Research: ‘Revealed: The Three Inconvenient Truths About The EBacc’ - My Thoughts and Findings on the article
Schools Week’s article regarding the inconvenient truths about the EBacc highlight a number of areas of interest for my continued investigation into the education system, its issues and how artists can become more proactive in being involved in enriching the education system. Although this article discusses the political issues surrounding the EBacc and the subsequent impact it has had on students, I think continuing to develop an understanding of the status of the education system is important to firmly placing both my work, and the work of artists in an effort to enrich and expand what students are learning. When comparing this article to the previous study I have included in my research, this article is more recent, and still shares similar concerns about the EBacc damaging student choice and the impact it is having on the arts. Looking at this article will show how similar issues concerning education are consistently arising due to such performance measures.
The article centres itself around the decision made by Russell Group universities to remove “its list of ‘facilitating subjects’ amid concerns that too many pupils felt they had to study only academic subjects to get into university” (Whittaker, 2019) which is an interesting finding in context with my chosen area of research. This decision acknowledges that many students believe the only way in education is to be solely academic, which is a misleading and damaging mindset for students. This concerning perception that to be academic is the only way you get to university marginalises those who thrive in the unnamed subjects, and thus they assume that university is not a place for them. As their list was comprised of “all five areas of the EBacc - maths, English, the sciences, languages and history or geography” (Whittaker, 2019) the perception that these are the superior, important or meaningful subject is placed in student’s minds. However, the lack of arts subjects, technical subjects or PE indicates that there is a hierarchy in terms of which subjects are deemed to be the most beneficial to educational success. But, limiting such lists to solely the EBacc contributes to the narrowing of the curriculum and thus the devaluation of still vital subjects. The fact that this group of elite universities have chosen to remove such guidelines shows that misleading information and the subsequent assumption that comes form such lists causes damage to student learning and decision making. I believe this was a positive move from the Russell Group Universities, because they are giving students freedom to forge their own path to university, without feeling obliged focus on this list exclusively, as some may have done.
Although this is a positive move by such universities, it is important to acknowledge that these sites for learning are considered to be an elite few, and are not a representation of universities in their entirety, with many not having such lists or requirements, it still sets a positive precedence for other establishments to refer to and follow.
Later in the article, the discussion surrounding comments made by the Schools Minister Nick Gibb concerning the Ebacc and refreshed calls for a review on the accountability measure were particularly interesting when compared to the decision made by the Russell Group Universities. Gibb’s comments about the Ebacc being “regarded as the subjects that keep the widest possible options open for young people” (Whittaker, 2019) and he “previously boasted of increases of pupils studying facilitating subjects as a result of the EBacc policy” (Whittaker, 2019). These comments indicate that there are clear biases in terms of subject importance within schooling, as well as a constant need to highlight which areas are important to succeed. The comments made by Gibb imply that the “widest options” (Whittaker, 2019) are only that of academia, and nothing to do with the arts or technical subjects like design technology or IT. Insinuating that the EBacc provides a wide range of options for a student is false and misleading because the lack of creative and technical subjects indicate the curriculum is unbalanced. Although it is important to acknowledge that many employers, training providers and further education establishments may prefer specific grades in English, Maths and Science, I feel that the insinuation that more students are opting for ‘facilitating subjects’ is through a lack of choice, potential pressures due to false information from university lists and a lack of value placed on the subjects that simply do not fall into the EBacc system. I feel that this article highlights the weak justifications of the use of the EBacc system and its methods by politicians who are trying to create a curriculum that is unbalanced and not beneficial for the ‘many’.
