The creative schools/ creative practitioners project has been running for about 2 school years now. I was so enthusiastic about its aims when launched at the Arts Council Wales event. I think the idea of teaching core subjects through the medium of the arts is inspired.

I have just completed a project in a secondary school and have talked to other artists, performers, digital creatives and others who have also done work in schools with this scheme and I find a few questions crop up.

I wonder, will I kick off a slagging off session or a fulsome praise response. As it is probably the biggest thing happening in the way we are “re-thinking education” I’ll risk it.

Maybe those with experience of participation may want to comment and those with questions may also want some answers if they are thinking of applying for one of these positions.

It seems that working in primary schools is easier to fit in a programme of work with fewer changes of dates mid project. Is this what others have found?

Secondary schools often say that when planning next year’s involvement the core subjects department heads say NO. No involvement for our core subject. We have to meet targets. Surely this scheme is about core subjects. How can it be kept on track?

In secondary schools, teachers still seem to leave the artist on their own with a class as something pops up. Often for whole periods. Surely a main tenant of the scheme is that teachers learn from artists about new approaches and visa versa. Not being present can’t help the pedagogy. Is this a common experience? and do primary schools have this problem too?

Some say the training was a bit basic especially those artists I spoke to who already had a lot of experience in schools. How could this training improve to respond to different levels of participant experience? Was it more about conforming than training? Or was going through the process just part of it? I’ve heard of a few artists not delivering properly in schools so why was this possibility not flagged up in training?

I feel our company has had fewer jobs in schools since the scheme started. There are possible reasons. A lot of the work at the beginning of the scheme was not in our area so we had to wait for something up our street in terms of subject matter but it was not up our street in area.  (long and early travel times) When one opportunity does pop up nearer home the artist is already committed to a job further away. This is structurally clunky. Not so good for longer term contact with the school and not so good for the environment. Any ideas to improve this?

Is this scheme better for the established artist or better geared for someone newer to this area of work?

How will the “Donaldson” curriculum changes take this project experience on board? What is the mechanism?

Is there a proper way to inform this scheme, to improve it without being overly negative and to help it reach its potential?

The upcoming Tate exhibition will focus on its undoubted achievements however I feel there is room to make it better, especially if criticism is not just viewed as “carping on” and suggestions are listened to.