensible and necessary cuts which prioritise the funding of more beneficial subjects to society, or as part of a culture war which includes an attack on freedom of speech within its arsenal, it is clear that the humanities are in the firing line. Viewed in conjunction, all of these recent education measures create a strong picture of the arts and humanities: not that of uselessness, but of powerfulness. And it is this power – this capacity for empathy, self-reflectiveness, and perspective which the humanities foster and encourage – that this government believes is something to be feared, managed and even suppressed at grassroots level.
Â