If there are no arts subjects in Ebacc, will state schools be able to afford teachers in music, art, drama, dance? Won't this kill off extra-curricular activities too?
If there's no teaching in these subjects at GCSE, will students be less likely to choose them at A level?
Will students choose art or music at A level anyway (not to mention economics, politics and government, philosophy, RS, psychology, sports studies, theatre studies, art history....)if these are not deemed "facilitating subjects" by the Russell Group?
Will private schools with an eye on league tables also sideline the arts (even though they would be able to afford them) if league tables are going to be based on AAB grades in "facilitating subjects"?
Westminster School sends more children to Oxbridge - approx 50% - (let alone Russell Group universities) than any other school, yet apparently only 38% of their Y13 took "facilitating subjects". Surely more sensible to grade schools according to percentage going to Russell Group universities?
For those of you interested in Tiffin Boys, 44% got AAB in "facilitating subjects" though 85% went to Russell Group universities. But many parents will tell you that one of the best things about the school is its commitment to extra-curricular activies and the outstanding level of its arts education, especially music, with several boys going onto Oxbridge as choral scholars year after year. Art, dance and drama also thrive at Tiffin. How will this wonderful extra curricular life of the school manage to survive Gove's changes if arts subjects are squeezed out of the curriculum so there's no money for arts teachers?
And what about Richmond secondary schools that only go up to 16. How will the new Ebacc affect them with regard to arts and sport both in the curriculum and outside?
Any teachers out there with views?