To think the British educational system is all wrong?

Im a ks2 teacher and in the last few years I've felt that school is basically a factory. The product comes in at 8.40 and is then crammed full of arithmetic, then SPAG then handwriting. That's just before I do the register at 9. It's relentless. The curriculum is not fit for purpose. We expect children to learn things that most adults don't know and have never needed to know.
Unfortunately I don't see it changing any time soon but please know that teachers share these frustrations with you!

Primarily the latter

I agree, I have two kids in primary and it's largely play focused with some reading and numbers. Our kids like to read for pleasure, as everyone should - so this is a positive in my view.
I do wish the secondary curriculum was different and taught other essential life skills like investing, how to get a mortgage, different bank accounts etc, to encourage sound financial decisions. But wouldn't change the approach our primary school take.

It's really not good. It's dumbing down.

And one of the problem is it's impacting capable children without a lot of family support (whether because their family actually aren't supportive or are but don't have the education themselves to support (or the money to buy in support)). I live in a wealthy area where a lot of parents have a very strong focus on education. The amount of tutoring is insane - it's just completely standard. And with enough time/money and family focus you absolutely can push a student from a 5 to an 8/9 at GCSE (or from a B/C to an A/A* at A-level) by teaching to the test. That's great for those kids (and I could never say a parent shouldn't - I will myself if I think needed!) but how does a university then distinguish, and how does a student without the support not get disheartened when they're not getting a string of 8s and 9s.

The worst one I've seen so far is someone looking for a tutor for their child to support with their university course!

Most schools have an incredibly play focused system in the early years, with lots and lots of play.

The school day is only 6 hours long, and there are 13 weeks holiday.

If anything there is significantly more learning that could happen in the early years

They probably don't have time because most university students have to work to support themselves during their studies. This was less of an issue in the past when COL was lower and students were mostly from affluent families who could support them.

I think, tbf, my DD has particularly exam-loving teachers and perhaps it's not so normal to have that many exams, as it's up to each teacher how they assess students so they could even have no exams at all (but that seems unlikely as they're such a useful assessment tool) but quite possibly many teachers use exams less than the ones in her school.
I have wondered how the children cope but according to DD they don't all bother to study so perhaps for them it's less intense, but DD puts the intensity on herself as she wants good grades.

Universities need to cut down on reading demands as the proportion of students entering universities increases and there is more of an expectation of a 2:1 or first when you pay fees. For example I know of a nurse who had a level 3 GCSE in English and is now on track for a first class degree. The use of English isn't necessarily penalised in marking course work.

HE has problems because we now really can't define HE or are more and more expecting everyone to have some kind of degree. If everyone has a 2:1 or first what benefit does it give anyone?

I actually think the switch to phonics and the way we do maths now is much better than when I was at school. I don’t even remember doing a reading program. I could read fluently before school but I’m not sure anyone checked my comprehension. There was also very little on grammar, syntax, I started secondary not sure how to put things into paragraphs. I’m still not sure! These things are not a problems unless you don’t know them, then they rapidly become a problem when you actually have to write stuff down.

Yep you are right. We end up with disillusioned children at secondary school because they are so fed up of the exam factory conditions and rote learning. We are maintaining a Victorian model in the 21st Century.

I agree with you mostly, however teaching children to read and write young opens up a whole world for them to explore and interact with and learn from whilst they play.

Imo the issue is the full time at school when most of it is wasted time due to large groups/inefficienc/general time wasting. If you do home ed you can cover the curriculum in a fraction of the time as you are 1 on 1 with the child.
Schools are mainly there as state childcare imo. Not planned for the benefit of the child.

DD moved schools summer term of Yr5. She was no where near getting her "license".

She was given a pen in her new school, because they presumed she had achieved that fictional level... and her handwriting improved massively as she didn't need to press as hard.

And getting the pressure off actually meant she discovered the other issue... shes ambidextrous and needs to do different types of writing with different hands.

I read an article in the Atlantic about how universities are increasingly having to cut down on course reading because students simply can’t cope. Reading skills are so poor that what would have been a reasonable workload 20 years ago just can’t be done with students because they don’t have the reading ability or attention span. I’m not sure this is a good thing.

And which working parent do you think will be happy to throw up their career?

There seems to be an obsession with calculating angles. I'm not saying don't introduce the subject, its the the amount of time dedicated to it that frustrated me as a child and again as a parent.

