Time for a rethink

 As the Tory leadership battle continues this weekend saw both Truss and Sunak throwing the spotlight onto education. As with all their Tory-pleasing soundbites both had come up with what many people perceived to be radical ideas.

Now at the moment, I consider myself to be stranded in some political wasteland. Previously I considered myself a 'moderate' Labour supporter with a touch of Liberalism thrown in for good measure, yet more recently I, like many others, seem to be searching around for a party that truly does 'fit' with what I believe. The only thing that I'm 100% confident of is that I'm 0% Tory.  A party notoriously out for themselves, supporting the rich whilst so many in the UK go without just doesn't sit well with me at all - call me old-fashioned.  So nobody could be more surprised than me when I suddenly started to take a positive interest in what Truss and Sunak were saying over the weekend.

Truss went all in for nothing with plans to completely overhaul the education system in the UK, with the headline-grabbing soundbite of changing Higher Education's academic year. She suggested stopping the Summer rush of waiting for the exam results and then claiming places, and changing it to a "we know our results. . . give us a place" sort of system. 

The fact of the matter is that we've been stuck in an archaic educational system for decades. Sure it's been tweaked within an inch of its life over the years, out went O Levels, in came GCSEs, exams and continuous assessment scrape by together as unharmonious bedfellows, as we remain adamant that a 3-hour memory test is still the best way to ascertain who's academic. Of course, the result of the current system is a societal model that labels people as intelligent or not at 16 years. It places untold pressure on our teens to achieve success at a time that is already really hard - adolescence. The system doesn't take the "whole person" into consideration - so those teens battling illness, trauma, and basic demographic issues are issued an helpful label before they've had a chance to work out who they really are.

Then thanks to Tony Blair's vision of a world where 50% of young people went to university (university being perceived as the only successful route into the workplace), we're now left with the systemic issue of what about the rest? The role of vocational training has been diminished, with funding (or lack of) quickly following, apprenticeships are forever changing but never for the better, BTECs (once deemed for the academically less gifted) have decreased in real-world value. 

So I think that Truss is onto something with her 'shake it all up approach', except of course, as with every Truss soundbite, there appears to be no real substance or plan behind the headline.

Meanwhile, Sunak has gone for the easy target of limiting the degrees that don't lead to economic growth or to put it more bluntly, let's get rid of arts and the humanities. For some bizarre reason, the Tories love the idea of vandalising the arts in the UK, failing to fully recognise it seems that the arts are all around them, and if it wasn't for the arts their worlds would be much sadder. It's like they don't correlate that the opera, ballet, theatre, and the tv that they watch have all evolved from years of training, vocational training that is.

However, I do believe that Sunak is onto something too. Off the top of my head, I could name a number of universities that are currently offering performing arts degrees that are not fit for purpose. I can name the universities that went from offering one or two brilliant performing arts courses to offering a portfolio of performing arts courses. . . most of which were not and are not fit for purpose. It's the basic law of economics and supply and demand. Performing arts courses are hugely oversubscribed, predominantly because unlike more academic studies you can't keep cramming students into a lecture theatre, so the courses are restricted by the numbers that they can teach at one time. So the demand is huge but the opportunities are small. Step forward opportunistic universities looking to create other revenue streams.

In theory, this is great right? More courses = more opportunities, however in reality this does not play out. We're seeing courses that are claiming to get people industry-ready offering ridiculous contact hours of just 12-16 week. Absolutely impossible to build up a skillset within that timeframe. So the courses focus on private study or peer devised modules, so the students "think" that they're training, but in reality, they're simply mucking about with their friends.

On some of these courses, the staff are woefully unqualified to teach their subject, yet they're attempting to teach the next generation how to enter an industry that they have no first-hand knowledge of. I mean it's bonkers, yet they're all still oversubscribed. Such is the legacy and myth around a university education, parents would rather their children go to study at an ill-equipped university than wait for a place at a college that can truly deliver the goods because they believe that the very mention of the "degree" will get their child a job.

As I note every single time, a university can knock out a quick box-ticking degree course in no time at all, that course, regardless of how inadequate it is, will automatically be eligible for a government funding stream. Sunak is right to want to audit some of those courses. I would like to think that the money that they'd save on the "not fit for purpose" courses would be instantly rerouted into all the amazing courses out there that truly deliver results. I'd also love to think that Sunak would expand his thinking and actually place some value on vocational training - however, I realise that this would truly be the Christmas miracle that we've been waiting years for.

Whoever wins the leadership race there is so much work to do in education, and I guess the only thing that we can all be sure of - is that neither of them will put in that work

As always the comments are open and I'd love to hear what you think

The Audition Issue

Seeing as WestEndProducer has raised the important question of audition fees one more time, and given that this was one of my blog areas the other day....here's the deal with drama college/uni auditions...as I see it.

When you go to the doctors, 9 out of 10 people don't feel 'better' unless they give you a tablet. We feel short changed when they say the word virus, and say that antibiotics won't help us out.  We would feel ripped off if on top of that they had charged us between £30-£75 for the privilege of hearing this information even though the facts were correct. 

The question is (unless I'm very much mistaken) - is the audition process a cash cow for colleges? Everybody gets cross at the question, all standing their ground that their audition process is not only fair, but very often it's a loss maker. We could probably 'chose' our students in half a day if we crammed things in, but you'd definitely feel that you hadn't been seen or heard - so we've always opted for a whole day audition process with no cuts. I can tell if you can sing by hearing 16 bars. . . but you feel like you need to sing your entire rep. . . so we compromise on one time limited song.

Now I run a teeny, tiny college.  Here are my facts:

We audition up to 15 people in a session.  We only do whole day auditions. Throughout the day they will have my senior faculty with them at all times, plus one of my dance staff for an hour and a half. Clearly we need a studio to facilitate this day.  Part of our revenue relies on the hire of our one free studio space in the day - just a quick google check and you'll see that our one day studio hire is £140/day (for our audition studio...although we do sometimes vary it, depending on the needs of the course)
So we've potentially lost that revenue for that day...and therefore have to count it as a 'cost'.  It usually costs us around £40 to have one member of my dance staff with us for a dance workshop...so we're already 'down' £180.  Whilst the staff that are in the room are my salaried staff, that does 'lose' me a day of their contract elsewhere, so budget wise I have to factor it in.  All the staff are on different salaries and on different point scales, however roughly speaking that would mean that each member of staff costs me around £120....and there are 4 of us in the room.  So our audition day costs us £570...to do the paperwork around each audition is probably around 2 hours per audition day, in addition we send all applicants written feedback which takes a further 2 hours at the end of the day. If we say that each hour of admin is £15 - we're on £60 admin charge/day.

So we have 15 people paying £45 - giving us a total of £675/audition day.
So it's room hire £140 (or more accurately, loss of earnings for that room)
Staff costs at £520
Admin costs at £60
Total cost to us - £720
So as I've always maintained...we run all of our audition days at a loss.

In reality we lose a bit more than that though, as our classes all have to be covered by our freelance teachers - so as a business we have an additional £330(minimum) to 'cover' too. However it's imperative to me that the audition panel consists of the very people who are going to have to get you industry ready in 2 years, I don't buy into the 'guest' system of auditioning. I need my staff to see if they can solve your bad habits.

In other words. . . I can justify the cost of my audition day without any difficulty.  It's for you to do the sums everywhere else...or even better for every college to break it down to show complete transparency over costs.

This does not make your audition day any cheaper BUT we're on our 9th year of auditioning now, and at the end of every session we have asked every applicant to anonymously fill out a questionnaire to ensure that they feel like they've had value for money from their day with us.  100% of applicants have not only felt like they've received the value of their audition fee, but every year around 30% say that they feel like we're under selling our day! 100% of them would recommend our audition day to their friends.

We cap our audition numbers, as we are simply looking for the 22 people to fill our course, and we fill as we go along. Our applicants find out that evening if they've been accepted or not.

However we're equally unhappy about 'the system'. We advise people to apply early to us due to the fact that we fill as we go along. . . and yet every year a percentage of students will come to an early audition, we'll offer them a place and of course, they want to go and see everywhere else before committing to us.  So to us they've wasted one of our valuable audition spaces, but also it's really disappointing when we invest so much into people on our audition days when they then turn around and say that they can't decide yet (even though we make it blatantly obvious everywhere that you will only have a 2 week period to decide on accepting that place or not. . .AND explain the reasons for that), so they end up turning down the place.  This is very different, I'll add, to the people that are clear that it's just the wrong course for them (which of course they wouldn't have found out unless they had done our audition day. . . so I'd say for them and us, that was still a day well spent). FYI there is only a short 2 week deciding time as we need to know how many places we have to offer by the next audition day, and as the applications keep coming in, as we would stop our audition process early. We also deliberately put a large deposit request in, as we don't like the game of 'holding security places'. We only want you to pay a deposit if you're coming to train with us...if  you're sure that we're the right place for you.

Interestingly as we're one of the few drama colleges that give feedback, I have a surprisingly large number of people that thank us for the feedback and inform us that they used it, and it facilitated them getting into another college! Again if we were seriously being considered as a training option but it wasn't right for them(or us)...that's bloody brilliant...and they definitely did receive value for money. however disappointing it might be for 'us'.

As nearly every applicant says on their feedback form, they like the fact that we get to know our applicants as people, with names, not commodities with numbers.  However that means (as our testimonials will vouch for us actually) that we clearly invest from day one. . . probably a bit too much if I'm honest.

