I don’t think many of us living now ever appreciate the gravity of decisions we had to make back “then”. This is certainly the case with school subject choices. I, and many others I discuss this with, can trace back what we do today to ticking those columns that selected our Standard Grade and Higher subjects, many years ago.

My desire to take as few science subjects as possible, coupled with my yearning to drop maths at the earliest opportunity, meant that I spent most of my time in the social sciences corridor. Fast forward to today, and I am trying to convince my folks that “sociologist” is, in fact, a real job. While this direct link is not as strong for everyone, we all know now, even if we did not then, that the process of deciding our school subjects (the “choices” process) is vitally important to our future.

The process has been an accepted part of progressing through school since at least the introduction of comprehensive education. Stripped back, however, it seems strange that, at such an early age, we ask people to begin formally selecting the life path they wish to go down.

Of course, at the core of an accessible and equitable education system should be the ability of the young people within it to have the opportunity to pursue a post-school pathway that matches their skills and interests. Whether we fully appreciate the influences upon these important decisions and have a system where choice is genuinely being offered is, however, subject to debate.

Whose choice is it?

The issue has become wholly relevant in Scottish education once more, as the Education and Skills Committee at Holyrood launches an inquiry into the issue of the narrowing of the curriculum under Curriculum for Excellence (CfE).

There is a clear sense within existing social science research that choices are impacted by social influences upon the young person, social strata such as class and gender, internal influences, and the institutional context in which these learning decisions are made.

In 1979, wide-ranging research into subject choices within the Scottish education system was published. The research was conducted at a time of reform and change in Scottish education and wider society. What is particularly striking about these findings is the resemblance they bear to findings evident in more contemporary literature on school-subject choices.

One key theme back then, which remains consistently evident in more recent research, is this: the social influences of teachers, parents and peers.

It comes as no real surprise that teachers play a crucial role in influencing subject choices. After all, they are trusted by pupils and often best placed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of young people.

In investigating subject choices at the junior (GCSE) and senior (A level) phases in England, a comprehensive report by the National Foundation for Educational Research (2006) highlighted the crucial role played by teachers, both overtly and covertly, in this process. This report found that it was common for pupils to bypass formal guidance procedures and seek to discuss their future options with teachers whom they liked and trusted. While teachers generally did their best to help and advise, the fact that they were not guidance nor career experts could sometimes create issues with subject bias. Young people also found it difficult to separate the personality of the teacher from the substance and practical use of the subject.

Various studies have also noted the practice of teachers “selling” their subjects to pupils they like and deem bright. There is clear evidence that teachers make recommendations to pupils based upon their own perceptions of the student’s ability and how it matches the demands of the subject. These findings needn’t necessarily be seen as negative, though it is important to appreciate these influences and how they can operate if we are to create a process whereby young people can make objective decisions.

There is also evidence that teacher influence can improve the uptake of subjects among underrepresented groups. A 2001 study focused on economics and the life sciences by John Ashworth and J Lynne Evans found that female students were more likely to take the subjects when other women were doing so and when there was a female teacher. That’s important to remember at a time when we desperately need to encourage and support more young women to study science, technology, engineering and maths (Stem) subjects in Scotland.

Clearly, young people do not leave their lives at the door of the classroom, and their current and past personal experiences have significant impacts upon their motivations, interests and ambitions - particularly their families.

There are clear similarities in how teachers and parents attempt to influence young people. Research (Turner, 2003) has noted an apprehension on the part of parents regarding the potential of their children to fail. Parents put an expectation regarding choices onto their children based on perceptions of academic ability. Following a theme probably recognisable to many families, parents urge their children to take subjects they themselves enjoyed and warn them off taking subjects they did not.

Concerned about “peer influence” becoming a factor in the choices process, schools and parents today repeatedly warn young people against taking subjects just because their friends are. Interestingly, it seems that this worry is something of a misconception: while pupils often discuss their options with each other, little evidence exists that peers play a major role in influencing eventual choices - perhaps because of these warnings.

It is important to note that young people are aware of social influences - and are more than capable of navigating them. A recent report by English qualifications body Ofqual entitled Perceptions of subject difficulty and subject choices: are the two linked, and if so, how? concluded that enjoyment of a subject, its usefulness and its perceived difficulty were, in fact, the three main drivers of subject choice.

