.png)
4 hours ago
1
Your article (Working-class creatives don’t stand a chance in UK today, leading artists warn, 21 February) suggests that the higher percentage of privately educated people in leadership roles in the arts is due to a “rigged system” that shuts out working-class people, yet, despite highlighting the fall in students taking arts and humanities subjects, it fails to draw the obvious conclusion.
When provision of arts tuition in the state sector has almost disappeared, young people who are unable to pay for private tuition and whose schools don’t have art or drama departments are hugely disadvantaged from the outset if they wish for a career in the arts. How can children explore and gain confidence in their creative potential if they can’t test it in an art department, music room or on an assembly hall stage?
Receiving support from teachers and practitioners who know from experience how to develop artistic or performative careers can be transformative, but governments of all stripes devalue the arts and humanities in schools and further education, and heads juggling their budget choose not to allocate staffing to art, drama or music.
It is much less fair to rely on fortune – perhaps having family members who already work in the relevant field, or living somewhere with access to after-school activities, creative writing workshops or drama groups. For the past 20 years at least, regional theatres, museums, opera companies and those working in arts and culture charities have rightly made huge efforts to widen access and address inequalities.
If the culture secretary wants a more diverse workforce in the arts, a good start would be to increase public funding for arts education, particularly in regions where provision is scarce. Presenting the issue as one of upper-class privilege is facile and misleading – sustained investment by government in the next generation of potential cultural leaders now, enabling schools, colleges, cultural organisations and charities that deliver creative programmes to extend their reach, could be the key.
Cathy Baxandall
Ilkley, West Yorkshire
Your article on the crisis facing working-class creatives highlights the urgent need for sustained public investment in the arts. Without it, we risk shutting out a generation of talent. Exposure to the arts fosters creativity, confidence and critical thinking – skills essential not just for the creative industries, but for every sector. Yet access to theatre is becoming increasingly unequal, with parents and teachers reporting a decline in school trips, particularly in deprived areas where rising transport costs create additional barriers.
Theatre staff across the country are working hard to bridge this gap, running outreach programmes, youth drama clubs and creative projects that introduce thousands of young people to the magic of live performance. But without public investment, their impact is limited. That is why the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre are championing the Theatre for Every Child campaign – to break down barriers to attendance and ensure that all children, regardless of their background, have the chance to engage with live performance.
As the culture secretary rightly said: “Every child and adult should also have the opportunity to access live theatre, dance and music – to believe that these spaces belong to them and are for them.” With proper investment and commitment, we can make that vision a reality.
Hannah Essex
Co-chief executive, Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre
Your article asks why the arts are not an attractive career choice for those from a working-class background. Having served on the boards of two theatres, the greatest problem we faced in hiring staff was the inability to offer competitive salaries. If you come from a less privileged background, why would you opt to work in an industry that would condemn you to live in relative poverty?
Raj Parkash
London