I get that applying to loads of colleges is the advice that we all give...just applying to 10 would cost you around £450 these days(& I know that you have to add travel and accommodation on top of that...which is why we decide in a day, and refuse to do any recalls, which would cost you more money again)...and that's a big investment, for very little return. So I guess my advice would be chose your 10 carefully. . .  Find out exactly what you're getting for that money. It's only if you start deciding to give your money elsewhere will the colleges who are suspected of running cash cow auditions will change.

Should we audition around the country to lower your audition costs? I don't think that we can. We're a unique course, with a unique atmosphere. That atmosphere will instantly click with you, or instantly repel you I guess. . .but you'll only find that out by submerging yourself in our culture/habitat for the day.

And the bit about the doctor? Well sometimes you're just not right for a course, it doesn't matter what you do, you're not the right 'fit' for the college of your dreams. If they're honest with you and tell you that you will always feel ripped off. . . even if you come away empty handed because they want to actually save you money.

School of the Year

I still can't quite believe that I'm writing this - but a huge thanks to all at The Stage, for once again voting The MTA its School of the Year.  We first won this award back in 2012. Back then our citation stated that we were one to watch as we were 'a new force for training' in the UK.  Fast forward to now and our citation acknowledges our growing influence within the training sector.  Clearly the deciding factor this year though was the #time4change campaign. We're still plugging away at it and currently have 118 great organisations/companies/agencies/colleges committed to better mental health practice. However with only 2 full time members of staff (one of those being me), we need to put our head's down for a bit and focus on the class of 2017, ensuring that they're ready to leave, and of course start thinking about the 2017 newbies too.  In other words. . . lots to do and we need to prioritise 'us' for a few months. That said, if you are interested drop us a line as 'we need you!'

If The MTA has any influence at all within this sector. . . and I am rather dubious as to whether we do or not, I'd like us to think about how we could all work together a bit more.  Drama UK is dead and gone (I won't be a hypocrite and hope that it RIP's . . . instead I celebrate the financial saving that each of its old members will now make), so how do we regulate our industry?

Personally I think that it needs a huge shake up.  So if we could influence anything it would be the following:

1) Foundation courses need to run something like Feb - Feb not September - August. I strongly suspect why they all currently run the same as regular academic year, but don't they need their students ready to audition by December at the earliest? If they started earlier in the normal academic year their students would be biting at the bit to get out there by December (which seems to be one of the earlier audition dates you could be given by a major drama college?).  I don't know about the other colleges but I really feel for the students who are on these courses who have to ask you for a later audition date as they're not quite ready yet. At The MTA that could mean that they miss out on a place.
UPDATE: Some foundation courses need to really look at the advice that they're giving their students about application dates.  We've had one course that advised people to apply early....for nearly all of them to give the same stock response of why they then couldn't accept their places.  Valid reasons...but a later application would have meant that people who were ready to commit to our course got the chance to audition earlier.  Check whether your foundation course really is open to you auditioning everywhere...and seeing a value in every course.  There's a few out there purely training you for one course? What is that about? It also makes a mockery of all the brilliant foundation courses working hard for their students.

2) Transparency....transparency....transparency.  From websites to statistics, I feel like things need to be clearer for parents making their way through this maze seemingly called 'the audition season'.  We should all be compelled to put up our latest stats, and not just promote a course on historical facts, or contemporary soundbites.  I think that we should all have to clearly state our prices. . . none of this headline figure with 'plus VAT' added in a smaller font next door to it.  What is your price? What additional extras will your students have to pay for if any? How many places are you offering? What class sizes does that equate to? What percentage of your students are working/are still in the industry after X amount of years? Where does the money go? Be prepared to explain it to parents. At The MTA we do open book accounting, which makes life so easy, as everybody knows everything, and if they don't, they can just nip into my office and see for themselves. I appreciate in a larger college that might not work, but students can still learn ball park figures for tuition/rooms/production.  What's the breakdown of the contact hours/week per term. Exactly how many weeks of tuition does a student have? Transparent facts e.g. if you're saying that 100% of your students have gained agent representation but that's because you have an in house agency that can facilitate that fact. . . state it!

3) This comes under No 2) really but what is the pastoral provision? Have they signed up for #time4change or are they actively affiliated with another campaign that actively promotes well being, and indeed do they acknowledge that Mental Health is an issue in our industry . . . and if so how are they attempting to help?

I think that Nos 2) and 3) are the 'least' that should be shared. . . however I'd also want to know who was going to be teaching me, the structure of the course, policy on casting (to ensure that the primary objective in their shows was promoting ALL their students. . . not just the one that they consider to be the best).

4) Let's sort out the mess that must impact on all of us at this time of year around students often paying hundreds of pounds for auditions, but then all of us needing to know within a ridiculous time frame - complete with a hefty deposit.  I say this as we are as culpable in this as the next college maybe even more so - however realistically, the business side of any college can't exist on uncertainties and maybes. We all need to know how many places we have to offer, how many people we're still looking for. We stop auditioning people once we're full, but then could get potentially stung badly if all of our 'chosen year' pulled out at the last minute because to them a 'better place' had been offered(by that I mean a place at their preferred college, etc) , or a funded place had suddenly appeared, as we refuse to have a substantial reserve list.  We have a financial penalty to try and discourage this (as do many others I know). . . but it happens, and the impact on the college could be huge.
I have no idea how to answer the above. . . but I think that we need to ask the questions, to see if we can stop students forking out for a load of auditions that they're not going to need. I think from our point of view too we need a better system. I know that every year we get frustrated during the earlier auditions as we get all excited about the potential to train someone, only to be told that they want to explore all their other options. Now this of course makes complete sense and is completely right and proper from the students' point of view, they don't want to take the financial hit on all the other auditions that they've already paid for but now have to forfeit - but then they did just waste the £45 audition fee that they'd spent on us, plus, very often, travel and accomodation on top. Plus as we cap our auditions, they had also prevented somebody taking their place. . . somebody who might have had The MTA down as one of their preferred choices? In other words whichever way you look at it the students are being financially penalised and that shouldn't happen.

5) Transparency over audition fees - and exactly what does your audition day/PM/10 mins look like? Justify your price? Even with over 100 students in the room at any one time?

6) Better education in schools for parents and potential students.  Does your safety net degree at X college really warrant you paying out twice for your child's training? Were those extra 3 years really worth it? Maybe they were - let's find out!  I feel so sorry for people that come to us having recently finished a degree course, and discovering that they actually know nothing about the industry at all. . . yet were sold a course that pertained to prepare them for it? Rename those courses 'life skills within the performing arts' or something, but don't sell them as the pathway to fame and fortune, which is a practice that definitely happens out there. So let's get the facts out to parents and let them make informed choices.

6) Some colleges already do this I know...but let's make it common practise - if they're holding a large reserve list, let the potential students know exactly where they are on that list. If you're 'caller No 200 on hold' then surely the chances are that you're not going to get in that year. Again. . . transparency.

7) Please make this be the year that someone explains to me why the majority of colleges charge overseas students so much more money.  We charge them exactly the same, as it costs me the same to train an oversea's student as it does a UK based one.

So there's my starting point, no doubt I'll think of other things throughout the year.  However all of the above aside. . . thank you. We're so thrilled - this is what happened after the award ceremony when I took the award back to the students: https://www.periscope.tv/w/1LyGBwqMeAbJN Enjoy the dullness of my walking around the college looking for them!

Come out for #time4change

Twitter was all of a flutter this morning, full of praise for the actress Beverley Callard, for opening up about her 'depression' on the popular ITV programme This Morning. However it was the wording of the praise that struck me. How brave she had been to speak out? Now of course I get it, and I sadly get the wording. However when someone speaks out about epilepsy for example - are they brave?
The Daily Mirror (don't shoot the messenger) headlined it as the actress ADMITTED that she might have Bipolar? Admitted? Throw me into the confessional booth as I admit to having asthma....quickly. Do we have to 'admit' to an illness these days?
Then there was the issue that most of the reporting kept talking about her depression...but she was talking about recently having been investigated for having Bipolar II. What a great opportunity to discuss OTHER mental health issues, but as usual they focussed on the 'D' word.

Then there was the shock that she'd considered taking her own life? Depression can do that folks. . . that's why it's a killer (literally). That's why we're attempting to help people BEFORE it gets to that stage. THAT'S why when people are busy telling you where to physically and geographically go for help they need to realise that you can't move in that moment. You're not thinking rationally. THAT'S why we want people to recognise symptoms earlier, be that in themselves, or in those around them.

Finally she said those all too familiar words (and I'm paraphrasing)...'people assume that I'm a confident person because I'm an actress'. How many more times do we, as an industry, have to hear this without acting on it? (no pun intended)
Very few performers are confident. . . FACT. Loads of performers can act confident. . . FACT
1 in 3 performers are known to have mental health issues.

We could debate all day the chicken/egg question of does the industry create the problem, or was the problem already there, and the industry was supposed to aid the problem? Everybody will take a view point on this. Personally I've always said that our industry attracts people that are susceptible to mental health issues because it's escapism...you can be somebody else. You can get 'out of' your head.
Our industry embraces 'different'. So if you have some quirks - we love it. So of course we become an attractive career for people struggling and learning to cope.

A few days ago I blogged about the Evening Standard's reporting on the brilliant ArtsMind initiative http://althomasmd.blogspot.com/2016/09/reactive-not-proactive-time4change.html and how I felt that it had been unhelpful when it was suggesting that it was lifestyle that was creating the issues. So many people these days work freelance and therefore have the same job insecurities as us. Hell in the current climate, you could even argue (a tiny bit), that people are being scrutinised all the time too, as companies adhere to the laws of the survival of the fittest.

