Where we stand

The arts are not enrichment — they are a learning pathway

In most school timetables, the arts are positioned as enrichment: something layered on top of the core curriculum when time and budget allow. Our position is that this is backwards. For a significant proportion of children — and particularly for those with additional needs or who struggle with conventional academic routes — drama, movement, and creative expression are not optional extras. They are a primary route to communication, regulation, and engagement.

An education system that treats the arts as peripheral produces outcomes that reflect that choice: children who could access learning through creative approaches are instead measured against modes of engagement they cannot yet reach. We work against that outcome directly, and advocate for it publicly wherever the opportunity arises.

Read: Creativity as a Core Competency ↗

Movement is not the opposite of learning — it is a precondition for it

The design of most school days is premised on stillness as the context for learning. The evidence does not support this. For many children, and especially for children with ADHD, sensory processing differences, and high physical activity needs, structured movement is not a distraction from academic engagement — it is what makes academic engagement possible.

We advocate for movement to be treated as a curriculum priority rather than a physical education afterthought, and for schools to understand that the children who most need to move are also the children most likely to be penalised for doing so. The research on this is not contested. The practice is.

Read: The Role of Movement in Academic Success ↗

Inclusion must be designed in — not bolted on

Inclusive education is widely stated as a priority. In practice, it often means a standard provision with a few adaptations for children who do not fit it — which is not the same thing. Genuinely inclusive educational practice requires inclusive design from the planning stage: session structures, pacing, communication modes, and assessment approaches that are built for a range of learners, not adjusted for outliers after the fact.

Annarie's SEN background means that every programme she designs begins from this principle. It is not an additional consideration — it is the starting point. We also advance this position in CPD delivery, where much of the impact comes from shifting how practitioners frame the design problem in the first place.

Learning from international comparisons — what the evidence actually says

Comparative educational research — and the Finnish model in particular — is frequently invoked in UK educational debate without much rigour about what is and is not transferable. We engage with this literature seriously rather than selectively. The elements of high-performing systems that are most evidenced and most transferable tend to be: strong investment in teacher education and autonomy, reduced high-stakes testing, and a genuine commitment to equity as a design principle rather than a stated value.

These are not radical positions. They are what the evidence consistently says. We hold them because we think children's outcomes should follow the evidence rather than the prevailing policy fashion.

Read: Lessons for Positive Reform — Learning From Finland →

Resilience belongs in the curriculum

Resilience — as a capacity for young people to understand risk, adapt to disruption, and engage as active members of their communities — is not currently treated as a curriculum priority. We argue that it should be. Climate change, technological dependency, supply-chain fragility, and the erosion of practical life skills are reshaping the world our children will inherit. Preparing them for it is not pessimism. It is responsibility.

This is not about adding another subject. It is about a new lens applied to the curriculum that already exists — embedding climate literacy, practical preparedness, critical systems understanding, and community responsibility across Geography, PSHE, Science, Food Technology, Design & Technology, and Business Studies, from primary school through to professional formation in higher education.

For learners with SEN — many of whom cope poorly with change and for whom resilience learning requires particularly careful design — this position matters most. We have developed specific curriculum guidance addressing autism, demand avoidance, anxiety, trauma, and sensory needs within resilience education, grounded in the principle that predictable responses to unpredictable events are a more effective and more accessible model of resilience than generalised tolerance of uncertainty.

This position connects directly to Simon Boor's broader advocacy for national resilience infrastructure, including written evidence submitted to the House of Lords National Resilience Committee (ref. NLR0007, April 2026) proposing a Cabinet-level Office of National Resilience.

Resilience Belongs in the Curriculum — article →

Policy Position Statement: Embedding Resilience in the UK Education System →

The Office of National Resilience — consultancy article ↗