Select Committee on Education and Skills Eleventh Report

3  Creativity in practice


13. Much of the evidence we received stressed that creativity was not only the province of the expressive and aesthetic arts, but was also essential to other domains of life, such as science, design and industry: in short, it was a fundamental human process, and also one that was applied in everyday life, rather than something uniquely associated with 'artists' or other creative professionals. Dr Stephen Scoffham wrote:

"Creativity is present in all areas of human life and is a fundamental characteristic of human thought. In the past, creativity was associated only with the expressive arts. It was regarded as a talent which was inherited at birth. In recent years the notion of creativity has been re-interpreted. Rather than being restricted to a few gifted individuals, it is now seen as a dimension of thinking and learning across the curriculum."[9]

14. Malcolm Ross, a retired academic, argued that the Creative Partnerships initiative had been:

"[…] flawed in conception and has failed to deliver on its primary objective: the encouragement of creativity across the curriculum. Its basic mistake was to over-identify creativity in schools with the arts. Whereas the arts are a special case of creativity, and artists might well prove exemplary creative practitioners, they operate by distinctive conventions and to highly specific ends, i.e., the giving of artistic pleasure. Creativity for children and young people in schools, more broadly understood, comes down to learning how to have one's own ideas, in whatever subject one is studying."[10]

15. However, Paul Collard of Creative Partnerships strongly contested this, stressing that the definition of creativity the organisation espoused was not limited to the arts but also extended to include creativity in other domains:

"I think we do bring scientists, industrialists, technologists and other such people into schools. I do not think we have communicated that as effectively as we could so far, and therefore I think we should be looking […] at some structure that allows us to continue to be delivering a key Arts Council objective but nonetheless have a little bit more independence so we can have those scientists and industrialists on our boards signalling to people that this is not just about traditional arts practice; it is about a bigger and more coherent vision, so I agree there is work to be done on that."[11]

16. Since its inception, the Arts Council has been the 'parent' organisation for Creative Partnerships. Atkinson Design Associates suggested that while they were broadly supportive of the project, more should be done to link to other organisations with a fundamental interest in creativity:

"Whilst noting that the Arts Council are the key contributors to the Creative Partnerships Programme, I feel that the role and relationship in the UK of The Arts Council, The Crafts Council and The Design Council should be more thoroughly aligned."[12]

17. Most now appear agreed on a definition of creativity which goes beyond the expressive and aesthetic arts, and agree that in educational terms creativity should extend right across the curriculum. In practice, while there are clearly examples of Creative Partnerships-funded work involving those from sectors other than the creative and expressive arts, such as industry, science and design, we nevertheless consider this to be an area in need of further development.

18. A closer relationship between Creative Partnerships and bodies such as the Design Council and the Royal Societies would ensure that creativity in all professional domains could be used to stimulate creativity in schools, and would firmly embed the notion of creativity as a process rather than a preserve of 'the arts'. Additionally, consideration should be given by the Government to whether the patronage of the Arts Council, with its very particular remit, is still appropriate given Creative Partnerships' wider ambitions, and whether the current make-up of the Creative Partnerships board adequately reflects the full range of professions to which creativity is key.

Impact of creative initiatives

National level

19. The memoranda we received included a vast amount of anecdotal evidence from teachers, heads and creative practitioners on the effects of being involved in creative partnerships projects, and it is clear that many feel strongly about the potential transformative power of a creative approach to teaching and learning. A wide range of positive impacts were described, particularly in relation to greater engagement and enthusiasm for learning among students, improvements in self-confidence, increased willingness to take risks, and better communication skills. This echoes the findings of a survey of head teachers undertaken in 2006 by BMRB, which found that a very large proportion (between 87% and 92%) of those interviewed believed Creative Partnerships had improved pupils' confidence, communication skills and motivation.[13]

20. Independent research on the impacts of Creative Partnerships on attainment has recently been carried out by the National Foundation for Educational Research. Their report, published in 2006, found some positive associations between participation in Creative Partnerships projects and progress at certain Key Stages and in certain subjects, but it concluded that even where statistically significant effects were observable, the effect was not always "educationally significant".[14] We asked the DCMS Minister, Margaret Hodge MP, whether she would be concerned if Creative Partnerships was not conclusively shown to be having a direct effect on attainment:

"[…] when I looked at this research in the round […], it was a more powerful case than I had expected to find when I came to this particular agenda. Causal relationships are just hugely difficult to prove […] We want evidence-based policy because we do not want to feel a policy we have developed on an intellectually sound basis does not deliver what we want of it, but it is going to be hellishly difficult to come back to you even in five years' time and say there is an X per cent educational improvement absolutely caused by this."[15]

21. Our evidence suggests a very high level of support for more creative approaches to teaching among school staff and creative practitioners, most of whom are clearly convinced that a wide range of positive effects follow from involvement in such programmes, particularly in terms of developing 'softer' skills such as team-working and self-confidence. This evidence should not be ignored, but needs to be more systematically collected and analysed more rigorously. The evidence linking creative programmes and better attainment remains tentative at best, but this does not concern us unduly: we believe that creativity has value in its own right and that improved attainment, while to be welcomed, should be viewed as an additional benefit rather than the main purpose of the programme.

22. We note that evidence on the impact of creative initiatives operating outside of the Creative Partnerships framework does not appear to have been collated or analysed systematically: this is a gap in knowledge that should be remedied.


23. Allied to the issue of measuring progress nationally is that of measuring progress within schools. A common theme in the evidence we received was the difficulty of making robust assessments of pupils' work and behaviours, and in particular, the difficulty of making these assessments count in an environment where the emphasis is on measuring progress according to Key Stage testing. Chris Beschi, a teacher-artist, argues:

"Currently there is a preoccupation in the education system with assessment that is based on the grading of an outcome against a scale of worth. This cannot continue if education is to be creative. Participation, engagement with tasks, enjoyment and understanding a participant's intention in creating something in response to a stimulus through a process of reflection are more valid ways of acknowledging and assessing creative achievement but require greater sensitivity and consideration from assessors as well as an active reflection on the construction and delivery of learning experiences by those facilitating. Working to pre-ordained targets and success criterion will not aid the construction of creative learning environments nor will the standardising of educational expectations or the competitive practice of comparing institutions by exam results and league tables."[16]

24. Paul Collard of Creative Partnerships told us he thought that there needed to be better assessment tools available, as without an acceptable, sanctioned means of measuring progress, the Department for Children, Schools and Families was less likely to 'own' the Creative Partnerships programme. He argued that the responsibility for developing such an assessment methodology should lie with the Department:

"What we currently measure is successful learners insofar as they past tests, but we do not actually have people coming out with certificates in confidence and communication; we do not have certificates of responsible citizenship. I do not want to impose on the education system yet another labyrinthine way of measuring that, but we have to come up with something which says that these outcomes which we have described in our National Curriculum are given as much value and as much importance as the ones that are subject specific. We do not do that currently. Often DCSF, as they are now, will say to us, 'What evidence have you got you are achieving confident individuals and responsible citizens?' and our reply is, frankly, 'What evidence have you got that you are doing it?' because you have said that is the point of education."[17]

25. We asked the DCSF Minister, Jim Knight MP, whether he thought the development of methods of assessing progress was something the Department should undertake. He responded:

"It is certainly something that we think about. When you look at things like the extended project at A level that we are introducing, and some aspects of the diploma design, they are trying to create outputs that are assessable […] but there is a sort of pre-condition that you have to be a fairly creative thinker to do really well at them; it is not just down to hard work and cramming facts; you have got to be able to think creatively and work creatively to do some of those projects. The more we can work that through the better. As I said before, what I would be reluctant to do, unless someone showed me good evidence otherwise, is to say to assessment people: 'Find ways of measuring things that are not easily measurable', because I think you stifle the creativity right from the word go." [18]

26. In the evidence we received, there were several examples of creative partnerships developing their own methodologies and systems for assessing progress on creativity. For example, Cape UK says it has:

"[…] trialled a number of approaches [to tracking progression] which suggest that where children and young people are aware of the range of processes and behaviours which characterise creativity and which contribute to a creative outcome, this gives them a framework against which to consider their own achievement. However, care needs to be taken not to atomise the ingredients of creativity. Evidence can be visual, and in a variety of media, but needs to include a process of reflection to place any product or outcome into context. The sketchbook or reflective portfolio which many arts based practitioners use is a model of what might be possible."[19]

27. Additionally, Paul Collard of Creative Partnerships told us that their research demonstrated that the special schooling sector had significant expertise to offer in this regard:

"[…] one of the themes that we have been exploring with them [special schools] which I think the mainstream education system could learn from is that they have developed systems for spotting very small improvements […] I think that special schools themselves have quite important lessons to give mainstream education about how you build that process of encouragement up by spotting these other kinds of changes."[20]

28. Developing new methods of assessing incremental progress is an urgent priority, but currently no-one appears to be taking this forward. Existing measures of progress, which focus on the attainment of Key Stages, are unlikely to capture small but steady improvements, or progress in areas such as self-confidence, team-working, and risk-taking. The Department for Children, Schools and Families should lead and own this work, in order to ensure that it values the assessments that are made as a consequence. The useful expertise from the special schooling sector in developing assessment methodologies of this kind should be capitalised upon.

29. One area which should be better developed is the systematic collection of students' own views and experiences of creative learning programmes. In our recent report on Citizenship Education, we were strongly supportive of moves to increase the student voice in schools; closer relationships between Creative Partnerships and school councils could contribute to both of these ends.


In their review of the Creative Partnerships programme, published in 2006, Ofsted noted that skills and aptitudes developed in discrete 'creative' activities were not always being transferred across into other curriculum areas:

"[…] pupils were often unclear about how to apply these [creative] qualities independently to develop original ideas and outcomes. Nevertheless, a basis for further creative development had been established, and in several schools this stimulated improvement in pupils' key skills […] Area and school leaders were clear about their contribution to the changes that Creative Partnerships were designed to make to teachers' approaches and attitudes and to young people's aspiration and performance. However, the thrust for 'change in the practice of creative individuals and organisations' was insufficiently embedded in the aims or actions of areas or schools visited"[21]

This critique was echoed by Lambeth City Learning Centre and Brixton CfBT Action Zone, which commented:

"The effective management of such [creative partnership] projects requires: Knowledge of the local context; Knowledge of the schools; Knowledge of local artists and arts organisations; Educational expertise and a knowledge of curriculum. Some of these factors have been lacking in the management of Creative Partnership projects, and this has meant that the work done by artists in schools has not always had a lasting influence."[22]

30. We were therefore keen to explore in our inquiry to what extent the issue of embedding creativity across the curriculum remained, and what Creative Partnerships was doing to ensure that the effects of activities were on-going, rather than transitory, and had a lasting effect on the life of the school.

31. Several schools described how creativity was consciously being embedded into the curriculum, rather than creative activities being treated as one-off events. For example, Peel Park Primary School said that "A coaching model of practitioners working alongside teachers in developing curriculum links is leading to deep learning and practice that is embedded rather than seen as a 'bolt on' or a 'treat'.[23] Similarly, Greenmount Primary School explained:

"Creative Partnerships has […] inspired and supported the school's curriculum review and has provided professional development to enhance staff understanding of creativity. The school has, as a result, redefined its values and planning methods, leading to a far more flexible and personalised curriculum. The main aim of our engagement has been to further pupil's confidence, creativity, understanding of their place in the world and to enhance progress".[24]

32. Extending creative approaches beyond a particular activity and firmly embedding them in the wider curriculum remains a key challenge for schools and also for Creative Partnerships as an organisation. The National Foundation for Educational Research is due to publish research identifying the factors which are associated with creativity becoming firmly embedded. Their findings need to be widely disseminated, in a form accessible to school staff. Ofsted should also continue to focus on the extent to which the lessons from creative activities have been embedded into other school domains.

33. A related issue is that of whether the National Curriculum itself is sufficiently flexible to allow the adoption of a more creative approach to teaching and learning. This was a concern for many of those giving evidence, including Riverside Community College, which argued:

"Since the introduction of the National Curriculum in the 1980s creativity has been lost as teachers have struggled to deliver the content of a packed curriculum. Gone are the opportunities to work on one project in depth allowing students to use enquiry and research skills and to move in the directions any outcomes might take them. Similarly, teachers are too afraid to give up time and take risks when in the middle of a lesson one student asks a question which could divert the whole purpose and objective of the lesson. We argue that we want students to take responsibility for their own learning and yet we actually will not let them do this for fear of not fulfilling the curriculum."[25]

34. On 12 October 2007, the independent Primary Review team, directed by Professor Robin Alexander, published the first of several interim reports which collated initial findings from regional fieldwork with school staff and local communities.[26] A recurring theme in the evidence is that the primary curriculum is seen as being too narrow:

"Every SMT [school Senior Management Team], while accepting the centrality of literacy and numeracy, believed that recent policy had pursued these to the detriment of breadth, balance and creativity. Some pressed the argument further, claiming that the National Curriculum was irrelevant, that content was far less important than skills and that 'experiential learning' and 'the creative curriculum' offered more viable alternatives."[27]

35. There are clearly many who believe that the National Curriculum, particularly at the primary level, is still too narrowly prescriptive and constrains the development of a more creative approach. Nevertheless, our evidence demonstrates that there are schools and settings providing inspiring, creative learning while fulfilling National Curriculum requirements. This is an issue we urge our successor Committee to investigate further —in particular, to establish whether the solution simply lies in giving schools greater confidence and encouragement to adapt the curriculum to their needs, or whether more fundamental changes to structure and content are required.

Training teachers and creative practitioners

36. A key part of Creative Partnerships' work involves providing training for teachers and also for creative practitioners; they suggested to us that this was the programme's 'raison d'etre':

"I think you should think of Creative Partnerships as being a professional development programme for teaching staff. That is what we do. What we have learnt in our experience from working with teachers is that teachers are not terribly good classroom learners; they are very good experiential learners, and when you go and talk to a teacher in the first case and say, 'You could do this,' when you get them in a seminar room, what you tend to hear a lot is, 'Oh that's very good and that's a good example but it would not work with my children.' Until you have done it in their class with their children it is very hard to persuade them that it is really going to work, so therefore what we are really doing is going into their classrooms with their children, with other professionals, and showing them that it works. Once we have done that they then adopt it for themselves […] That for us is what we are about. We do not believe we need to be there forever. We need to be there for a while until we have got them to the point of confidence to do that for themselves and we have opened up a whole series of new opportunities for them." [28]

37. Many of the submissions we received noted that involvement in creative partnership schemes was often challenging for teachers and other school staff, in that they were required to share the planning and direction of lessons with practitioners (and sometimes pupils also) and were also encouraged to reflect on their own teaching methods. For example, Teyfant Community School described the experience of classroom teachers as follows:

"For many teachers having an extra adult in the classroom was threatening—to have an extra adult who contributed so much into the planning and delivery of curriculum was beyond their experience. Trust was established (though this was not a quick process) and the teacher began to lose their 'stranglehold' upon teaching and learning. The teacher for the first time in many years became a true learner in their own classrooms! The teacher lost the role as instructor and became an equal partner. This enabled many teachers to accept that their role was a facilitator of learning."[29]

38. Some schools submitting evidence also argued that more emphasis now needed to be placed on 'two-way' development, where teachers were encouraged to 'mentor' creative professionals as well as those professionals mentoring teachers, sharing knowledge about the realities of classroom life and recent developments in teaching methodologies. William Edwards School suggested that one way to facilitate this would be:

"structured sabbaticals […] encouraging teachers and practitioners to work alongside each other in their exclusive environments prior to working together in the classroom. This might allow a greater sense of understanding between teachers and practitioners, and enable more long term, effective planning to take place."[30]

39. We agree with Creative Partnerships that continuing professional development is of fundamental importance to embedding more creative approaches to teaching and learning, and should be seen as the core of the operation. We also encourage Creative Partnerships to consider ways in which mentoring of teachers by creative professionals, and of creative professionals by teachers, could be further encouraged—for example, through the introduction of short, structured sabbaticals for teachers.

Creative partnerships and extended schools

40. As part of our inquiry, we asked for evidence on how creative partnerships could better involve parents and the wider community. Several organisations involved in Creative Partnerships described how creative activities had increased parental involvement in their children's education, as well as boosting parents' own confidence and interpersonal skills. Evidence of this is also provided in Creative Partnerships' recent report on parental involvement.[31] Cape UK, a research and consultancy service which co-ordinates Creative Partnerships projects, says:

"Many arts based projects in secondary settings involve parents through preparing for and attending performances and there is evidence that they value the impact these experiences have on their children in relation to motivation and attitude to school. This can provide a starting point for dialogue with parents […]. Extended Schools may provide an opportunity to involve parents more actively in creative education, although there is danger here that creative activity is relegated to out of hours provision rather than fully integrated into the main part of the school day. This is an area which we feel requires investment of time and energy."[32]