Earlier I'd blogged about the ridiculous fuss that #Stageschool had created within the industry: http://althomasmd.blogspot.com/2016/09/time4change-wk-8-spread-little.html how hypocritical we were all beginning to sound, acting out our annoyance for the world to see and hear.

Just the other morning I was tweeting my annoyance at the twitter coverage of the Emmy awards, and how all this public scrutiny of what people were wearing, what they were saying, is just crazy making. Who the hell wants to wake up and read that about themselves?

Over the past month you would have seen me retweeting several brave tweets by performers stating unequivocably that their drama college was the same as every other drama college, and not dealing with this issue adequately.  There is no doubt that drama colleges WANT to get this right, however they are still failing to see that they have to shift their position on it if they want to make a difference early on in a career.  I urge the other college Principals to question WHY so many production companies and agencies have signed the charter? If we were giving them 'healthy' performers would they be fighting now for things to change?

We should not have celebrities on TV 'admitting' to being ill, or 'speaking out' to help other sufferers, when as an industry we are not yet helping ourselves. Put the oxygen mask on yourself before trying to save everyone else (I believe that I'm quoting Oprah...but not sure)

It is brilliant and brave for anybody to say that they're dealing with mental health issues...but that does not make the statement correct.

Not that long ago LGBT performers were 'coming out', 'admitting' to being gay. Something so genetic, and yet still they had to 'admit' to it. Their stories designed to help others 'suffering the same fate'.  Sadly to some extent,  this is still the case BUT 'it's' becoming mainstream.  The gays are blending in. We're all just people, regardless of who we're sleeping with.
Well we're all just people, regardless of our mental health status too.
We need to stop the stigma.
We need to recognise that it's #time4change
http://althomasmd.blogspot.com/2016/07/its-time4change.html

Reactive not Proactive #time4change

Yup, another post about #time4change. . . but that's because it's REALLY important.

This week The Evening Standard wrote a great piece in support of the brilliant ArtsMind initiative set up by Equity, Spotlight, The Stage and BAPAM http://www.standard.co.uk/goingout/arts/mental-health-in-the-arts-are-we-talking-about-it-enough-a3344721.html#commentsDiv However the article seems to focus on the fact that the conditions of our self employed lifestyle and all the insecurities that that brings can almost 'create' a Mental illness.

The anonymous actress who bravely discusses her struggles with depression during drama school, might....just might, have had an underlying depression for years - but the expectations and pressures of drama school training exacerbated it, leading to a crises.

The article touches on the subject of self medicating, in this instance through alcohol, but what about the drug use, the sleeping around NOT because you're enjoying it (that's a whole different ball game(pun intended), and should be celebrated if that's your thing), but because you're looking for personal approval?

The article takes a rather back footed approach to the whole thing. Now let's be clear - any 'footed' approach is good. However there are so many other things going on. Is your depression reactive or chemical...or is it both? Why did you enter the arts in the first place? Do you already have symptoms that you just consider to be quirks of 'you'? What's your genetic loading regarding Mental Health?

What about if we took a front footed approach? What if we accept that Mental Health is a thing, and that we should be on our guard about it? What IF we could make our performers strong BEFORE they go out into the real world? What IF we could diagnose and treat Mental Illnesses BEFORE they became 'a thing'?
Actually all these things are possible.

I was in a meeting the other day, attempting, as ever to promote the #time4change Mental Health Charter. The debate started as to whether this was real, or whether people were simply jumping on the latest 'band wagon'?  Now admittedly some of the PD lot might be doing that. . . but even if they are. . . it's because that there's a bigger issue going on surely? Then I heard the most devastating and apt quote of all.  This person told me that at the moment it was "like a Tsunami of people coming through with mental health difficulties".  A Tsunami of people!

I have yet to speak to a college that hasn't confessed to being overwhelmed by the number of 'issues' that they are currently attempting to deal with. College counsellors are swamped by people needing to see them.  Why is this?

Well when you've upped your intake up from 40 to 120 a year, did you employ triple the number of counsellors? We have one counsellor for a max of 44 students, and she is booked up every week. Admittedly our Mental Health provision is rather more robust than the #time4change charter insists upon. Check it out here, however I'm constantly having to monitor it and check that it's doable. Especially with our college for life policy, which means that our ambassadors check in with her too. We have another mental health specialist on 'stand by' just incase we ever get that 'Tsunami'. Fortunately the way that it works at The MTA, the Tsunami is definitely there, but we manage to break it down throughout the year, making it just a strong torrent at the front.

I was asked again this week why other colleges aren't jumping on this initiative - and to tell the truth I'm not really sure. I think that some believe that they're doing everything that they can already, and therefore won't enter a discussion with us to see how they might be able to be more effective. When your students and graduates are literally begging you on social media to sign up, maybe you're not being as effective as you could be?

Some aren't joining because they believe it to be an initiative from The MTA - yet the charter is clearly an entity in itself now.  As I explained on twitter this week - someone has to start an initiative and in this instance it was us. Get past the politics (with a small 'p') and start thinking of your students.

One college told me that they don't have the funds to sign up? A college would need to buy in the services of a mental health specialist for a day to speak to the students, and to speak to the staff. Our consultant said that she'd donate her services to get this college signed up. The twitter conversation stopped. . . that college has still not signed up?

For those colleges that have directed me to the website of various organisations, which state their collective protocols etc. . . the question remains, are these intentions actually filtering down to the students? I would suggest that with so many agencies joining the initiative, the answer is no!

Signing the charter will pay you dividends in the long run - a happy company on tour, college statistics will improve, agents won't get called in the middle of the night due to some 'crises' or another. If you can't think of the short term gains for the individual, think of the long term gains for you.

The Tsunami is real - the question is now, where do we start dealing with it?
Please read #time4change then please email me at Annemarie@theMTA.co.uk to find out how YOU can make a difference.

Thicko's Done OK

I'm watching my twitter feed slowly fill with congratulations to all the 6th formers celebrating their well deserved A Level results this morning.  Very few are just 'lucky',  most have worked hard and indeed made some lifestyle sacrifices to achieve the results that the envelope presented them with today.

Then you go onto other forums and read the devastation of those people that equally might have put in the work, but for one reason or another, just didn't get the grades that they need. Parents talking about consoling their children, as they're seemingly left, at 18, branded a disaster.

Next week it'll be the same scenario but two years earlier. Exam results effectively dictating how people feel about themselves and their ability.

What a load of B******ks!!

Exams are such an archaic way of saying whether somebody is clever or not. What a bizarre way of deciding fate. "Here's 2 hours....prove that you've managed to cram everything that you've been taught for the last 16/18 years, then like some fairground memory test, reproduce it in a language that we can judge (so not your vernacular), within the next 120 mins". Then over the course of a couple of weeks, repeat for various subjects.

What is it proving? That you can memorise facts? Why? Where's the applied section? Where's the useful stuff that we need to learn in life? Why do we still have teenagers leaving school that can't read or write to a high enough standard? Why do we have teenagers leaving school that can't do basic maths (and I'm definitely not talking about all those strange 1a X 2b + ?c equations that we used to do all the time...which 30 years on I've still not found a use for)?

I've somehow always known that I was going to be a musician. I didn't know how that was going to happen - but it was! I understand that I was extremely lucky to have such a clear target in mind moving forward. Some people 5 years on having left HE still don't know what they're going to do with their lives. It's hard when you don't have 'a thing'.

Somehow I was in the 'top stream' at school, but interestingly have always branded myself as 'thick'. So much so in fact that my very much better half, tells me off rather regularly for using such a derogatory term to describe myself.  So why 'thick'? I guess because I never saw the value in 'classes' in school or indeed college, I always just saw the opportunities there.  So I saw school as an amazing resource where I could easily find a space, a band, and a cast - and I put on shows.  Similarly at college, of course I sat through all the various lectures, but most of my time was spent volunteering to be in everybody else's shows.  I learnt, through applying resources I guess.  None of my real learning was structured.

However I also grasped the 'system' quickly. So I knew for example, that to get to 6th form, I had to do OK in my O Levels (Yes, I'm that old...so for younger readers, basically my GCSE's). So I attempted to learn just enough.  Enough to scrape me through.  I mean, I couldn't spend hours learning everything - I had shows to play for, performances to do. And that's what I did...scraped through. The lowest pass grade possible was a C, and I got myself a load of them.

By the time I got to the next level, I had already found the perfect route for me, via what was then called a Polytechnic (or as someone actually told me...'the college for those people not clever enough to get into university'). Middlesex was a rarity. It accepted people on their ability via an audition, and then asked you for the most basic of passes to try and help scram you over the cargo net of exams.  My offer came back - two E's. That was it. I needed just 2 E's to get me to the next step.

I wanted to be a musician, but to be a musician did I really need to know dates? What difference does it make to me or indeed the world of music today, what date Beethoven wrote his last symphony? Surely what matters is that he wrote it, and what it sounded like, what was the harmonic structure of that work, how did the orchestration help...the questions are infinite...however the nature of exams meant, at that time, that I needed to know the dull stuff, as well as the interesting, useful stuff.  What's more....I needed to learn that 'stuff' about a whole load of people.  Sure the teachers tried to work out which questions would come up that year, but it was a gamble, and one that I wasn't prepared to take, so I walked out of the exam casino. I decided that the remit was so large, there was no point in dipping my toe in it.  So instead I....did shows! In my defence the shows were getting better, but they didn't facilitate me doing well in my exams.  I scraped through - I got my two E's, and off I trotted to the lesser university...the polytechnic.

