Opinion: ‘Strategic priority’ leaves a sickly but all-too-familiar taste in the mouth

Every so often, a tasty political sound bite strays into our little world, an oven-ready morsel for the arts sector to raise an eyebrow at and then grimly chew down on. Through the pandemic, we’ve had ‘world-beating’ (about the NHS? Or perhaps the Festival of Brexit?). There were the ‘cyber’ times too – blame whoever was doing Fatima’s careers talk for that. But the least appealing flavour du jour is served in the government’s latest Higher Education proposals – ‘strategic priority’, a snippet that leaves a sickly yet strangely familiar taste in the mouth.

The proposals recently announced by the Office for Students and education secretary Gavin Williamson suggest halving the amount spent on arts subjects deemed ‘high cost’. The courses ‘not among its strategic priorities’ are, of course, music, dance, drama and performing arts, as well as art, archaeology and media studies.

For all the tough words issued in retaliation by our sector heads, nobody seemed particularly shocked by the announcement. Realistically though, what about the proposals is a particular surprise? A government that has provided little continuity on education policy over the eleven years of its rule, that has shown at best neglect and at worst contempt towards the arts, and that has welcomed with open arms the influence of markets into Higher Education policy stating openly that arts courses are not among its strategic priorities is as ridiculously on-brand as it gets. 

As the government deals with accusations of sleaze from all sides, they may merit a pat on the back for their honesty here, and further congratulations are in order for efficiently distilling their philosophy into so few words. Bravo!

As the Royal Musical Association’s response notes, the proposals will mean Higher Education Institution (HEI) departments will be forced to close. Neither current tuition fees nor any lifting of the current £9,250 per year cap will help, as the Band C funding targeted by the consultation already tops up such courses. The Russell Group argues impacted courses will run at a deficit of around £2,700 per student, an amount which includes tuition fees.

Such cuts mean HEIs face squeezes from new directions. It was only through a petition of 6,000 signatures and concerted campaigning from Save Keele Music Department that music-related degrees at Keele University were saved from a total phasing out by 2023, citing dwindling numbers and cost cutting. Even then, it was only a partial victory, with a revamped degree launching in September 2022, provisionally titled ‘Music and Sound Engineering’, that combines two existing degrees. This form of relentless chipping away is what to expect on a wider scale if the proposals make it through the consultation stage.

Some HEI departments will remain on institutional heft and the allure of history alone. But the pandemic has at least brought the opportunity to assess their shortcomings, including a reassessment of the sector’s lack of diversity. I struggle to see how these cuts will continue these vital actions.

I particularly feel for final-year arts students reading the proposals as they prepare to graduate. Digital fatigue, a lack of human interaction and bags of time spent indoors aren’t solely experienced by arts students, but wholesale revision of the courses they signed up to, the complete loss of the ‘non-course stuff’ that makes the experience so worthwhile and the saturated, hugely competitive job market that greets them post-graduation are all areas that matter massively to upcoming graduates, and that haven’t really been tackled.

On top of that, imagine being told by the government that the course you have soldiered on with through the pandemic is in fact not a ‘strategic priority’. That we are now in a consultation period makes the whole thing slightly worse – even if the cuts are miraculously avoided, that principle is pretty difficult to see past.

That phrase ‘strategic priority’ really smarts for some reason, but why? On one level, it’s a cold hard opinion in the often-contradictory world of arts policy that confirms widely held suspicions – ‘yes, they do think we’re worth less’, said the artists. But that action in itself emits a strange symbolism. Creative people deal in signs, symbols and the world of the non-literal every day. Just as those who instinctively revile when an opera production is too ‘hard-nosed’ or when a political point is scored in a Shostakovich symphony, these proposals, anchored around the phrase ‘strategic priority’, land a direct body blow, leaving little room for any hopeful interpretation. We have to resist, but this one will take some beating.