41. The Government's ambition is that, by 2010, all children will have access to an Extended School. Extended Schools are intended to offer 'wrap around care', and also provide facilities for parents and the wider community, such as parenting support, family learning, access to targeted and specialist services, and access to IT facilities. Currently, Creative Partnerships do not operate specifically in extended schools. When we took evidence from them, they were clear that this was an area they would like to expand into, but that funds were not available.[33] The Arts Council is piloting its Arts Extend[34] programme in extended schools in nine areas; Arts Extend is part-funded by the DCSF, but is separate from the mainstream of Creative Partnerships work.

42. It is regrettable that a more systematic and co-ordinated approach has not been taken in respect of creative partnerships work in extended schools. Given the importance the Government clearly now attaches to involving parents in their children's learning, and to providing opportunities for parents in difficult circumstances to develop their skills and confidence, this is a significant missed opportunity.

43. More generally, we are not convinced that there is a coherent view on creativity's place in wider policy of children's services at the national level. The obvious links between creativity and other priorities such as Every Child Matters and the personalisation agenda, as well as with extended schools, are under-developed: currently, the appearance is one of creative partnerships as a rather separate entity, which nevertheless shares common ends with many of these other programmes of reform.

44. The DCSF gives the impression that these issues concerning creativity are peripheral to their core responsibilities in education and children's services. We believe that the best education has creativity at its very heart. We recommend that the DCSF reviews policies such as Every Child Matters and personalised learning to ensure that creativity is established as a core principle in learning and development.

Role of Ofsted

45. Some of those giving evidence were concerned that creativity was likely to remain a second-order priority if school inspections by Ofsted continued to have a predominant focus on standards, and on national testing. Lambeth City Learning Centre and Brixton CfBT Action Zone argued:

"The monitoring of creativity initiatives and creative arts projects need to be included in the remit of Ofsted inspectors who are otherwise likely to focus on the core curriculum and test results to the exclusion of other important areas of schools' achievements."[35]

46. In its response to the Roberts report, the Department for Children, Schools and Families confirmed that Ofsted would look for evidence of creativity during all subject surveys from 2007-2008.[36] We agree with the Government that Ofsted should be required to look for evidence of creative approaches and opportunities during its subject studies, and not solely when a school refers to creativity on its Self Evaluation Form. As has happened with other new curricular developments such as Citizenship, we would also urge Ofsted to carry out regular thematic reviews on creativity, which would prove useful for assessing progress over time at the national level.

Roles of DCSF and DCMS

Government policy priorities

47. Recent initiatives have raised the profile of creativity in schools, but work in this area is in its early stages. In some of the evidence received, there was a concern that creativity was still in effect a secondary consideration for schools, when viewed alongside the need to improve Standard Assessment Test results and achieve successful Ofsted inspections. Cape UK wrote:

"The main barrier to embedding creativity across the curriculum and within the philosophy of schools is fear that a focus on creativity will not contribute to the outcomes against which the success of a school is measured—i.e. SATS scores and GCSE grades. Although changes to the curriculum, the Every Child Matters agenda and the revised Ofsted inspection process do pay regard to creativity and schools have increasing independence, autonomy and permission to develop creative learning, it will take time and repeatedly strong and consistent messages from policy makers for the climate across the sector to change."[37]

48. The DCMS Minister, Margaret Hodge, however, argued strongly in evidence that it was incorrect to imply a focus on creativity was somehow in contradiction with the desire to raise standards, saying they were "two sides of the same coin".[38] Jim Knight for the DCSF similarly sought to reassure us that creativity was seen as important in educational terms, stating:

"I can get very passionate about the importance of the arts and creativity more widely in schools and getting practitioners in working with young people, and I do think this programme is very important and I want to see it continue."[39]

Margaret Hodge confirmed that no cuts to the Creative Partnerships programme were anticipated over the next Comprehensive Spending Review period, although she stopped short of guaranteeing the position.

49. We welcome the confirmation that reductions in Creative Partnerships funding are not foreseen over the next Comprehensive Spending Review period. However, the imbalance in levels of funding for the project between the two Departments does little to allay perceptions that creativity is a second-order priority for the Department for Children, Schools and Families. As we have previously suggested, we also feel that the DCSF could do more in terms of offering non-financial support—for example, by developing a system in which improvements in soft skills can be assessed and valued equally alongside more quantifiable achievements in terms of SAT scores.