Middlesex had a no exam policy (which was one of the attractions for me), and all their assessments were practical.  I mean, we literally did one exam right at the end of the course, and even that was a seen paper. Happy days.  Suddenly I was doing shows...which counted towards my degree.  I don't believe that there is a course like the old BAPA course anymore - but I was literally doing around 8 to 10 shows a term. I had never worked so hard in my life...but I was loving it.

I left college with a healthy 2:1 BA(Hons), however I still felt 'thick'

I became a professional musician, the crap jobs that I've done to facilitate that profession have ranged from cleaner right through to opening a drama college. This year I've been in the business 27 years (29 years if you count the 2 years prior to college training to be a ballet accompanist and working as an organist about the clubs and churches of Swansea).

Being a musician has literally taken me around the world, and has facilitated me having the most amazing life, providing me with a fairly good geographical knowledge of the UK thanks to touring, and more importantly a lifetime of anecdotes to facilitate small talk in awkward situations. I've managed to meet or work with with nearly every single one of the people that inspired me along the way.

Had I spent my earlier years just having my head stuck in a book, revising for the memory test of O and A Levels, I don't think that I would have made it.

For a 'thicko' I've done OK. I've realised my IQ is really high where it matters - emotional intelligence. Ironically the one area that they don't really cover in school.

Our industry will never be based on results. You will not be the next Broadway star because you got an A*....however your parents are more likely to let you give this industry a shot if you have those A*'s tucked away for a rainy day ;-)

The MTA spends a day getting to know you, working with you, in situ, to find out what you can do. Talent and hard work should be the thing that gets you into this industry not a grade.  Long may our radical approach to education empower the 'thickos' ;-)

There's a herd of elephants in the room - and none of us are talking about them!

Once again the drama kicks off about 'poor people' AKA the working classes being given access to the arts, specifically training. A recent article in The Stage started yet another debate about the subject.  The hypothesis in the article was that however well meaning all the celebs were by speaking out about the 'crisis' they were, in fact helping to perpetuate the myth, therefore stopping the working classes giving it a go.

I have to say that this is 100% my experience. The amount of parents that contact me, telling me that they've researched training options and they've seen that so and so has said that it's too expensive.  It's only when they speak to me can we look at all the options available to them from the perspective of The MTA (obviously every college has their own criteria).  Now that said, I also once had a Principal of another college contact me, trying to convince me to take a student that we had turned down, and said at the end of the email that my other consideration should be that (and of course I'm paraphrasing here)  the family were loaded so I should take them anyway!!

I guess that last paragraph sums up the issue. There are colleges bending over backwards to facilitate students training with them, then there are 'businesses' just piling those fee paying students high and proud. The question is how do we ensure that talent is nurtured, as opposed to where do the pounds come from?

With the EU referendum looming, there is also the issue of colleges actively looking for overseas students. Now why is that do you think? Far be it for me to suggest that the financial premium that they're adding to these students has anything to do with the race to get some of them to train at UK establishments!  I'll quickly add that The MTA just charges everyone the same - it costs me the same to train them so I can't quite justify a price increase because they're moving countries to train!

The Stage article then, via FB comments, quickly shifted to the cost of just auditioning for drama colleges, and how that alone stops people applying.  Now this is definitely a subject to start jumping up and down about. Colleges are auditioning people in their thousands which clearly brings in a useful financial stream. How they can argue that they're losing money on a day when over 100 students are auditioning at one time I really don't know.

Each college has it's own system of auditioning, however I can't help thinking that it's not quite right to charge up to £80 to spend less than 30 mins in a room discussing a monologue? Or indeed if you're auditoning for a MT course why you couldn't at least have a stab at all 3 disciplines before they throw you out onto the pavement of despair.  I find it interesting hearing the stories of auditions, and how the students' experience of them defers from the website and indeed official line.

I think that the audition day charge SHOULD be capped. We charge £45, now that's for a full day (9 - 5...sometimes 6), we see them do all 3 disciplines, we give them written feedback at the end of the day, and make our decision that evening. They are then emailed the results, hopefully on the same evening (including the written feedback). They are auditioned by the entire senior faculty.  We've always given them a questionnaire to anonymously fill in at the end of the day, and one of the questions is 'do you feel like you've received value for money' and in 8 years 100% of them have said yes.  Quite a large percentage state that they feel like they should have paid more for the day! Our day has always run at a loss as we chose to audition in small numbers.

The problem here though are the elephants very clearly in the room ie we are training too many people for the industry, and more specifically some people are being trained purely because they can  pay (as demonstrated by the other college Principal). Colleges are increasing their intake, increasing their courses, and we are oversubscribed to the hilt. There are courses being run on something silly like 15 hours of contact time/week and their students think (and have been led to believe) that they're going to be 'industry ready' after that training.

Why are we seeing so many people coming through the door who have already trained? They've already paid £27,000 for their degree...and are now being forced to pay the same again to actually be trained for the industry that they wanted to be in?

Who is regulating this system? Can a university start any course it likes without someone actually checking the validity of the course?

Who is regulating the drama colleges? Drama UK aren't - they're busy in Asia last I heard, getting their 'brand awareness' up over there??

Everybody up in arms about stuff is sort of right....but in my humble opinion they're up in arms about the wrong stuff. There is a bigger picture here that's been well and truly lost.

Let's start at the very beginning...

Once again there is a flurry of activity around the fact that the 'working man' is getting lost in our industry. Times are changing and not for the better (they cry). Bring back rep (they cry). However isn't the current noise coming from the people that are the elite or at least have become the elite? The ones that have made it in our industry? Isn't it something like 2% of performers actually make a living out of being a performer? I mean great that they're shouting, and using their position to make some noise, but is that all it is? Noise?

What happened to the drama college that was going to be funded by actors, where all the fees were going to be covered by the professionals? That was 'launched' with panache and then fell by the wayside (unless I've missed something?)

Shall we start at the beginning of the cycle as opposed to jumping to the middle. The 'working man' can't even afford to go to the theatre to get inspired to even think of it as a career at the moment. So is this just the elite shouting to the elite anyway?

Since 2010 The MTA has run a scheme whereby any local children can come and watch our panto on a pay what you can arrangement.  When we were at the Drill Hall, you won't be surprised to hear that the two schools that took us up on the deal, could pay a fair rate.  In subsequent years we've been in less affluent areas so the pay what you can rate has gotten considerably lower.  Then in 2014 we did our first panto in what was then going to be our 'new home' down at the Bernie Grant Arts Centre in Tottenham.

Thanks to the combined efforts of local schools, us and indeed BGAC, in the first year alone we played to over 1000 children.  A lot of whom had NEVER been to the theatre before.  It was the most humbling thing ever to watch their amazement at the 'magic' of a simple mirror ball.  They didn't mind that we didn't have a fancy all singing, all dancing set...they loved just being entertained by the simple magic of theatre.

Last year we extended the scheme and played to over 1500 children.  Again their faces were a joy to watch (in fact I had to work hard to remember that I was supposed to be watching the show, not watching the joy on the children's faces).  After each show we arranged a meet and greet with the cast, and the children were ecstatic. Even the older 'cool kids' visually got excited by 'meeting the stars'.  Let's keep it real here - the stars were just our 2nd years. . . having the time of their lives being idolised by all the kids, and learning themselves the importance that panto has not just for our industry, but also in our society.

The trouble is though, that shows and hiring theatres cost money.  In a 2 week run we don't stand a chance of recouping our losses. However part of our students' fees go towards funding 4 shows a year for them, so in a way each show is subsidised.  In a bid to extend the scheme even further this year we've started to fund raise. Obviously we're looking for commercial sponsors(so if you're a Tottenham based firm and fancy helping out this Christmas, please do get in touch). So we're trying a 'buy a child a seat' crowdfunding scheme https://www.gofundme.com/24vga64

I'm aware that something similar was tried recently for Dougal Irvine's The Busker's Opera down at The Park theatre, although I missed if they managed to raise the money or not. I hope so as it was a great idea.

I'd love to take the credit for the fund raiser, however it was our Health and Welfare Consultant, Angie Peake who thought of it and decided to give it a go.  She did the usual sum of 'if all of my friends on FB sponsored just one seat we'd raise X amount of money' Of course in reality this just doesn't happen for a multitude of reasons I suspect. That said we've already funded 30 places, which is nearly a class coming to see the panto this year, that maybe wouldn't normally afford to even contemplate a theatre visit.

We're aiming to get 2000 children in this year...so the race is on to find the extra money that this will cost us.  We'll do it though...because it's important.

Then what if one child loves what they see and decides to 'give it a go' themselves? What then? Well I hate to say it, but we're back in the realms of the haves and haves not. How do they afford to go to classes? What schemes are there in the local community to fund children slowly building aspirations?

The thing is though, we're not just talking about theatre, which let's face it has always been elite? Why are we pretending that this is new? When I was training it was elite...but the 'working classes' will always find a way to help their children out of their rut. That's just what we do!   If your child wants to study ANYTHING in HE the working classes are priced out of the market. So who's going to build the social housing of the future? Will it be some upper class architect with a social conscience, trying to make amends for their own family's wealth? Shouldn't it be designed by the people who understand the needs of the community, the people that were brought up in that environment?

Of course architects don't generally 'have a public voice', so we don't keep reading in the papers what they're saying about the future of their industry.  So we're back to so called celebrities, using their platform to voice their concerns and rattle a few cages.

My TL is engulfed with people Sharing or RT'ing' these worthy statements - but what do YOU do to change things? It's easy to click and 'share'. It's easy to write a rousing comment to go with the 'share', but what do you actually DO to make a difference?

