Introduction
The introduction of the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) by the UK coalition government in 2010 aimed to ensure students ‘had a greater probability of progression to all post-16 educational outcomes’ (Moulton et al, 2018). The EBacc was part of a wider overhaul by the then Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove (2010), who stated that the “curriculum and qualifications changes provide more scope than ever before for higher-order thinking skills and genuine creativity”. The educational overhaul focused on 5 key areas: “autonomy for the head, rigorous accountability, high-quality teaching, strict behaviour policies and an ambitious curriculum” (Gove, 2010). The latter point, which was focused on developing a new and ambitious curriculum, led way for the development of the Ebacc. Evidence suggests that its impact has made progress in achieving its original aims as more students are taking opting to take EBacc subjects; in 2012 98% of schools offered the subjects for students to take the full EBacc suite of subjects at GCSE, and 48% of year 9 students took the full EBacc suite of subjects in the same year, an increase of 2% from the previous year (Department for Education, 2013). It is the aim of the UK government to see 75% of pupils studying the EBacc subject combination at GCSE by 2022, and 90% by 2025, at state-funded mainstream schools (Department for Education, 2018).
In 2014 it was announced that a new measure, the ‘progress 8’ measure would be used to evaluate pupil progress at schools in the UK. A score is calculated for each pupil and then an mean average is found for each school. A double-weighting is given to Mathematics and English, followed by 3 Ebacc qualifications and three ‘open group’ qualifications, which could also be three further Ebacc suite qualifications [see figure 1]. This means that a pupil’s progress 8 score could contain from 70% up to 100% of Ebacc subjects (Department for Education, 2014). The collection of subjects required for the EBacc excludes multiple creative subjects, such as Fine Art, Theatre Studies and Design Technology. This reveals that state-funded schools are measured on pupil attainment and progress within the EBacc suite of subjects to a great degree. It is fundamental to note that Progress 8 and its constituent elements are not published for independent schools and independent special schools (Department for Education, 2018), therefore independent schools are not under any obligation to adhere to the subjects required for the Progress 8 measure – making the introduction of the EBacc less impactful for pupils who attend these independent schools. Because of the partisan weighting the EBacc subjects have in the ‘progress 8’ and ‘attainment 8’ measure, this has the adverse effect to what the EBacc initially set out to do, by limiting educational opportunities for students who do not come from privileged socio-economic backgrounds. This report argues that the introduction and implementation of the EBacc made arts education more elitist.
[Figure 1] Shows the qualifications measured in the ‘Progress 8’ measure. (Department for Education, 2014)
The Department for Education justifies the introduction of The English Baccalaureate (EBacc) by suggesting is a collection of subjects, that when taken as GCSE options ‘keeps young people’s options open for further study and future careers’ (Department for Education, 2010). The subjects include; English language and literature, mathematics, the sciences, geography or history and a language. This group of subjects effectively excludes creative subjects. In this report ‘arts education’ will be defined as; the education of ‘performing arts; like dance, music, theatre, and visual arts like drawing, painting, sculpture, and design work’ (USLegal, 2016). This takes includes subjects such as photography, graphics and practical technologies, which also fall under this term. It is the aim of the UK government to see 75% of pupils studying the EBacc subject combination at GCSE level by 2022, and 90% by 2025 at state-funded mainstream schools (Department for Education, 2018).
Students at state-funded schools will experience an entirely different education than those at independent schools. The main area of concern in this report will surround whether a student is at a state-funded mainstream school or at an ‘elitist’ privately-funded independent school. However, it is important to note that the determining factors for the above will also include; household income and social advantages, such as ethnicity and family background. The Independent Schools Council (ISC) collects information on the UK’s private education sector. Their research found that the average cost for a privately educated pupil attending school during the day was £14,000 a year, and £32,000 a year for boarders, students who live on school property during term time. Financial adviser Dan Rear suggested that an annual household income must reach £150,000 in order to afford to send two students to private school. Andy Harris, from student fees investment advisers, agreed with Rear’s suggested figure (Verdict, 2018). According to the ISC 522,879 children are at private school in the UK, making up 6.5% of the student population (up to 18 years old). From this data we can discover that sending students to private school, is only achievable by households with a high income, HMRC estimates that only 1% of earners in the UK have an income above £150,000 (HMRC, 2016). Therefore, in this report the term ‘elitist’ will be defined as ‘only accessible to those with a household income of over £150,000’, this assumes that children of these earners attend a private school, which are significantly less affected by the implementation of the EBacc.
