The chapters in this section represent just some of the developments and current practices in TIE and TIE-related work across the world. This is not a comprehensive coverage nor remotely a directory of international practice, nor does it represent all the main types of work to be seen. Rather it is an attempt to illustrate the range of that work and some of the ways it has emerged from and been inﬂuenced by the particular circumstances in which it takes place. The international section of the previous edition focused on work in Australia, Canada, USA and Scandinavia. This time we have felt it imperative not just to update but to acknowledge the wider and more disparate evolution and application of TIE (or TIE-type) methods and approaches across the globe. Four of the chapters oﬀer quite detailed accounts and critiques of work – in Australia, Southern Africa, India (Delhi) and the USA (New York). In other sections of the book there are of course accounts of practice elsewhere – including New Zealand, Zambia, the UK and the USA – but we are also conscious that there is a range of interesting, and interestingly diﬀerent, practice across the globe that gets overlooked or all too rarely mentioned in ‘mainstream’ accounts of contemporary theatre. A further chapter therefore attempts to catch a wider glimpse of that practice – in the form of selective ‘snapshots’ of work in Ireland (Cork and Dublin), in Norway and the Nordic countries, in India (in and beyond Delhi), and in Jordan. Some countries (such as Australia and New Zealand) at an early
stage took the British TIE model as their main starting point, with several British personnel having played pioneering roles; some have evolved similar models inﬂuenced at least as much by other
developments in education and theatre. In all these countries, however, the work has evolved in its own way, and we have allowed contributors a fairly wide brief in how they describe it. While some oﬀer a broad overview of TIE work in their country, others have been more selective and attempt to illustrate approaches through ‘case studies’ of recently presented programmes or have focused solely on the work of one company. Others again have chosen to highlight particular problems or challenges, practical and/or theoretical, which are currently being faced. Thus the style, approach and emphases vary from chapter to chapter and country to country. Given the size of the USA and its long and impressive history of
children’s theatre, it is important to stress that the chapter on New York City’s Creative Arts Team does not represent educational theatre across the country. CAT is indeed one of the largest and most progressive TIE companies in the USA, but there is a variety of other American companies too. Chapters by Lynn Hoare and Wendy Lement elsewhere in this volume look at aspects of TIE beyond New York. But mention should also be made of other prominent companies, all of which display characteristics of classic TIE practice, even if the scope of their work has widened or changed over the years. The award-winning CLIMB Theatre, based in Minneapolis-St Paul,
Minnesota, founded in 1975 to work with disabled populations, now employs ‘actor-educators’ to work with thousands of students annually across the entire school age range dealing with issues such as bullying, friendship and the environment. In New York City, ENACT, founded in 1987 by Diana Feldman, a former CAT employee, shares approaches in common with other educational theatre companies, but emphasises the work as a means for students to explore and communicate their feelings. It now incorporates drama therapy strategies and uses trained drama therapists and clinical social workers to mentor and support its actors. Graduate students at the University of Texas at Austin founded Creative Action, formerly Theatre Action Project (TAP), in 1997 after exposure to TIE methodology at conferences and with CAT. At ﬁrst, TAP described itself as a TIE company but latterly has expanded its work beyond the classroom to include youth theatre, youth arts camps, community-based projects and a range of art forms, and now refers to its creative staﬀ as ‘teaching artists’. Looking for Lilith was founded in 2002 in Louisville, Kentucky, with a focus on examining and celebrating women’s histories but also has a broader commitment to education, oﬀering a variety of participatory programmes for young people. The founders are graduates of the New York University Program in Educational Theatre, where they were
also exposed to CAT’s inﬂuence. It does not call its work TIE, but the connections with both TIE and Theatre of the Oppressed are clearly evident. TIE is not conﬁned to the countries represented by chapters in the
book. It has spread far and wide and companies continue to operate explicitly under its banner. For example, in Eastern Europe the Kava Drama/Theatre-in-Education Association in Budapest and CEDEUM (Centre for Drama in Education and Art) in Belgrade both explicitly acknowledge the inﬂuence of TIE. We could go on. The key points we are making are that the coverage we oﬀer is far from exhaustive; and reports of TIE’s demise have been greatly exaggerated. What is clear from these essays, despite the local diﬃculties that
may be faced in terms of funding, educational demands, and social and cultural biases, is the strength and vitality of the projects described and the sense of collaborative exploration that characterises them. Even where conditions do not allow for participatory programmes with class-sized groups, all the companies described here share a broad understanding of the need to reach young audiences in ways that go beyond the straight performance of a play, and have between them explored a variety of strategies to encourage the active engagement of young people in their own learning.