The reality is, probably nothing. You want the answer to come from the government. It's THEIR fault that we're in this situation, so THEY should do something about it.

The trouble is....they won't.

Whichever government it is...they won't.

If socialism is ever to work as anything more than just some rabble rousing rhetoric, then each of us will have to make different choices. Don't have your Starbucks tomorrow and donate that money to a more worthy cause. Don't have that pint after the show, and donate the money to a worthy cause.  The thing is, we could ALL do our bit but our apathy or introverted thinking means that we won't(and I'm not exempt from this argument. I could make different choices too).

So next time you click 'Share' or RT an amazing speech, hold up a mirror and ask yourself if you could do something different...just once? If you're not sure what to do...then do remember that this appeal will be running for months: https://www.gofundme.com/24vga64

Self Validation...it's worth more than a blue tick

I'm always being asked about when The MTA is going to expand and my answer is always the same - it's hard enough getting one course right for 22 people, I just couldn't contemplate for a moment adding anything more into the mix.

Already the course has changed so much since I opened the college in 2009.  In 2013 we added a screen component to our acting course. Hell today we're now having to add a 'self tape audition' workshop into the mix, as this new phenomenon has swept through the industry.  If you'd told me 8 years ago that we'd be doing a workshop on how to audition via your mobile/computer, I would have felt like I was in some surreal scene in the new 'Back to the Future' film.  

One thing that we've always taught though is how to manage your social networking life.  Back in 2009 it was a simple lesson of how to protect your Facebook profile.  Even that seemed complicated as FB constantly changed their security settings. Then Twitter took over, and that became a game changer. Very quickly we were hearing that in the US people were getting cast based on how many followers they had.  Knowing that the UK would invariably end up following this example, we started to promote the use of Twitter amongst our students. In fact we insisted on it.  I became the nagging Principal, reminding them to Tweet, but also checking their tweets to ensure that they weren't saying anything that could come back and bite them on the backside later on.  The world of the screenshot meant that you had to act really quickly if a 'bad tweet' had gone out (with the knowledge that somebody might already have saved your error).

These days 'Managing your Social Network' is a minefield. You can Tweet, Facebook, Instagram, You Tube...the list is endless, but they all have one thing in common -  manage them wisely as they can make or break careers.

Back in ye olden times, we'd meet audiences at the stage door, they might write to our agents for an autographed picture. Of course there were always the Stage Door regulars who seemed to appear more times than you felt comfortable with, but you'd say hello, sign another piece of memorabilia then go home, safe in the knowledge that your job was done.

Now though, the savvy actor will be tweeting snippets of their life in a bid to attract the Stage Door regulars. Of course you have to be careful exactly what you are saying on these public forums.  Suddenly strangers appear to be your 'friends', as you can converse with them over the 140 character limit, they feel like they know you a bit more than they probably should; they come to see you in your shows, taking selfies with you.  To some of them (and of course this is the minority) they are friends with you.

These people don't know you - but they most definitely know the public persona that you've put out to the cyber world. For those of you not wishing to be 'friends' with the famous (or indeed the not so famous...but they're in your favorite show, so they've suddenly become famous to you) start Twitter watch...it's like people watching, but at a faster pace.  Watch the performers who slowly start to believe their own press (always a danger with performers)...see them grow into PR hungry professionals.  Some are subtle and discrete, answering their followers in a genuinely grateful way, others are practically screaming for you to follow them.  They start mentioning the bigger stars that they know in a bid for their followers to follow them. They start dropping hints about what they'd like to eat/wear before a show, in a bid for some firm or another to 'surprise them' with a load of cupcakes with their faces on (or whatever the latest craze it).

However there are also the performers who start to need those followers.  It's like some sort of real life SIMS. They build an online rapport with them, and you almost sense their fragility as they post (quite genuinely) about how shit they feel about some performance or another, and watch their hoards of followers bolster them and tell them how wonderful they are.  Some troll attacks them and a hundred minions attack the troll, in defence of the person, because that 'persona' is their friend....their famous friend whose picture is probably their phone's wallpaper.

The only thing that I can compare it to, is that years ago I watched a Broadway/Hollywood legend on the stage.  This person was showbiz personafied, and I was desperate to watch them perform live.  Half the show was amazing, my absolute dream come true. Then the other half was tragic. Missed notes, hell...missed keys.  Still giving the showbiz razzle, but they were truly awful. Yet we applauded for the performer that they used to be, not the performer that had turned up that day.  At the end watching them soaking in an ovation, which in truth, they didn't deserve...but which was given because we all wanted them to be brilliant.  Then I watched as their need for applause, became like some addiction for the adulation.  It was tangible that we were 'feeding' them in that moment. However it felt like an Audrey II moment. We were simply being sucked into their memory bank, for them to relive in moments of lonely desperation.

Twitter is littered with these fragile stars. They are the fodder of the social networking world. They are 'fed' by the minions telling them that they're wonderful...because in spite of having the infamous blue tick to prove that they've been verified...they failed in life to verify themselves.

Today's performer has to be marketing guru, selling 'brand X' to everyone. Brand X has to deliver the goods and keep up the persona 24/7...but only in the SIM world of social networking.  Behind Brand X is the performer...the human being. Invariably suffering from ...well ...life! 1 in 3 performers suffer from Mental Illness, they mask this by self medicating in ways that you wouldn't think e.g. drink, drugs, sex.  So you see 'a party animal'...and I sometimes see the person screaming for help.

The 'followers' love it - it's part of being brilliant isn't it...the fragile star?  Well actually no! It doesn't have to be.  Friends and family need to see the warning signs much earlier. We need better Mental Health information out there. The party animal is as likely to be your severely depressed friend. If a person is looking for validation so blatantly on social networking...you need to talk to them.  You need to check how they're really doing.  You need to tell them that the only person that can validate them is them.

Twitter, Facebook...all of it, feeds the brand not the person.

Your agent, PR company tell you to tweet, build up your fan base, it'll help your career.  That'll be the career that they're taking a commission on right? Your friends need to tell you when to stop, as their investment is much bigger - it's in you!

So we teach our students 'how to tweet', but we also tell them that it's not real.  After shows I'm RT'ing' like a person possessed, but I'm only going to be RT'ing' the good stuff aren't I? It's not real, it's a fantasy world that we all buy into and accept.

However, like in life, read what isn't being said (especially with the 'over sharer)? Then suggest that they get some help quickly.

How quickly a story spreads these days, and how thoughtlessly we can all fan the flames. Everyone 'sharing' a headline because 'it's interesting'? Well to someone it's not interesting at all. It's their life. Surely everyone deserves to have some privacy, especially when it's clear that they're struggling? Why share it? Why RT it? I guess you'll pick up a few followers yourself won't you....and so you too get 'validated' by the 'minions'.

Isn't it our responsibility as a college to teach our students about the potential perils of social networking? Isn't learning how to tweet responsibly as important a lesson to the contemporary performer as learning how to self tape? Then there's that elephant in the room, the one that looks like mental illness, but we can't name it can we? Easier to be part of the problem rather than helping to find the solution? But then we teach our students all about that too...so when the day comes that one of them is in trouble. We can but hope that the others run to help.

That's why The MTA could never get any bigger.  We need to evolve with the industry whilst taking care of our past.  We wouldn't have it any other way

Is there a stand-by in the house?

For those of you that know me well this blog is well overdue, for those of you that don't know me, please settle down as I jump off the fence, catapulting over my soapbox, straight towards the high horse I intend to ride for the next few moments.

Not since Martine McCutcheon went off in My Fair Lady have I ever known such a fuss about a leading performer going off, and an understudy or cover going on.

So unless you've lived under a rock for the last week, Glenn Close disappointed thousands of fans by being ill.  Due to star in Sunset Boulevard at the ENO, this was a rare opportunity for UK based fans to see a real live Hollywood icon on stage, in a role that she had already won a Tony for some 12 or so years ago.

The ENO did that notorious thing of putting the name of the star above the title of the show, which for those in the know means that if the star isn't performing you should be able to get your money back.  They have effectively rated the star better value than the show.

Since the era of franchised musicals in the 80's we've lost the stars of musical theatre in this country. Who's playing the Phantom right now? Who's Fantine? Who are the performers singing ABBA songs every night? The shows got bigger than the stars...and as a result the stars got smaller.  MT fans might know, but Joe Public don't have a clue and even more importantly don't care. They've bought into the 'product' not the performers.  In the world of theatre we have huge stars...yet outside of our world nobody knows who they are.  They're not even big enough to hook a show onto.  Why do you think that established performers are resorting to shows like The Voice or X Factor? The legend that is Imelda Staunton who actually has some Joe Public value had to bide her time to play Rose, as she wasn't considered box office worthy enough to open the show any earlier.

Sheridan Smith, Michael Crawford, Michael Ball....they could all open a show and the PR world would be taking it a little bit easier as these legitimate theatre stars have the potential to sell out a limited run of a musical, in an average size house(then you'd better pray for someone else to turn up at the end of their contract).

The Elphabas could probably sustain a few week's worth of tickets (but only if they'd played the part for a sustained period of time).