The importance of art education
Having looked previously discussed the disparity in accountability measures between state-funded and independent schools, which has led to elitism in arts education, the following section of the report examines why arts education is important.
Initially, there is a clear positive financial impact of the arts in the UK economy. An arts council report announced the GVA contribution of the market segment of the arts and culture industry amounted to an estimated £8.5 billion in 2015 (Arts Council, November 2017). This is a growth of 12% since the previous year, which means the creative industry sector is growing at twice the rate of the UK economy (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, November 2017). Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Karen Bradley said: ‘Britain’s creative industries play an essential role shaping how we are seen around the world but as these new statistics show they are also a vital part of the economy.’ (Karen Bradley, 2017). It is clear that the impact of the arts in wider society has a strong capital gain for the UK economy. For this period of growth to continue arts education in UK schools is fundamental to create and nurture the future generations of world-renowned artists.
However, despite the successes within the UK economy, the arts and arts education have also been shown to have an impact far beyond this dramatic contribution to the financial system. Daisy Buchanan wrote in an article titled ‘The arts teach us how to express ourselves – and give us freedom to fail’ (2018): ‘These are the subjects that instil a passion for learning and for life. These are the classrooms where it feels safer to fail, where mistakes are welcomed as proof that you’re trying and growing’. Buchanan is suggesting, like other educational specialists such as Dr John Harland in the ‘Arts Education in Secondary Schools: Effects and Effectiveness’ (2000) report, that education in the arts has a curriculum-wide benefit. Intrinsically, they are good in themselves, however skills learnt through arts education can bolster academic achievement and further the development of meta-learning skills. It is evident that education in the arts offers a substantial amount of personal benefits, however arts education goes far beyond a purely personal gain. Derrick Chong wrote that the arts ‘civilize society, enhancing national pride’ (2010). Chong furthers the idea that the arts develops personal skills, suggesting that it is beneficial to society as a whole, engineering individuals who, not only enjoy learning but, are able to efficiently participate in a productive and civilized society. Both of these individuals are suggesting that the arts are fundamental in developing natural human characteristics, providing experiences to fail and succeed that are not as easily found in other areas. The way that the arts impact an individual and society is often overlooked, the skills and discipline learned when participating in these activities are some of the most sought after characteristics by employers. Many art graduates are seen to have developed these principal ‘soft-skills’, making them far more attractive to an employer (Harmon, 2016). The discussion about where arts education belongs has been continued for multiple years, however, it is clear that beyond pleasure; arts education has benefits not only on the economy but within society as a whole, and it assists in creating well rounded and sought after citizens.
However some educational thinkers, such as Daisy Christodoulou, argue that educational development in objective STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) is more important than education in the subjective subjects like the arts. In an article published by the UK government it was stated that ‘As the world is becoming increasingly complex and high-tech, STEM subjects are becoming ever more critical’ (British Embassy Phnom Penh, 2015). It is evident that the world is becoming heavily technology driven and skills in this sector are vital to maintaining the UK’s position as a global leader. The introduction of the EBacc supported this drive towards STEM; mathematics and the sciences are both elements of the EBacc subject suite. In her book, ‘Seven Myths about Education’ (2013), Christodoulou suggests that declarative knowledge, such as facts, is being neglected in modern education because of the priority given to procedural knowledge such as skills. Despite the evidence above clearly highlighting the importance of procedural knowledge for individuals, employers and society, Christodoulou argues that education must be refocused on declarative knowledge found, commonly found in STEM subjects. Christodoulou’s analysis does not take account of the clear importance of procedural skills, nor does she examine the personal benefits education in the arts has to offer. Whilst is it recognisable that STEM subjects have an important role in education, a wholesome and rounded curriculum can find balance between these subjects and arts subjects. Perhaps, it is due to the inevitable hierarchy that is created in the the three ‘bucket’ system of the progress 8 measure thats causes individuals to consider which subjects are most important in education when, in fact, all are necessary. By the one-sided promotions of STEM subjects, the education system has indirectly presented arts education as a lower priority, and in turn leaving it as a luxury for those who can afford to attend a private school.
