Are British dancers really outclassed on the world stage?

Akram Khan, Hofesh Shechter and Lloyd Newson have complained about the quality of graduates of the UK’s top dance schools. But a good dance education is not only about performance

As a provocation, it was masterfully timed. Twenty-four hours before a major national conference about the future of British dance, three leading choreographers issued a press release complaining about the quality of contemporary dance training in this country.

Hofesh Shechter, Lloyd Newson and Akram Khan jointly argued that when they hired new dancers, only a small proportion of those who’d graduated from UK institutions such as the London Contemporary Dance School (LCDS), Trinity Laban and Northern School of Contemporary Dance (NSCD) were of the calibre they required.

UK-trained dancers, they said, are rarely of the same technical proficiency as those coming out of the Parts school in Brussels or the Juilliard School in New York. “It’s disheartening when it comes to auditions to see these UK students with potential and enthusiasm consistently outclassed by fitter, stronger and more versatile counterparts from Europe, Asia and the US,” Shechter has said.

This isn’t the first time I’ve heard choreographers voice this concern, and Lloyd Newson says he has spoken to “10 other British dance companies who have expressed similar views”. And it’s notable that the issues raised about contemporary dance standards chime with the ongoing debate in the ballet world about the lack of homegrown dancers at the top of British companies such as the Royal Ballet, Birmingham Royal Ballet and English National Ballet.

These concerns deserve sensible discussion. If there are issues with training methods, with rigour and with the level of expectation in British institutions, they should be addressed. And while the directors of LCDS, Laban and NSCD have understandably responded with anger to the attack that Shechter, Khan and Newson delivered, it sounds as though they could profitably sit down with the choreographers and continue the conversation.

But – and this is crucial – it’s a conversation that needs to have far wider parameters. If we’re going to debate whether our training institutions are fit for purpose, we have to consider exactly what that purpose is. And we have to recognise that what makes LCDS, Laban and NSCD so valuable is that they see their remit not simply in terms of training the “best” performers in the world, or honing the most beautiful bodies – although I’ve seen many formidable dancers come out of those institutions, including Khan himself. Rather, it’s to offer the widest, most creative kind of dance education possible. As the director of LCDS, Veronica Lewis puts it: to train students “for lifelong careers”.

The students from these schools are expected to learn from the wide range of performance styles and philosophical approaches that come under the ever-diversifying label of dance. Kenneth Tharp, chief executive of the home of LCDS, the Place, points out that: “the sector is much broader than the work of three choreographers … Some choreographers want dancers to have extraordinary technique; others require strong stage presence; others well-developed vocal skills.” Students are also taught choreographic skills, and many come to their courses with a far greater interest in creation than performance. Others may want to focus on becoming dance writers, teachers, therapists, administrators or managers. (Tharp says that all students are taught how to write a business plan as an “essential tool for survival in the professional dance world”.) So while Theo van Rompay, deputy director of Parts, acknowledges that it is essentially a school for those who “decide their place is on the stage”, and while Juilliard hand-picks its annual intake of 24 students from an already highly trained group of applicants, the philosophy of the UK’s top institutions is that the dance industry is about far more than performance.

Even if LCDS, Laban and NSCD were to focus more rigorously on pure technical proficiency, it’s questionable how well this would serve the majority of their students’ long-term interests. There is a brutally limited number of job opportunities, even for the most elite dancers. Many graduating students will end up working for little or even no pay; many will end up leaving the profession after a few years because they can’t earn any kind of decent living. Dance – as Merce Cunningham famously said – is not a profession for “unsteady souls”. And it’s a very good idea for those who love the art form and want to make a life in it, to have other dance-related skills to fall back on.

In any case, I wonder how useful it is to try and quantify the “best” institutions; the “best” dancers. Against all financial odds the UK dance scene is still thriving; it is creative and adventurous, improvisatory and eccentric. We produce a huge number of aspiring choreographers and we attract many others who want to work here. There are good reasons why Khan, Newson and Shechter base themselves in this country; why foreign companies want to perform here and why the audience for dance has risen sharply during the last decade. And the diversity of training that our institutions offer their students is probably one of them. Perhaps we shouldn’t agonise over the fact that foreign dancers are outnumbering our own within certain high-profile companies. Perhaps we should be glad that we’ve created a culture in which seriously talented people of all provenances want to work. And as was argued at the Future conference last week, we need to be clever about ensuring that this culture survives.