Anyway I digress.  Back to the ENO.  There's something very peculiar about the world of Opera that has always baffled me (not that I've been to that many)...it's about how vocal the audiences are.  No stiff upper lip here.  Seemingly in an opera house it's OK to boo as well as 'brava or bravo'.  I was first alerted to this on my first trip to see a 'proper grown up opera', when I watched part of the Richard Jones interpretation of Wagner's Ring Cycle.  It was the part that they dared to have some of the characters in naked fat suits.  To be fair I rather liked the interpretation (but I confess I was already a Richard Jones fan having seen his version of Into the Woods several times, and had personally worked first hand with Julia Bardsley, who worked very closely with  Jones).  Anyway on the press night it all kicked off.  The creatives came to take their bows (another peculiar thing about this world)...and I was truly taken back to hear people booing them.  Suddenly I felt like I was in some sort of surreal parallel universe. I've often spoken about my working class roots, and so I was already feeling somewhat out of place at the Royal Opera House (with my best ironed jeans on)...until this moment.  When suddenly I felt like I was being transported back to a panto at the Swansea Grand.  The audience had been split down the middle and half of them were shouting bravo (which up until that point I hadn't realised was a 'real thing'...for some reason I thought that it was made up), and the other half were actually booing people that had spent weeks creating this vision.

Now whether you like a piece of not, surely you must give respect to people's right to express artistic opinion? I know, I know...which leads to a whole debate about freedom of speech and the audience's right to express their opinion too.

So...jump back to last week, and let's spare a thought for the poor, poor bloke that had to stand up on that stage and announce that Ms Close was off? He was greeted by this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-4_s0h5_g8&feature=youtu.be
Now what the hell is that about? I 100% get that you've waited your entire life to see someone live playing a particular part, and I 100% get the immense disappointment you feel when that person isn't on.  Your dreams are shattered, your wallet is lighter, and for what? When I went to see Gypsy, I distinctly remember that stomach churning moment just before the show started, when I literally held my breath in case that dreaded announcement came across the tannoy 'in this afternoon's performance of Gypsy the role of Rose will be played by...'. Fortunately it didn't happen BUT it has happened to me several times in my life, and every time I've been secretly devastated...but the key word here is secretly.  Never in my wildest dreams would I vocalise my upset because I understand that some poor sod is stood in the wings getting ready only to hear an audience sigh/groan...and my heart just feels for them.  I'm also aware that there are other people in the show, and I know from personal experience how despondent it can make you feel when you know that the audience are against you from the start. However, that said...this was the ENO...so there were no sighs, there was a full out shouting war going on.

I went on the 2nd night and I heard a similar reaction (probably not quite so pronounced)...and saw people instantly getting out of their seats to leave the theatre.  So they hadn't come to see the show AT ALL...it was literally all about Ms Close.  Yet ironically IMHO the star of Sunset is Joe Gillis. He never gets top billing, but it's HIS story isn't it? He guides us through the events that led to his death; I mean he's barely off stage.

In this current production the part of Joe is played just beautifully by Michael Xavier. It's the first production of Sunset that I've seen where I actually felt a sense of empathy for him, if I'm honest in the other productions I could have shot the Joes myself a few scenes earlier (if I were a fading film star with a psycho streak that is of course)

However Sunset is always billed around the Norma. Maybe because you can always surprise people with your casting I don't know.  It Antonio Banderas played Joe maybe the tables could finally turn (or even better...James Corden...too far?).

Again I digress.  So the show is held for 20 mins as everybody takes it out on the box office staff and the FOH staff (as they are clearly the reason that Ms Close is indisposed), meanwhile waiting in the wings was one of the West End's most accomplished performers, ironically waiting to sing the role that she had actually originated.  Maybe the thing that we should be most ashamed about here is the fact that when her name was announced, Joe 'I came to see a Hollywood star' Public didn't even recognise her name. As far as they were concerned, the director had bolted it to the Theatre Cafe and asked if any of the people singing karaoke fancied taking a stab at the role. This randomer from Wales had volunteered, the outfit fitted so she was on.

Now as some of you know I happen to know Ria personally....in fact I've known her on and off for around 40 years, since she was a child star, and I was . . . well, I was finding my place in the world ;-)
In fact I've known her predating her days belting out a show tune or two in the working men's clubs around the Swansea area.  I played the same circuit...but I was playing the electric organ, attempting to accompany the 'acts', as they got seriously heckled - very, very quickly(there was none of this 'give them a chance' time at some of the venues).  I say attempting because some of those clubs were so tough I couldn't hear the acts let alone follow them, due to the audience opting to give a vocal critique as though the cabaret was some nightmarish immersion theatre piece.  Interestingly I would say that the crowd were a bit rough at times....but having been at the ROH that evening, I can now reframe the occasions into an audience with vocal energy.

In other words... I knew that Ria, with her 40 odd years of stage experience was not going to be beaten by the boos.  I also knew that she has wanted to play this role since she originated it back in Sydmonton when dinosaurs were still ruling the earth.  For the past 20 odd years I've worked off and on as Ria's MD, and she invariably sings a Sunset song, and it always brings the house down. Just last year we did a gig back in Swansea together and she sung As If We Never Said Goodbye (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IqhRcYIjqI) - listen to that applause at 2 mins 48 secs.  Without fail when she sings that exact moment, I get goose bumps. In recent years the line has been even more poignant given her much publicised health scare.

So here's my moan - I KNOW that it's PR gold to talk about the understudy becoming a star, but that's never real. In fact it's as real as Norma Desmond's comeback.  It's a fantasy, spun to the world, to make us all think that there's a short cut to success.  Shouldn't the headlines be shouting out "FINALLY THE ACCOMPLISHED THEATRE STAR GOT TO PLAY THE ROLE OF A LIFETIME"?  Shouldn't Ria be dragged onto every talk show going, to talk about this unique journey of hers? Shouldn't we be attempting to make her a household name in that precise moment? Shouldn't we be using the opportunity to finally explain to 'Joe Public' how amazing our understudies are...and that they're very likely not playing the lead, because their public profile isn't big enough? Then let's talk about the real saviours of Musicals - the Swings.  The performers learning countless tracks, ready to switch sides and harmonies within a heartbeat, in order for the show to continue.  Shouldn't we talk about the fact that in NY the Swings are revered, yet over here it's almost a 'next best thing' to be the Swing in a show.
Maybe we should talk about the fact that in NY Broadway performers can demand a huge salary, whereas reaching the top in the UK...those not famous performers who are supposedly at the top of their profession as they're performing in the West End....invariably have to get a day job to subsidise their income in order to live in the city that we all aspire to work in.
Maybe...just maybe...we could have just spoken about real life theatre?

The PR story was great - the Theatre Cafe girl won over the crowds and in the end they cheered her. The movement gathered momentum and people started to book tickets in the hope of seeing her...but what now? One paper rightly commented that they hoped that Ria's agent was currently taking their time sifting through hundreds of offers, then choosing their pick of shows for her to do.  There's a Joe 'musical theatre fan' Public rumbling almost daring ALW to produce a full version of the show with Ria finally in the lead.  Could that happen, or more specifically could that happen without Ria first having to compete on live TV with all the other actresses of a certain age, that could equally play the role brilliantly?  Of course that wouldn't happen, as the majority of those actresses (Ria included I would suspect) wouldn't put themselves through the editing hell that is a reality 'Search for your Star' programme.

So what's my annoyance? A dear friend and colleague finally got to play the role of her dreams, and everybody got to hear about it.  My annoyance I guess is that we now live in a world that needs us to spin a story, as oppose to acknowledge and celebrate hard work and perseverance.  Ria is the only person I know in this industry that has never done a 'crap job' just to get by and pay her rent. I think that that is phenomenal, and secretly we'd all like to dislike her a bit for that fact, but we can't, because she's also notoriously nice.  She's the worse that this industry can produce....a lovely grafter, like Kerry Ellis, Caroline Sheen, Rosie Ashe, Killian Donnelly, Mike Jibson, Alistair Harvey, A J Casey, Cassidy Janson,  Jenna Russell, Daniel Evans...Michael Xavier my list is endless. Is there any wonder that we're in a world where young graduates leave the industry within 5 years because they haven't 'made it' yet, or where people won't tour, because they're waiting to 'open in town'.  Even when something great happens, we feel the need to perpetuate the myth. Not necessarily in the full articles, but pretty much in every headline.

I keep screaming this - let's create stars out of our stars.  People like talent. Ria proved that 4 performances in a row...and because she's a seasoned professional, I'd put money on the fact that she could have played the role every performance (unlike a ridiculous article that I was reading today about how roles were now so difficult all performers needed a show or two off??) It you're playing Eva Peron maybe (just maybe)...if you're playing Charity Hope Valentine, just develop the stamina to do the job that you're paid pennies to do.

Our industry has the most phenomenally talented people in it, advertise them at the side of your Hollywood stars, as you never know...one night they might have to go on and save you £££££'s in returned ticket revenue.

Auditions. Whatever happened to class?

Auditions are a funny old thing aren't they? They can last just minutes, but sometimes they can determine the path that your life is going to take from that moment. At The MTA my graduating year group have just survived their hardcore round of private auditions. 15 auditions over the course of 6 days, spread out over 2 weeks. I was in awe of their resilience walking back into the room, exuding confidence, when in reality they were slowly getting acquainted to our old friend rejection.  Of course, they weren't actually getting rejected, they just didn't fit into the books of the agents that we'd invited at this stage.  Of course it doesn't feel like that at the time, when all of your friends' mobiles are pinging because yet another agent has invited them in for a meeting.  The other day we were talking in class about validating yourself, because if you wait for the industry to do it, you'll probably give up your dream really early, whilst acknowledging that it is again easier to do so if you have had a pinging phone for a week!

