School pupils steered away from creative subjects
Research suggests topics like drama, music and art are being framed as 'financially risky'
School pupils are being steered away from creative subjects during their education, research suggests.
An academic suggested that snobbery still surrounds certain qualifications.
A “dominant theme” among participants who were surveyed for the study was of “institutional pressure to prioritise ‘academic’ or ‘practical’ subjects over creative ones” in pre-16 education.
The report by Cambridge University’s Faculty of Education argues that this “narrowing pathway” contributes to creating “substantial inequalities in who ultimately accesses creative careers”.
Its authors wrote: “Participants repeatedly described being actively discouraged from taking multiple art subjects or being steered toward traditional academic subjects like geography and history, with the explicit rationale that creative subjects would limit future A-Level choices and career prospects.”
They said that the “framing of creative subjects as risky or illegitimate choices appeared embedded in some institutional cultures”.
Subjects considered low-status or financially “risky”
Schools, families and social pressures are channelling young people – especially girls and poorer students – away from studying creative subjects because they are considered low-status or financially “risky”, according to the report.
The study’s authors argue that the under-representation of women and people from lower-income backgrounds in the creative industries reflects a “narrowing pathway” that begins at school.
The study used the educational records of 1.7 million students in England and longitudinal data about 7,200 young people’s progress into work.
Researchers also conducted interviews and surveys with people studying and working in creative fields.
According to the report, almost half of 14-year-olds expressed a preference for a creative subject but by their early 30s only around one in 25 was working in the creative sector.
In between, the study found that participation drops at every stage: at GCSE, post-16 and in higher education.
The fall-off is especially steep among poorer students and girls, with girls from lower-income backgrounds facing a “double disadvantage”.
'Snobbery' still surrounds certain qualifications
Professor Sonia Ilie, from Cambridge’s Faculty of Education, said: “If you have a university degree in a creative subject, you are much more likely to end up in a creative career.
“Young people from low-income families, however, and especially girls, are less likely to reach the point where studying for a creative degree is even an option.
“That reflects wider societal structures, inequalities, cultural messaging and pressure on schools to deliver academic results.
“We need a more thoughtful conversation about the value of creative subjects – and frankly about the snobbery that still surrounds certain qualifications.”
The report recommends a focus on “actively promoting the value of creative subjects for all, while recognising the complexities of progression into, and experience of, creative employment”.
Prof Ilie said: “If things stay as they are, the patterns that develop throughout students’ educational careers are more likely to perpetuate inequalities in the creative industries, rather than disrupt them.”
Dr Emily Tanner, education programme head at charity the Nuffield Foundation, which funded the research, 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.”
The full report will be available on the website of Cambridge’s Faculty of Education.