It is clear Arts education has as always played a pivotal role in the education system for a number of reasons. Because of the strong propaganda of STEM subjects in the worldwide education narrative, a solid arts education is not more fundamental than ever to allow students to achieve more in employment, further the development of ‘soft-skills’, such as creativity and communication, and to continue the arts industries growth as a leading sector in the UK economy and world-wide image.
The initial effects of the EBacc
The previous section has demonstrated the importance of the arts in education, and will now begin to examine how the implementation of the Ebacc led to making this arts education elitist. The aforementioned progress 8 measure is only employed in state-funded schools, and, because of this independent schools are under less pressure to capitulate to the demands of the EBacc, meaning that their curriculum is less likely to change due to its implementation. In an article by the Independent Schools Council, Adrian Meadows, Headmaster at The Peterborough School stated that he is “against making it [the Ebacc] compulsory or even adopting the expectation that the vast majority, i.e. over 90% as recently announced, should achieve it” (2016). His argument for this is that “talented artists or musicians have a right to follow their passion”. Meadows’ view is shared by many educational specialists and provides the basic argument for arts education in schools, however his clear insistence that he will not force students in to taking the Ebacc suite of subjects highlights how independent schools are seemingly free to act within their own means. Meadows’ even states that he “will continue to make decisions in the best interests of the students and not pander to the DfE tables”. Although most schools will aim to makes choices in the best interests of students, his resistance to the Department for Education is a privilege that state-funded schools do not have. This means arts education in independent schools is ‘protected’ or under less threat of withdrawal or change. In turn, this provides students who attend independent schools with a significantly greater education in the arts subjects, reserving this fundamental part of education for children from high-income families.
Since 2010 the number of GCSE entries in creative subjects has fallen by 28%, whilst the total cohort has fallen by just 9% (JCQ, 2017) leaving an overall decline of 19%, a dramatic drop over 7 years. These statistics, shown when comparing the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) 2017 annual results tables with those 7 years prior in 2010, suggests falling a pupil interest or a school curriculum that has been evolving to be in favour of Ebacc subjects, and out of favour of arts subjects. State-funded schools are actively changing their curriculums in support of the Ebacc suite of subjects, limiting educational opportunities within the arts for their students. A Department for Education report in 2013 shows that, since 2010, 47% of schools in 2011/2012 stated that there have been changes to facilitate the EBacc, with 45% of teachers stated they had a course withdrawn in 2011. It is clear that in the immediate years that followed the introduction of the EBacc many schools re-assessed their curriculum, with some withdrawing a course in its entirety. It is likely that the courses withdrawn included non-Ebacc subjects, a large number of which are arts subjects. In the same report by the Department for Education, it was found that there was no significant change from 2011 to 2012 in the uptake of the EBacc combination of subjects by year 9 students, 46% in 2011 and 48% in 2012 (Department for Education, February 2013). Although this is a small growth, it is not large enough to have any significant impact on the education structure as a whole. The statistics provided by the JCQ show the official number of GCSE entries for each year, despite the report from the Department for Education in 2013 that suggests the EBacc’s introduction did not have a dramatic effect on subject uptake in the initial years following its implementation. The percentage of schools who experienced curriculum changes, lies line with the fall of arts GCSE entries and withdrawal of courses. There is a deepening concerning that schools are narrowing their curriculums in response to the Ebacc, in order to achieve a more favourable progress 8 score.