The MTA has an amazing record of getting 100% of our graduates representation prior to graduating, but that in itself puts a huge pressure on the students.  Who's going to be the poor sod that's the first one not to get signed from the college? We are forever talking to them about being proactive and going after their own work, and indeed a few of the late 'signers' have always found their first contract prior to leaving college by simply getting themselves out there on the circuit.  Of course it's easier with an agent...2 people working for you not just one (aka you)..but it's certainly not impossible. I fail to see how we can keep up this record, and myself and the team are always under the tightrope ready to catch the person or indeed people that feel like they've already been thrown off, before they've even began.

Then there's the tortuous set of auditions that performers have to take, in order to get into a college like ours in the first place.  Now I've written about this before: http://www.thereviewshub.com/blog-annemarie-lewis-thomas-the-audition-problem/ 2 whole years ago in fact.  How desperately annoying then that the problems that I wrote about then are still so prevalent today.

Just the other week 6 people did a no show? I mean, what the hell is that really about?  So at The MTA, we send people an initial letter and get them to confirm their attendance.  Even in that letter I write a whole thing about 'if you've changed your mind, just let us know, so that we can offer your place to someone else'.  I even helpfully add in the link to the above blog, so that people get a sense of how annoying it is.  A week before the audition I write to them again, just confirming everything from our point of view, and again checking that they can attend.  So this would be the perfect time to write back and say thanks but no thanks, meaning that we can offer someone that place with a full week's notice. Simple yes? However nothing could be further from the truth.  We audition on a Friday this year - late on Wednesday one person contacted me to say that they'd opted for a different college (along with an apology for the late notice).  Now I know that they had secured their place a few weeks earlier...so why not have told us then? Next up Thursday evening...the night before audition day, when nerves would be at their peak.  Cue my phone pinging then...one drop out at 10.30pm, one drop out at 11.30pm. Obviously I contemplate the possibility of calling someone up and offering them the slot - after all they would have had 9.5 hrs notice to prepare?!?! The audition day arrives...and a further 3 just don't show up...they don't phone, they don't email...nothing.  Seemingly it's OK nowadays to just not bother, I mean who knew? Did I miss the memo that everyone else seemed to have, which states that you no longer have to be courteous when you get an email? Maybe it was sent to our old address?

A few days later I hear from a casting director that they too have had the same problem, with professionals just not turning up, or dropping out at the last minute. Yet people are regularly moaning about not being seen for jobs? How does this work?

So when did this spate of not giving a damn kick in?  When did it become OK to just not bother and not say anything?  At the end of every MTA audition day we send out written feedback to every applicant. You know the sort of written feedback that everybody says that they so desperately crave? I also make a point of asking them to acknowledge receipt of the feedback, even if the over all result of the day isn't as they would have wanted.  On average only 50% of applicants will acknowledge receipt of that email?

We will continue to acknowledge receipt of every serious email that gets sent to the college, as I believe it to be courteous.  We will also continue to preach to our lot that they not only must do the same, but also, if they are lucky enough to get an audition, they should bloody well attend it, and try to get a job.  In other words, in spite of the increasing rudeness that we're seeing, we will continue to be respectful to other people. Isn't it a shame that we all don't think the same? Does our disposable culture now automatically mean that people have some sort of 'filter' in place which means that they only 'switch on' when it's something that they really want, or indeed need to hear/read about?

To all those people, starting out and indeed established professionals that continue to put themselves relentlessly through the audition circuit, you have my admiration. To all those people that don't turn up, don't communicate...try learning some professional etiquette. It's a small industry with long memories. Opportunities aren't just created in an audition room - they're created by the way in which you treat others.

Mental Health in Drama Schools Conference

So after 4 years of quietly mentioning it, 2 years of positively shouting about it, and about 18 months of screaming in despair about it....I finally decided to do something positive about what I considered to be the plight of poor mental health provision in drama schools.  What better thing to do than to call a conference? To call together all the people interested in this area and then to brainstorm how to ensure that we improved things.

I won't 'go on' again, but the perceived understanding(taken from a variety of International Studies) is that 1out of every 3 people involved in the arts will have a mental health issue at some point in their lives.  This is higher than the National average of 1 in 4.  At The MTA we've always had a unique take on this area insomuch as we've made it one of the cornerstones of the course.  There is no stigma around Mental Health, all the students understand various mental health issues, and most importantly of all most check in with our Health and Welfare consultant at some point during their training (and indeed after).  H&W in this instance happens to be Angie Peake who is a dual registered nurse and therapist, who has the skill set to actually diagnose mental health illnesses, and then as she also happens to be a nurse prescriber is also able to liaise with the GPs etc as to what the best course of treatment is, and finally is able to discuss a relapse prevention plan with the student.

So the conference was called being very clear that we were going to be discussing our unique model..however as we acknowledged in the conference we could only do this because at any time the maximum students we could have would be 44.  Even that was pushing our resources sometimes, but we could do it!

Since I've started shouting about Mental Health I've successfully managed to polarise friends in the industry. There are some that have found me to be the annoying fly that won't go away, but the one who can't be ignored, however the majority of the industry just agrees with me that there is 'an' issue.

I advertised the conference for 4 months on FB and twitter.  I also put out a request for people to tell me their experiences of Mental Health awareness at college. Though not inundated with stories, I didn't hear one good thing (with the exception of The MTA lot that wrote in, who mostly acknowledged an illness, said that they had been helped through it by Angie, and informed me that they were now having a lovely time carrying on with the rest of their lives).  The stories that I was told were shocking and dangerous. Staff saying completely inappropriate things to people, which they've continued to carry with them to this day.  In a few cases inappropriate 'treatment' at colleges had resulted in people not going on to have the career that they would have liked.  Now even reading the emails with a realisation that I was hearing a 'one sided' argument, and that the person could have been misinterpreting what a teacher was saying to them...it was still bloody shocking.   People bravely wrote of their experiences purely in the hope that by writing the email, they might make a difference.  Their voice (though anonymous) would be finally heard.

A few weeks before the conference The Stage had done a 'Green Room' feature (which is set out like an informal Green Room discussion between actors all talking under a pseudonym), on Mental Health in the Arts. The feature was shocking - the ignorance displayed by the actors was terrifying BUT if that was the perception of 'well' people in the industry, then at the very least we had an industry that needed educating.

In the build up I'd had several conversations with people about the conference, and indeed reassurances that 'so and so' would be there representing 'such and such' institution. Interestingly a few people that I'd contacted about the conference who had been extremely public about their own mental health struggles had failed to connect at all.  Still I increased the tweets and FB posts right up until the day. A big shout out here actually to @WestEndProducer who was a big twitter supporter, never failing to RT when asked (unlike lots of other tweeters with large followings)

Then came the day of the conference and I was literally inundated with messages from people wishing me well for the conference, and suddenly revealing their own mental health pasts, and again stating that something had to be done about it. I felt like the Mother Abbess in the Sound Of Music hearing all these 'confessions'.  Yet why were they all so hidden? Is the stigma around Mental Health even worse than I realised?  I should add that I had been thinking that way for quite some time, as since I've been blogging and shouting about it, The MTA's phone had started to ring, not with the usual student enquiries, but this time from people saying that they didn't know where to go, but they were in trouble, they were ill - please could we help them? They'd read some of my blogs or had seen that I was 'going on ' about mental illness so maybe I could point them in the right direction.  Hell at one point even a major production company contacted us in order to have some assistance on a Mental Health issue.  To be fair the only direction I can ever point anybody in on this topic is Angie, who, as far as I'm aware always helped them out.

The conference was set up to be time limited, to ensure that we could remain focussed and on topic, as it's so easy to drift. Although we set a rule up about protecting anonymity all the 'delegates' have indeed tweeted to say that they were with us, so I'm not breaking any confidences when I say that we had someone from a FE college (their identity remains protected I believe), Susan Elkin from The Stage, Pat O'Toole from Rose Bruford, Laura and James the co-founders and Principals of the Dorset School of Acting and Equity, who impressively had sent a senior member from their main office plus Adam Pettigrew the Chair of Equity YMC...and ............well that was it.

I completely applaud Equity for sending 2 senior members, in an instant showing how important a subject they considered this to be. I'd go so far as to give them a standing ovation given that I had gone a few rounds with them on Twitter over this topic many a time.  Similarly great to see our industry's paper there ready to report on this important and life changing subject...but where were the other drama colleges? Drama UK who I've always maintained are a joke, didn't show, in spite of being sent a reminder email a few days before (which of course was acknowledged by an automated response. No doubt they were over in China or somewhere building up their brand awareness). However where were the course leaders that on twitter always publicly comment on my thoughts about Mental Health, and always ask to arrange a coffee to discuss the topic...and who have never, ever followed through?  Where was the Pastoral team member from another major college who had had an extensive email exchange with me over the conference, agreeing that something needed to be done, and stating that they had already popped the date in their diary? Where were the actors, who had been very vocal with me about their own struggles during college, and telling me in no uncertain terms that they would be at this conference as something had to be done?

10 of us in total were in that room, and do you know what the saddest thing of all was...that had exceeded my expectations.  I knew that all those people wouldn't turn up.  Everybody today is a social network warrior. They'll shout about stuff on FB, they'll press 'attend' to all the political events and rallies. They'll write posts and share posts about how we should be implementing social change. They'll moan and rant about simply anything...but when it comes to leaving their homes or offices to actually implement that change....nothing.  Of course there will always be the anti establishment extremists who turn up at any event ready to fight whoever over whatever, but they're not the people that we're trying to engage here. I'm talking about the everyday actor who knows that this industry is struggling (and I know this because as well as seeing it myself, they've told me).  Talk to me about your time at college when you witnessed people going through so much pain, with so little help. Oh that's right, you will  talk or write to me about that 'poor' person, but you won't go and sit in a room one afternoon in a bid to help the next poor sod going through the system?