And for anyone thinking the English system is overly restrictive and one size fits all, take a look at the French curriculum :)

One thing that makes me incredulous possibly more than anything else is
Pen Licences.
WTAF.

I actually think that a lot of the people talking about how other systems are 'better' don't have a detailed understanding of those systems. There's positives and negatives to all curriculums. Yes the 'British' curriculum is designed to produce standardized worker bees, but to be honest that's the same pretty much everywhere in the world.

I have teens and my concern with the English curriculum isn't actually the early years stage. It's later when the focus starts to be overwhelmingly on exam performance and it seems to be to a massive detriment to almost everything else. This definitely happens everywhere in the world to some extent but I do feel the English system is getting worse in this respect. DS has just finished term 1 of year 10 (so about 20% of the way through his GCSE courses if you assume term 3 of year 11 is all revision). He is already super focused on how to answer exam questions and there doesn't seem to be any focus at all on actual learning. It was definitely not this extreme when I was at school - yes there was a focus on exams but this early on (and to some extent never) I was not focused on working out how to answer a 9 pointer v a 7 pointer! DS is doing very well, but I want him to be learning how to learn not how to answer exam questions. But of course from the school's perspective they want the students to get as high grades as possible. From what I'm seeing this continues at a-level - repetitive focus on how to do exams can lead students to get high grades, but this doesn't mean they actually know the subject. I worry that university then becomes a massive shock.

So I'd say that the system isn't even working for the academically able students.

I have one in primary, reception is very much play based, they do a bit of handwriting, reading, numbers, the singapore method is in fashion now to develop “number” sense which I approve of because it’s appears to use a lot of physical manipulation to help children visualise numbers. Her school deliver the curriculum in a very creative way and most of it is literally teaching through play and they are outside a lot. It’s bloody lovely. They really aren’t being treated like little bots.

Tbh Dd’s teacher thinks she’ll be happier in yr1 as it’s more academic. Not all kids are the same and I actually think it harms children to not educate them. Numeracy and literacy are required to access pretty much everything. I very much appreciate DD’s school making an effort to make sure the kids like them but also providing the stretch she needs because that does actually make her happy.

It’s clear from the posters here that there isn’t actually much difference as to when formal learning actually starts between countries and Finland sounds like they ramp up quickly.

What should education actually look like? I’m wary of anyone suggesting kids don’t need Shakespeare etc it’s a skill to learn how to read that and for many children school is the only place where they will be able to access things they don’t have in their home environment. It’s all very well saying “kids don’t need that” if you already have knowledge of it, why object to them having it. My background (immigrant family) meant that I wouldn’t have come across a lot of texts that it turned out I actually enjoyed as a teen and young person, Chaucer, Ibsen and Ford for example.

There isn't a British educational system - do you mean the English system?

I agree with some of the points you raised but, having gone through school in 4 countries, I'd say the British system was the best. It has its flaws but the other three were appalling (rote learning, lack of creativity, out of touch curricula, lecture style classes, etc).

This, this and this again. Please could you stand for Parliament next time round? Resetting the mortgage rules would solve so many more of society’s woes than just the dire state of our education system.

I agree children would be better going to school about age 6/7 or at least let children have reception and year 1 play based.

Both my children didn’t learn to read and write till yr 1/2 the younger one never even went to nursery and started school in yr 1. Both are avid readers, have done well academically the younger got 3* at A level in three stem subjects. All through their school lives teachers have commented on how articulate and creative they are. Both are well rounded and very interested and informed about the world around them.
I genuinely don’t think children from homes where parents have the time and skills /knowledge/confidence to educate their children in other life skills including physical activities or attend nurseries where there is an emphasis on providing a broad stimulating age appropriate education do they need to learn to “foundational skills” like maths and reading at 4 years old.

They have 2 years of KG and this focuses on learning the school rhythms, social learning, independence (they walk to school alone after lessons from the police on how to behave in the street), the dental hygienist comes every second month to teach them to properly brush their teeth, they learn colours, days of the week, months of the year, the seasons etc

Shouldn’t parents be teaching them how to brush their teeth? I know that it is now happening in some schools in the UK but that is a recent major parenting fail.

And I am totally ok with my 6yo not walking home by themselves- that’s a life skill that can easily wait until the upper end of juniors. I don’t think we have a nation of teens or adults who can’t cross the road or use public transport. By y7 most are travelling independently to and from secondary schools, some several miles away.

I agree re: social learning and much of that can only be learnt in a group setting that doesn’t comprise just your sibling(s).