CUTS in the number of pupils sitting secondary school subjects are hitting those from disadvantaged backgrounds the hardest, new research shows.
Over the past few years fewer pupils are sitting National 5 qualifications in some sciences and modern languages.
The issue follows the introduction of Curriculum for Excellence reforms which allow schools to delay formal exams for a year.
However, one consequence is pupils have less time once they get to S4 to sit as many subjects as they would have done in the past.
Dr Marina Shapira, from the faculty of social sciences at Stirling University, said the trend was more likely to impact on pupils from schools in disadvantaged areas.
She said: “Young people who attended schools in the least deprived areas were three times more likely to choose sciences for their National 5 qualifications than those attending schools in the most deprived areas.
“An increase in the proportion of entries in vocational subjects was largest for schools in areas with high level of deprivation.
“Although schools in every deprivation decile saw a considerable reduction in the proportion of entries in modern languages, the rate of the reduction was larger for schools in areas with higher level of deprivation.”
Ms Shapira said the trend was likely to impact on future prospects for disadvantaged pupils and the potential for social mobility.
She said: “As our finding indicate, the phenomenon of the curriculum narrowing and the reduction in subject choices might disproportionally affect students from disadvantaged socio-economic background.
“Existing research evidence shows that in Scottish education system subject choices made by young people in S4 are strongly related to subject choices made later, in S5 and S6, and to career opportunities of young people and their ability to make a transition to higher education.
“Therefore, the narrowing of the curriculum and the reduction of choice might have an adverse effect on social-economic mobility opportunities for young people from disadvantaged socio-economic background.”
The issue will be discussed by the Holyrood’s education committee.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here