As it turns out the conference was extremely useful.  We all sat around and nodded as we shared experiences of mental traumas in college.  Even in that room the 1 in 3 was sounding like an optimistic figure.

Equity were very much on the front foot, and had some plans underway which might help the issue somewhat.

However there IS still an issue here, and if anything Drama UK being useless has made it even harder. All of the colleges, big and small, should have a mental health policy..but you know a policy means nothing.  It means that someone sat down, like I'm sat writing this blog, filling up a word document, with all the right 'things' that we'd want them to say, no doubt hitting on the buzz words of the moment.  Here's the rub though.....it don't mean a thing, if in practice your staff and your students don't understand Mental Health.  A person in crises won't just suddenly knock on a stranger's door to tell them their issues, more than that, if they're in crises, they might not even know that they're in crises. Good mental health policy (as witnessed at the conference actually) showed that these things had to be 'picked up' not just ignored by staff and students, or put down as 'being a bit off', or 'having the bad day'.

Who does now regulate drama schools? Or indeed does it matter? Should good Mental Health policies (and by that I mean the ones that actually deliver....not like one that I heard about that got 'put on the table every time that there was an inspection') almost get a Kitemark, to show that they operate within an agreed set of guidelines (or at the very least are attempting to)? If so, who's to hand out the elusive 'marks' and then who's going to go around every year and check that they're being upheld?  It almost needs a 'secret shopper' approach to ensure that standards are upheld.

So lots of questions still to be answered, but at least we started.

Ironically it's not my students that I'm worried about, I know that we're implementing an active Mental Health policy.  I'm actually fighting for seemingly the majority of the rest of them. The stunning teachers, like the other ones in the conference, are fighting for their students that they can't get hold of because they're swamped and over subscribed.

How to convince a 'business' to invest in the invisible that won't pay back a dividend for years? Invest in your students today and don't see any reward for years? As that's what we're asking.  The payback for good Mental Health would be experienced throughout the entire industry (hell CSM's wouldn't know what had hit them). First though...how to get everybody to leave their homes and offices to have the discussion?

Déjà vu

Do you sometimes feel like you're living in a world of déjà vu? Or like you've been banging the same drum for so long that it's just become a noise that people can blot out...yet you KNOW that it's still relevant?


My friend and esteemed colleague Chris Grady has just written a great blog about the need to create 'celebrities' from Musical Theatre performers.  Here have a read: http://www.chrisgrady.org/blog/whos-in-it-a-challenge-and-maybe-a-solution/. I took the opportunity to remind him of a blog that I'd written way back in Jan 2015 http://www.thereviewshub.com/blog-annemarie-lewis-thomas-new-year-same-problems/ In part covering the same topic that I'd touched on then...and indeed making reference to the fact that I had been speaking about this very subject some 9 years earlier (or was it 8?)!  In fact (as stated in my 2015 blog), the thinking behind The MTA covering acting for camera in a 50/50 split with acting for stage was predominantly for this very reason.  I'm still staggered by the fact that some 2 years on we are still the only Musical Theatre course to genuinely split the focus of our acting course.  In fact next term will see (we hope) the birth of the third MTA short film.  Oh how I wish that I could share the links with you of the first two, as they're genuinely inspired, and indeed, when you think that they were written and shot in just one week, they're truly remarkable too.  Now we can only do this because a) our Head of Acting is Tilly Vosburgh who is in fact a national treasure (except that the nation doesn't quite realise it yet) and b) we have an up and coming award winning director called Alex Warren who has an amazing eye, great vision, and a very generous spirit to edit the film for us.

How many times since I first spoke out about this in 2007 (or was it 2008...I still don't remember) have I seen 'Musical Theatre' performers cross over into the medium of film, blatantly, and wisely IMHO, raising their profile, so that they can cross back into the world of theatre, suddenly being seen for roles, and demanding a much higher salary  (which also means that they can indulge in the occasional off-West End profit share type show too).  It's the perfect win/win.  The world of TV is gaining some great 'names' and the world of theatre can reclaim them, and surprise a whole new audience.  If Celebrity "X" is putting new bums on seats AND being brilliant what's not to like about the arrangement? Right now John Partridge is shocking Eastenders' audiences up and down the UK by staring in Chicago. I'd love to know what percentage of the Chicago audiences are newcomers to the theatre just to see a popular soap actor 'take on' a musical theatre role.  Of course the fact that he trained at both the Royal Ballet Lower School and then Birds just might have passed them by. Just like the fact that for the 20 years before he was the 'newcomer' in Eastenders, he had predominantly worked in Musical Theatre.  However I love that!  Rewind to 1991 and I vividly remember paying my 2nd visit to Into the Woods down at the Phoenix...but this time I had my mum and dad with me. I'd been out of college for a couple of years, and I'd saved up enough money to take them to the theatre for a change.  In retrospect why I thought that my dad would like Sondheim, when he didn't really 'get' musicals at all is beyond me.  Anyway the show starts and my father sits up, all excited to see 'that woman from Fresh Fields' on stage...all shocked (he explained in the interval) that she could sing alright couldn't she?  Of course 'that woman from Fresh Fields' was the amazing Julia McKenzie, half the reason that I had opted to pay a 2nd visit in the first place (the half being Imelda Staunton, who was playing the Baker's Wife, and I hadn't seen her in anything before, but thought that she was really something quite special and wanted to watch her performance again).

So even as I write this blog, the penny drops that psychodynamically maybe I had made the connection way back then that 'celebrity' could actually be a good thing for Musicals, as opposed to the force for evil that it suddenly became in the noughties? Now before anybody shouts about all the stunt casting...well that's a different thing altogether isn't it?? All of the above is clever casting, and clever career progression.  Having a Big Brother contestant playing Billy Flynn is ludicrous, having them playing a pantomime villain is insulting to all those people who trained to do it properly, yet sadly, good business, and last time I checked, the secret to commercial theatre producing was the first word, not the second two(and yes, yes, yes...in the ideal world commercial, good business and integrity all combines, but the world has never been perfect).  Also look at the social change that took place in the noughties - the television landscape suddenly changed overnight.  Big Brother, American Idol, The X Factor, Masterchef, Location, Location, Location, Wife Swap....the list is never ending.  Hours of broadcast time with TV companies spewing out 'the everyman', who let's face it, were much cheaper to populate our screens with, than the 'every actor'!  Ironically we then attempted to turn them into the latter via pantos and 'an audience with..' theatre tours.  The trouble is, as I stated up in Edinburgh however many years ago it was. . . you either moan about it, or beat them at their own game. In the Noughties, everyone was still in the Thatcher glow of you could have anything if you wanted it.  The daughter of a humble grocery store owner could become Prime Minister. We could all become that illusive thing called 'a celebrity'.  This was a different thing to 'celebrities' of old (who we actually called stars not celebs....because they shone a bit brighter than the rest of us, or at least that's my favorite definition of the word).

I think that theatre lost it's way a bit during this time. We were so busy moaning about this new era, we forgot to keep up.  Shows became 'stars' not performers, and our 'stars' faded into the background.
Fastforward 10 years and we're all writing blogs about it!

Then my 2nd déjà vu is the constant 'noise' at the moment around the fact that we have a Mental Health crises in this country.  I've lost count of how many times in the last week alone friends and colleagues who are aware of my fight around this topic (specifically within the drama school sector), have sent me links to articles stating that the Mental Health provision in this country is in trouble. The service is crumbling under the demand.  Well pardon my French but 'no shit Sherlock'? MIND have long stated that 1 in 4 people will experience some sort of Mental Health crises in their lifetime. As my PA corrected my maths just the other day, meaning that in The MTA, which currently has a roll call of 41 students, I should have 10 students either struggling with a Mental Health issue, or who are ticking time bombs waiting to go off later on in life. Now these time bombs could be an almighty explosion or a tiny whiff of smoke, who's to say...but that's a lot of 'tiny bangs' going off in society at any one time isn't it?  I'm currently collecting stories (both good and bad) from people that have gone through a drama school education with a Mental Health issue, plus from staff at the colleges, just finding out what support is really being offered (as opposed to tick box exercises where an administrator says in theory what's going on).  I'm not exactly letting a cat out of the bag when I say that early findings support the Australian findings on this topic (http://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2015/09/14/demands-of-acting-hurting-performers--mental-health.html), The Californian findings (http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/jul/18/actors-struggle-resolve-emotional-problems) The Icelandic findings (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3115620/Creative-people-prone-suffering-mental-illness-Actors-dancers-musicians-likely-genes-causing-schizophrenia-bipolar-disorder.html) ....I won't go on but you get the picture.  A little bit like my thoughts around 'celebrity' I hate to say 'I told you so' (although as my students know those are my 4 favorite words)...but I've been banging on about this for years.  Way before The MTA in fact.  Well clearly, otherwise I wouldn't have thought of opening a college with Mental Health Wellbeing at the heart of it.  I mean if I could timetable  the subject in I really would (instead my students have to 'study it' in their own time as and when they find it necessary). That said it's great to see all the various # campaigns designed to raise awareness of this important issue.  Do check out  https://www.facebook.com/events/911328365625354/ if you get the chance, contribute if you can find the time or the inclination...and most importantly of all, if I ever randomly come up with 6 numbers between 1 and 49 write them down and play them in the lottery around 10 years later...as seemingly I'm quite good at predicting the future ;-)