EBacc accused of skewing ‘curriculum and qualification choices’
Young people are being channelled away from creative subjects by ‘educational hierachies’ according to a new report, with girls and those from disadvantaged backgrounds particularly affected.
The report, Creative subject choices: student pathways through education and into employment, was funded by the Nuffield Foundation and produced by academics at the University of Cambridge. The researchers used the educational records of 1.7 million students in England, longitudinal data about 7,200 young people’s progress into work, and interviews and surveys with people studying and working in creative fields.
The study argues that the underrepresentation of women and people from lower-income backgrounds in the creative industries reflects a ‘narrowing pathway’ that begins at school, and steers students away from subjects like art, music and drama as their education progresses.
Using the large-scale data from educational records, the study found that at age 16, 24.7 per cent of students had made a creative subject choice. This proportion then fell to 16.9 per cent post-16, and further to 12.2 per cent at university. Only 3.8 per cent of students who reached higher education had made creative subject choices at every possible stage.
Students eligible for free school meals (FSM) – a proxy for those from less wealthy backgrounds – were more likely than their peers to choose creative subjects at GCSE, but less likely to do so after 16. Girls were more likely than boys to choose creative subjects into post-16 education, but at university, the pattern reversed, with thousands of young women leaving the creative pathway before higher education. Study participants said that teachers, family and friends had discouraged them from creative study. The report notes that this does not reflect statutory guidance for schools, but that the ‘framing of creative subjects as risky or illegitimate choices appeared embedded in some institutional cultures’.
Commenting on the research, Sarah Hannafin, head of policy at school leaders’ union NAHT, argued that the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) had played a role in the decline of creative subject choices: ‘Over the last decade the EBacc has skewed curriculum and qualification choices in schools, with this government policy steering most pupils to take GCSEs in subjects considered more ‘academic’ than creative. High-stakes accountability means schools have had little choice but to go along with this as they are measured on the number of pupils who take GCSEs in these core subjects and how well young people do in them’. In November last year the government announced, as part of its response to the curriculum and assessment review, that it would be scrapping the EBacc, a move which Ms Hannafin welcomed whilst calling on them to ‘invest in the resources and equipment required to increase [the] offer in these subjects after years in which they have been squeezed out.’
The report urges a system-wide rethink of how creative talent is supported. The authors argue for schools and policymakers to challenge the hierarchies that prize academic routes over creative options, and to provide students with clear, but also realistic, advice about how to pursue creative employment that can often be precarious. They also call for targeted initiatives to support creative education among girls, low-income students and those in deprived areas. The study also calls for a clearer post-16 framework to help students navigate the range of creative qualifications available in FE, and for universities and employers to recognise and value further education more. It is noted that the recently announced vocational V-Levels may be useful in this respect.
Dr Emily Tanner, Education Programme Head at the Nuffield Foundation said: ‘With creative industries identified as among the highest-potential sectors in the UK’s Industrial Strategy, this research is timely. It shows that ensuring equitable access to opportunities will require concerted action to remove barriers for girls and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.’