This is backed up further by comments made by Geoff Barton, secretary of School Leaders’ union ASCL stating, “it was abundantly clear the EBacc is beset with problems. It has devalued other subjects and, together with severe funding pressures, this has had a particularly detrimental impact on creative courses which are increasingly unsustainable” (Whittaker, 2019) Therefore, it is clear that the hierarchy of subject importance and value is very much ingrained within the Ebacc performance measure. This makes students limited in their choices, and therefore provides them with an unbalanced curriculum to learn. This links to my project because it justifies where the issues lie within arts education. Again, like in much of my prior research, a lack of funding, value and priority is given to the arts due to it not being within the EBacc framework. This makes it increasingly difficult for schools to provide a meaningful and thorough body of arts education, which includes artist’s involvement because there is simply no money or government expectation to do so. Artists as professionals are given very few opportunities, and thus being able to enrich and expand the education is limited in this area. This highlights a wider, fundamental area of change required to boost what can be provided within arts education, as well as putting it on a par with other subjects in level of importance. Conversely, having a framework that is catered around the student ability and talent rather than a blanket quality assurance measure that does not work for the majority.
The article then debunks further claims the government have made about the impact of the EBacc, specifically in relation to non-core subject such as the arts. Much like the previous points made in this record of my findings, the impact upon creative subjects has seen a 0.04% drop in people taking one arts based subject in a year, despite the claims made by the Department of Education that “since 2011, the proportion of pupils in state-funded schools takin at least one arts subject has increased” (Whittaker, 2019). Although only a slight drop, the trend down would suggest students are moving away from arts based subjects with the intention to choose academic or core subjects. I found this to be very interesting within my research because it shows why funding restrictions, as well as a lack of general priority is placed upon the arts, and law makers are hiding behind false statements to justify their want to shift the curriculum to a solely academic format. As previously mentioned, the drop in those taking arts subjects is small, with being under 1%, however if this decrease can occur within a year, this may create a more consistent trend, causing further issues for the arts and ultimately creative industries in years to come.
Similarly Gibb’s comments about the narrowing of the curriculum and the reality of the matter shows the disconnect between policy makers and reality. Gibb stated “I don’t accept there has been a narrowing of the curriculum because of the EBacc” (Whittaker, 2019) however, in reality a, “DFE-commissioned study found non-EBacc subjects are having to be taught in ‘creative ways’ such as after school” (Whittaker, 2019). This highlights the lack of value placed on non-core subjects because schools are removing them from the school day into an optional tie after school where students have no obligation to attend. This narrows the curriculum because the school day, a time where students are expected to learn a range of subjects, are limited to solely academic lessons, and not an adequate balance of creativity, academia and practical learning. This also limits non-core subjects to specific groups of students. Many young people from low income families, or those who may struggle with learning generally may are not likely to attend such sessions after school, whereas those considered ‘middle’ class students will be able to. It isolates creative learning to the small few who may have interest or are able to stay for longer at school due to their own personal circumstances, making the arts for the minority and not for everyone regardless of ability. Although the idea of supplementing the school day with after school activities has been done for many years, relegating non-core subjects out of the school day completely highlights a severe issue within the education system. Again, this would limit artist or arts practitioner involvement within schools because there is simply no space for the subject within the school day at all, or it is severely limited to where the time becomes too valuable to have such visitors. Being able to enrich and expand the education of young people with the inclusion on those in specific industries has to be a priority before it can be put into action in any subject.
Looking at this article in its entirety, it is becoming clearer where the issues are coming from in terms of the status of arts education, the downfalls in the curriculum and why there is such little value placed on the arts. As mentioned previously, value, a subject hierarchy and a lack of accountability are all themes within such discussions about arts education that are consistent because they are the primary reasons why creative education is not given its merit or delivered in a way that is meaningful. The need for artist practitioners within schools is clear, however a lack of funding, the constraints of the Ebacc and the perception of the arts is such that it would not be on a consistent basis. My research has shown here that the EBacc has become one of the major catalysts for the issues within the arts in schools because it has ultimately created a framework that determines that creativity is not as valid as being academic. However it is still important to acknowledge that the move made by the Russell Group Universities of scrapping their ‘facilitating subjects’ list is a step in the right direction for student choice and freedom within their learning, and I believe could generate a boost in the uptake in arts based subjects in the future.
Sources:
Whittaker, F., 2019. Ministers face three inconvenient truths about the EBacc. [online] Schools Week. Available at: <https://schoolsweek.co.uk/revealed-the-three-inconvenient-truths-about-the-ebacc/> [Accessed 23 February 2021].
Comments