Opening Doors: Learning in the Historic Environment

Section C · Survey of sites (Alan Kirwan)

C 2 · Findings

Staffing and investment

While 72% employ full-time staff dedicated to educational provision, 50% invest less than £1,000 per year in educational resources. This is confirmed with 68% of respondents claiming that learning is severely hampered by lack of investment. Only fourteen sites in our sample (17%) cited yearly education budgets over £10,000. English Heritage sites were excluded from financial analysis since education funding is organised on a regional rather than an individual basis.

Pay scales are embarrassingly low. Salaries for full-time Education Officers average out at £15,000 – £18,000 per annum. These statistics explain the deep sense of frustration felt within the historic sector by those wishing to expand the boundaries of education.

We must emphasise that many of the most innovative education programmes are carried out on shoe-string budgets.

Volunteers

Only 57% (50 sites) made use of volunteers in the provision of learning opportunities. Our sample evaluated the top providers of learning activities in the sector. It would appear that where dedicated learning staff are in post, there is less reliance on volunteers, though this does not detract from the overall importance of volunteering to the heritage sector.

This is an area that is sometimes under-used in the private sector though not within the National Trusts, which engage volunteers in a wide range of activities. A recurring reason for not using volunteers was that sites did not feel they had the time to train people and therefore could not guarantee a professional level of service. Another factor is that many owners of private houses find it difficult to ask people to work for nothing.

How programmes are funded

Self-financed education programmes dominate the survey at 48% (42 sites). The need to be self-financing opens up various problems:
· Those responsible for providing education spend most of their time dealing with grant applications.
· There is widespread confusion over which funding organisations to approach, and how to do it.
· In order to secure funding, a laborious process of evaluation and evidence gathering is required on the part of the site or organisation to establish evidence of need. In most cases targets or requirements are asked for. There is considerable unhappiness about current criteria in funding applications that require sites to get percentages of particular identified groups through their doors. In many instances specific programmes were set up for such groups but cancelled due to lack of interest. This seeming failure to cater for particular audiences then affects future grant bids.

Government aid, either direct or via the local authority, was cited by 43% of respondents (38 sites). It is clear that the historic sector is not working hard enough to develop partnerships with local businesses or other such groups with only 10% (9 sites) responding positively to this question.

Responsibility for the development of education in many instances is left to marketing and events staff (30%). This highlights the problem, of education being viewed merely as an ‘add-on’ with no clear guidelines over substance or future advancement. It also illustrates the failure at many properties to understand that educating requires, at the very least, special training and experience.

Education spaces

One of the principal advantages of learning within an historic site is that it can give people an evocative and unfamiliar experience. On the other hand, potential may be limited by the lack of a space for activities such as painting. A clear sign of a willingness to develop education is the presence of a purpose-built educational space. Only 13% (eleven sites) from our sample provide such a facility.

In 2004 the Clore Duffield Foundation has published Space for Art: A Handbook for Creative Learning Environments. It is a document with considerable relevance for the historic environment.

Historic sites, and particularly those which receive school groups for extended periods, need a dry space where lunch can be eaten and proper toilet facilities.

Site visits revealed school parties working in cramped and uninspiring rooms, in many cases cloakrooms. This applies to 57% (50 sites) of our sample.

Teachers Packs and ICT

50% (44 sites) do offer Teachers’ Packs. This resource is still a favourite for many in the historic environment, but the cost of producing material of high quality can be daunting for smaller sites with very modest budgets. However, as Lorna Melody makes clear in her report, the use of ICT needs to be addressed in a more co-ordinated way. As schools and other educational establishments turn increasingly towards it with the advantage of downloading material, material such as the Teachers’ Pack can quickly go out of date. Funding needs to be re-directed to providing adequate websites that can be easily up-dated rather than producing hard copies of material with a short shelf-life. With only 21% (seventeen sites) of respondents offering websites catering for education beyond the ‘brochure style’ website, the historic environment has work to do in this area.

On the other hand, the costs of providing high quality ICT are often prohibitive for voluntary organisations and material offered on the cheap is unlikely to interest young audiences used to highly sophisticated material. Equally, effective maintenance is difficult and expensive: out of date or nonfunctioning ICT has a strongly negative effect. This is a field which needs to be approached with caution: if you cannot do it well, don’t try.

Learning and hands-on activities

The traditional guided tour is by far the most common method of education used for school and adult groups (78%). The historic environment needs to follow the lead of museums/galleries in providing practical, hands-on workshops for all ages where people can ‘learn by doing’. With only 42% (37 sites) catering for practical workshops (mostly for KS1 and 2 pupils), more needs to be done. Sites in the care of borough councils are the top providers here. This is understandable considering the support networks available, which are regularly used for running museum education services. The use of handling collections is another area that should be developed. 40% (35 sites) in the sample offer such a resource.

Living History

41% (36 sites) provide costumed interpretation. Our site visits revealed that Living History is moving away from the ‘bread baking’ stereotype previously common to historic sites. Education programmes are now increasingly employing experienced interpreters with a detailed knowledge of the sites, while the presentations incorporate architecture, design and social history.

A separate survey for the Attingham Report with primary and secondary school teachers in 2003, highlights the need for continual up-dating in the delivery of Living History.

In response to the question ‘Your suggestions for making historical sites more valuable for pupils’ teachers listed as their top priority ‘More role-play / re-enactment opportunities / Living History to give empathy and understanding of changes’. This was one of eleven possible choices.

Adult education

Co-ordinated formal (or taught) education for adult audiences is a seriously neglected area within the historic environment. The current mode of thinking is that a guided tour is sufficient. 51% (45 sites) provide lectures or study days, notably at National Trust properties. The Trust is making a concerted effort to develop informal learning for its adult audiences, notably through its Community Learning and Volunteering teams.

Education for special needs

There is scope for considerable development in this field. 36% (32 sites) replied that they catered for special needs education. Most of this provision, however, is in the form of ‘sensory gardens’ or ‘sensory walks’, initiatives that the National Association for the Blind terms ‘insulting’. Braille guides are often supplied without the understanding that users need architectural and historical terminology explained and interpreted to them.

Learning for multi-cultural groups

Only 25% (22 sites) provided learning resources for multi-cultural groups. This is representative of the lack of confidence expressed by many within the historic environment about the opportunities in this field. Issues such as slavery, land ownership and the colonial legacy are unavoidable themes for many historic properties, and can be interpreted in a positive way. These issues are certainly important to many visitors from ethnic minorities. Throughout the UK, historic properties are increasingly working with a variety of multi-cultural groups, but on some occasions offer activities which have no particular resonance or interest for these or other visitors.

While a good atmosphere can be created and properties do attract multi-cultural groups, return visits are rare. A small number of historic sites are leading the way in meeting with local ethnic communities and discussing how education programmes should be developed, stimulating a meeting of cultures and a discussion of the best use of the site’s history. A notable partnership is the relationship between the Historic Houses Association and the Black Environment Network which explores how privately-owned country houses can interact with multi-ethnic communities.

Outreach

50% include outreach as part of their education programme. The main providers are charitable trust properties and borough owned sites. Outreach work with schools predominates, while activities at community centres, libraries and other venues are less usual. Outreach work within the historic environment is completely dependent on funding and sponsorship, with most projects having a short life-span. Most of those questioned spoke of the obvious benefits to local communities but also of the despondency of those communities when the funding ran out and the service had to be withdrawn. Implementing more sustained approaches for outreach is the way forward.

section start