50. Creative Partnerships' activity is currently limited to certain areas of the country. The DCMS Minister, Margaret Hodge, told us that she did not anticipate there being sufficient funding to extend the Creative Partnerships project to all areas of the country, but that it was hoped that work could be 'cascaded down' to those schools which had not participated to date. Additionally, the DCSF Minister, Jim Knight, hinted that in future funding may not necessarily be channelled through a framework like Creative Partnerships. He told us:

"I would like to continue to see more practitioners coming into our schools. If that is delivered through Creative Partnerships that is great, but I would love to see a growth in professional creative arts practitioners coming in and working with teachers developing their CPD [continuing professional development] and working with the pupils developing their creativity."[40]

51. However, many of those submitting evidence to us clearly felt very strongly that without some form of external co-ordinating agency, more creative approaches to teaching and learning were unlikely to become properly embedded in all schools. Peel Park Primary School told us, for example, that: "Creative Partnerships brings a dimension and resources that most schools cannot possibly access or develop on their own."[41] At its best, when Creative Partnerships starts with a school development plan and builds a strong relationship between teachers and creative practitioners it can significantly expand the capacity and ambition of a school to teach creatively.

52. We accept that funding levels may never be such that all schools can access individual, tailored support, and that funding for Creative Partnerships as a supporting organisation may be time-limited. However, we do not believe completely devolved funding would be appropriate at the moment, when much still remains to be done to embed creative teaching and learning. A priority now for Creative Partnerships and its two sponsoring Government departments in planning for the future should be to produce replicable models or templates, which can then be used and adapted to initiate work in other schools. This would act as a means of ensuring that all schools could benefit from the investment made in Creative Partnerships, even if they have not participated directly to date. If creativity is at the heart of every successful school, it is essential that all schools have access to the necessary resources—such as external co-ordination, creative professionals and continuing professional development for teachers—to enable it to become established through the school system.

9   Written evidence from Dr Stephen Scoffham and Mr Jonathan Barnes, Canterbury Christchurch University (CPC 20) Back

10   Written evidence from Malcolm Ross (CPC 03) Back

11   Q 25 Back

12   Written evidence from Atkinson Design Associates (CPC 118) Back

13   Ev 30 Back

14   Paul Collard of Creative Partnerships explained that this meant that no causal relationship could be demonstrated between the initiative and any improvements (see Q 85 ff.). Back

15   Q 114 Back

16   Written evidence from Chris Beschi (CPC 08) Back

17   Q 13 Back

18   Q 173 Back

19   Written evidence from Cape UK (CPC 120)  Back

20   Q 43 Back

21   Ofsted, Creative Partnerships: initiative and impact, September 2006. Back

22   Written evidence from Lambeth City Learning Centre and Brixton CfBT Action Zone (CPC 29) [not published] Back

23   Written evidence from Peel Park Primary School (CPC 51)  Back

24   Written evidence from Richard May, Greenmount Primary School (CPC 02)  Back

25   Written evidence from Riverside Community College (CPC 33) Back

26   Primary Review, Community Soundings: the Primary Review regional witness sessions, October 2007, Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.  Back

27   ibid., p 21 Back

28   Q 4 Back

29   Written evidence from Teyfant Community School (CPC 17) Back

30   Written evidence from William Edwards School (CPC 34) Back

31   Creative Partnerships, Parents respond to children's work in creative partnerships, N.D.  Back

32   Written evidence from Cape UK (CPC 120) Back

33   Q 52 Back

34   Arts Extend is a pilot programme, currently operating in nine local authority areas and administered by the Arts Council. It aims to offer arts provision in Extended Schools, with the objective of increasing the reach of the arts, and contributing to the overall aims of the Extended School programme.  Back

35   Written evidence from Lambeth City Learning Centre and Brixton CfBT Action Zone (CPC 29) [not printed] Back

36   DCMS, Government Response to Paul Roberts' Report on Nurturing Creativity in Young People, November 2006, p 8. Back

37   Written evidence from Cape UK (CPC 120) Back

38   Q 100 Back

39   Q 128 Back

40   Q 125 Back

41   Written evidence from Peel Park Primary School (CPC 51) Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 31 October 2007