Ministers should consider making pupils study the arts up to the age of 16 amid concerns that cultural education in England is still "patchy", a government-commissioned report has said.
It warns that there is concern about how much the coalition government values cultural education in schools, adding that this has been partly caused by the introduction of the English Baccalaureate (EBacc).
To achieve the EBacc pupils must gain at least a C in English, maths, science, a foreign language and history or geography. However, it does not include other arts subjects such as dance, drama, design or music.
In his review of cultural education, Darren Henley suggests including a "sixth group" within the EBacc to cover these subjects.
Hm. What do you think about this? My view is that some people just do not flourish at arts- type subjects, or not as they are currently taught, they haven't got that kind of brain. I think 14 is a sensible kind of time to be giving teenagers some control over what they study from there on in and to start to specialise a little (so language heavy, or humanities heavy, or whatever...) Insisting on an art will guarantee failure for some children IMO.
But the eBacc. insists on a humanity doesn't it? And a language. So isn't it just fair and right to put an art up there on a level par?
On the other hand again, if we start prescribing too many must have subjects, one loses the choice element, after all kids can only do so many GCSE's!