to think there is intrinsic value in a broad education?

[DorothyL]

Often the advice given on here is "don't bother with too many gcse's, good grades are important not the subjects itself"

But the consequence of that are teenagers who give up subjects like history or languages at 13 and who therefore have a very limited world view and outlook on life. One example I've come across - 18 year olds who didn't know how and why WW2 started.

In Germany students have to study a broad curriculum right up to A level age, why do we narrow teenagers' education to this extent in the UK?

I agree you need facts to help put things in context - but I still don't think that means you reduce history to a series of dates that in this day and age are easy to look up.

There need to be taught the whole context - processes at work that caused things to happen - and if that is lacking then that is a series problem.

I'm surprised but haven't reached secondary aged yet - (and may tear my hair out at that point )- my DC primary education seems superior to mine and DH and the teachers more dedicated and professional than ours.

serious problem - not series

YADNBU. For far too long it has been assumed in this country that if you have an impressive list of qualifications then you must be well educated.

This is far from being true in too many cases.

You'd be best off teaching your children two things: critical thinking skills and a love of reading. Best education you could get, and you can do it at home.
Far too many people think its all about what you learn at school, that its up to teachers to fill your children with knowledge. Sure, they should help a lot with that. But what children really need to be taught is how to educate themselves, from an early age and for the rest of their lives.

lost, I think we might have done the same history curriculum! Source evaluation was an important skill at university and I was glad. I had learnt it. I did feel the lack of any historical narrative, though. It made studying Eng Lit rather harder than it could have been,

It makes studying history much harder than it should be too.

There's no need for it to be either or in the history curriculum. It's still possible to do source work and analysis in history and teach in a way that makes the chronology clear and links different aspects/periods of history together.

Bobo is right. There is some evidence that the biggest factors that influence comprehension skills are vocabulary and general/cultural/background knowledge. And it is a lot easier if you can draw on it quickly rather than having to look up the salient points on google.