Lasting Impacts of the EBacc
As mentioned previously the introduction of the EBacc is having a direct impact on the curriculum in schools, 45% of teachers stated that in the year following the implementation of the EBacc courses were withdrawn from the school curriculum (Department for Education, 2013). This narrowing course of study could have a detrimental effect on the employment opportunities for students who are strongly affected by these curriculum changes. The impacts on arts education in schools is negative, it is the vocational arts subjects that are being withdrawn from the main school curriculums as achievement of the Ebacc suite of subjects is driven as the key success measure. The Warwick Commission report suggests that “that the educational system is not focussing on the future needs of the Cultural and Creative Industries and the broader needs for innovation and growth in the UK” (2015). With a large generation of students going without substantial arts education, there is an increasing concern that in the near future the creative industry will struggle to continue at its current speed of growth, as mentioned above.
However, it is unlikely that the negative effects of the exclusion of arts education from school curriculums will be limited to solely arts industries. In research carried out by ‘City and Guilds group’ they discovered that 87% of business have difficulty in recruiting people with the correct skills for the work. It is an expectation that recruiting the right employes involves determining their transferable skills; skills which are developed in vocational arts subjects. Kirstie Donnelly, a manager at City and Guilds group argues that “Schools need the flexibility to offer subjects that will actually be needed by employers.” (Donnelly, 2017), suggesting that the options available to young people should be broadened, not closed off. If students are not receiving education in these skills it could have a lasting negative effect on their future employment opportunities within all sectors, not just the arts and creative industries.
The impact of the EBacc is not limited to employment, it could also have an effect on social activities. In narrowing the school curriculum, students are no longer exposed to the wide variety of subjects and knowledge that they were previously. The Warwick Commission Report found that one-third of theatregoers and gallery visitors are the wealthiest, best educated and least ethnically diverse 8% of society (Warwick Commission, 2015). Students are not being exposed to the arts as much as they previously were, instead, they are seemingly reserved for the children of top 1% earners, which could be having an impact on the arts and culture they experience outside of education. The interest in arts must be nurtured from an early age, without this introduction and initial education at schools students, namely those who are more socioeconomically disadvantaged, are not interested in visiting the theatre, or art galleries. This indirectly cements this idea that the arts are for the most elite members of society, and not for those who are economically disadvantaged.
In response to the Warwick Commission report Tessa Ross, the chief executive of the National Theatre from 2014 to 2015, said the report made important points on “the diversity of the work on our stages, of our workforce and our audience, the need to enshrine arts education as an entitlement to all young people, including the most disadvantaged” (Tessa Ross, 2015). She repeatedly highlights the importance of arts education for all young people, it should not be a privilege but a necessity, and this is rooted through expanding arts education within schools. The introduction of the Ebacc is responsible for the 28% fall in students taking arts subjects for GCSE and limiting opportunities for arts education for students in state-funded schools by acting as a catalyst for a narrowing curriculum that is heavily focused on objective STEM subjects.
Was arts education already elitist?
Although it is clear that the introduction of the Ebacc has impacted the accessibility of arts education in state-funded schools, various other factors could be responsible for elitism in arts education, and it can not be solely attributed to the introduction of the Ebacc.
Children who are raised in high-income households are more likely to be exposed to greater and more beneficial opportunities through the education period, 4-18 years old. In turn, this gives them a greater chance at remaining in the high-income bracket as adults and correlates with achieving more through the employment period (Kerris Cooper & Kitty Stewart, 2017). Higher income families have a disposable income to support their children far beyond their basic needs. These children are able to experience arts and culture in greater depths, due to the income bracket they were born into. For these children, participation in further activities becomes an essential part of their upbringing. They are able to participate in extracurricular clubs, experience theatre, and, visit museums; unlike their less socioeconomically advantaged counterparts.