The fun factor

This echoes the older findings from Scotland (Ryrie, Furst and Lauder, 1979), that more than 33 per cent of pupils took a subject because they liked it, 26 per cent because it was “useful” to their future and 20 per cent based on a recommendation or because they saw no other good option.

Recent research from Australia looking at the factors leading students to choose or reject science highlighted that enjoyment was the crucial factor in self-selecting a Stem subject. A particularly interesting point in this research was the importance of teaching style and engagement to enjoyment: the findings mirror other studies where pupils’ reported enjoyment of teaching methods increased the chances that they would take history.

However, some studies indicate that while enjoyment of a subject is key to decision-making at the junior level, the importance of this decreases during the senior phase. When considering choices for this phase, pupils placed an importance on the usefulness of a subject to their future. Although very few pupils had spoken to potential employers about their choices, a large proportion were able to relate their choices directly to their future aspirations, even if these links were misguided - highlighting the need for objective and personalised guidance.

Most research has found that pupils are generally well informed about choices and the potential impact of them upon their future. It is often apparent that most pupils have logically thought through their choices. In all, if pupils feel they need a subject to achieve their aims, they will select it.

It is inevitable that school and government policy will impact greatly upon the structure of the curriculum. The extent of the influence this has upon school subject choice is not, however, often fully appreciated by young people at the time: the external social influences and the internal motivations and perceptions of young people are determined by what the institutional context makes possible. For example, the importance schools attach to subjects, the timetable space they are given or the way in which they are promoted is internalised by young people, who then deem subjects important or not.

The biggest influence that exists at a policy level, of course, is the actual provision of subjects, and this is the focus of the upcoming Scottish Parliament inquiry.

Research is emerging regarding the extent to which the curriculum in Scotland is narrowing - particularly in the “junior” (Nationals) phase of exams. Under the old Standard Grade system, it was common to sit eight subjects at this stage. Increasingly, under the new Nationals qualifications, a young person will sit six, and in some cases five subjects.

Narrowing options

Scottish education is still adapting to major reform. CfE was supposed to leave more space in the curriculum for activities that “broaden the life experiences” of young people, such as music and art. In reality, however, at the stage at which formal exams typically begin - fourth year - there is an apparent narrowing of curriculum options. Professor Jim Scott of the University of Dundee, a former secondary headteacher, has been at the forefront of researching this phenomenon and has discovered that schools are seeing significant reductions in enrolment in certain subjects. He estimates that there have been 150,000 fewer S4 passes since CfE came into being, and contends that this is an unintended consequence of CfE.

Part of the problem is that, before the introduction of Nationals in 2013, Standard Grades were 160-hour courses over two years, while the new qualifications are now generally run over one year with the same time commitments, which can crowd out the curriculum (for a comprehensive background to these issues, see the 2017 research by the University of Stirling’s Mark Priestley and Marina Shapira).

As a result, five distinct models of curricular design have emerged, with schools offering between five and eight subjects in S4. University of Stirling research shows that the average number of National 5 entries per student dropped from 5.8 to 3.7 between 2013 and 2016. The worry, then, is not necessarily about rates of attainment, but rather about the significantly reduced choice and future options of young people.

This severely limits the potential pathways for young people. Take someone who wants to be a doctor: this would normally require high attainment in five subjects, including three sciences. Not only does such a timetable not offer a broad education, it is also unlikely to be possible given restraints at school level - such as the need to select subjects in mandated columns and the resources available. It also means that a young person would have to commit to one “discipline” of study at the age of 14, with little opportunity to change their choices later.

There has also been a reduction of uptake in modern languages, among other subjects, as well as concerns that the narrowing of the curriculum is happening more quickly in more deprived areas. And what is the impact on vocational education, as we try to embed the preparation of young people for the world of work into the culture of our education system?

These are emerging issues that require careful consideration and an evidence-led response; the parliamentary inquiry is timely and necessary. I hope that it considers all the issues raised here and paves the way for a better subject-choices process - one which puts young people in control of these hugely important decisions.

Barry Black is a PhD researcher at the University of Glasgow. His research, Chances or Choices? Influences on Young People’s Learning Decisions, aims to investigate the social and structural factors that influence pupils’ school subject choices in Greater Glasgow

This article originally appeared in the 1 March 2019 issue under the headline “The illusion of choice”