Access to this disposable income has a greater influence at higher education (HE) and further education (FE) institutions. Many of these specialised art, drama, and dance institutions are privately owned and funded, meaning that they are allowed to control their fees without regulation. This also limits access to student finance company for students of the institution, oftentimes access is minimal or non-existent. Many of the most prestigious musical theatre schools in the UK charges fees exceeding those of regular universities. For example; Arts Educational Schools, London Studio Centre, Mountview and Laine Theatre Arts, all charge in excess of £14,000 of annual fees. The latter school, Laine Theatre Arts, had fees of £18,225 for the 2018/2019 academic year, with no access to student finance. Meaning students would be forced to audition for a limited number of Dance and Drama awards (a scheme created and managed by the UK government “to help with fees and living costs at one of 17 private dance and drama schools” (HM Government, 2018)), apply for a limited number of scholarships or fund the course privately. Private funding is only possible for students who can source the finances needed for course fees, in addition to further expenses, such as living costs. These fees highlight the disparity between regular university education and specialist arts training. Whilst those studying at regular universities have access to the student loan system, students at private art educational institutions are required to pay much higher fees, with much less support; barring those who do not have the financial means from benefiting from specialist arts education after school leaving age. This disparity cannot be attributed to the Ebacc, because FE and HE institutions are not affected by its introductions. In this sense, arts education seems to be already reserved for those in the higher income bracket.
Conclusion and recommendations
This report set out to discuss whether the introduction of the Ebacc in 2010 made arts education more elitist. This study adds to the growing body of research that suggests the introduction of the Ebacc has damaged arts education in schools. Other reports and journals support my conclusion that whilst the introduction of the Ebacc is not solely responsible for elitism in arts education, it role as a catalyst has led to the withdrawal of arts subjects from many school curriculums, eventually leading to a bias toward students from a higher-income household.
The current educational climate, both in the UK and worldwide, has created a narrative that science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), in addition to English language and literature, are the most important subjects for a young person to study and achieve at within an educational setting. This, in addition to the desire of state-funded schools to achieve a higher progress 8 and attainment 8 mark, has limited the opportunities for students in state-funded schools to participate in arts-focused activities. Independent schools are significantly less-affected by the Ebacc, meaning students at these independent schools have a greater access to the arts and arts education.
Although the Ebacc made arts education at a GCSE level more elitist it is evidential that HE and FE education in the arts was already constructed to allow ‘elite’ students easier and, potentially, exclusive access to further arts education. Private institutions are allowed to charge higher fees than regular universities, and the government provides students studying at these institutions with less financial support. In addition to this, young people from less advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to experience art and culture outside of a ‘traditional’ educational setting, for example a school, vocational college or university. Furthering the idea that arts education was already somewhat elitist.
Therefore the findings of this report can conclude that, whilst arts education was somewhat elitist previously, the introduction of the Ebacc in 2010 made arts education more elitist.
Greater effort needs to be made to ensure that the arts education, that is being increasingly limited to the ‘elite’ in society, is made available to all. Intervention at an educational level is necessary to create an educational system that provides all students with a fair and substantial education in the art subject areas. There is a general consensus that “Without educational intervention we are in danger of allowing a two-tier system in which the most advantaged in social and economic terms are also the most advantaged in benefiting economically, socially and personally from the full range of cultural and creative experiences” (Warwick Commission Report, 2015).
Ways to ensure that arts education is not reserved for the most economically privileged in society include the introduction of a new and revised English Baccalaureate. As stated in the Warwick Commission Report, Enriching Britain: Culture, Creativity and Growth (2015), “There is a general agreement within the Cultural and Creative Industries and industry more broadly that the Government’s focus on Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) should include the Arts (STEAM)”. This revised English Baccalaureate, would lead to providing greater opportunities for schools and students to experience a good arts education, whilst allowing the Ebacc to fulfil its true intention of “keep[ing] young people’s options open for further study and future careers” (Department for Education, 2010). The government also has a responsibility to regulate private institutions, and financially support students that attend them, in an effort ensure HE and FE offers the same opportunities for all young people, regardless of income. Government have a responsibility, on both a national and local level, to make arts education less elitist outside of the ‘traditional’ educational settings; providing opportunities for less advantaged young people to experience art education in a social setting through organised theatre visits, museum trips or local arts festivals.
2019-1-30-1548875524