To think that the curriculum should cover essential life knowledge?

[Alittlepotofrosie]

I have been reflecting on the fact that so many people dont know how voting works. It's a long time since i was at school so maybe they now do teach this stuff. But AIBU to think that the school curriculum should cover for example, how voting works, how taxes work, how to budget efficiently, employment rights, how the government works/is formed, how the court system works as some examples off the top of my head?

I know its possible to learn about all that stuff yourself and lots of parents probably do teach their children this but surely all children should be taught this kind of thing at school?

Maybe the government can run these life lessons on a Saturday morning so families who have done it as a matter of course can go and do something else!

We did a couple of court visits in sixth form and met our mp as part of general studies. It was better to get this at 17 rather than14 tbh.

I think there is a strong case for an alternative mathematics path that covered household finances.

We teach all that stuff. We are holding a mock election on Thursday. Pupils have spent two weeks in tutor time researching political parties and reading a bullet point version of each manifesto.

There is not enough time in school to teach all of the things that many parents think teachers ought to be teaching. Many of the things mentioned on this thread would need quite a lot of lessons each to actually make it worthwhile covering them. So, unless you want to scrap a bunch of current school subjects (or topics within those subjects), I really don't see how it's possible.
As much as I agree that being taught properly about personal finances and tax in school would in theory be realy helpful, that would practically be a whole subject in itself. I also think that kids would find it unbelievably boring and not take much of it on board tbh.

there is a strong case for an alternative mathematics path that covered household finances.

Step forward Core Maths. A 2 year AS course at Sixth form that covers finance, among other practical applications of maths, suitable for students who get a C or above in GCSE.

Not properly funded by the government, not offered by many schools, will probably die.

I've covered voting in citizenship earlier in the year (I think it was around the time of the referendum) buy my class are y7 so I'm fairly certain that they'll have forgotten it by the time they're old enough to vote they'd forgotten it by the following morning tbh

How well these things are covered in school depends very much on how well informed the teachers are and how interested the pupils are. Even within the same school, with the same lesson plans for citizenship/pshe, some classes will get more out of the lesson than others. I know quite a bit about politics, taxes, etc but I have colleagues who don't know very much about either. There are other topics we cover where they have much more knowledge than me, so our classes get different emphasis in our citizenship lessons.

Completely agree that school curriculum should cover a lot more helpful and essential life skills and information to help people make good choices and live happy, healthy lives.
Considering how much time we spend at school how much really useful information is imparted, although I also think that there's a lot to be said for learning to think and learning how to find out about stuff which a good general education can give you.
But they should be able to do both if just a little time and resources were given to that end.

Also think home/school should be a real partnership.
Very grateful that my children's school seems to appreciate this to a significant degree.

From some on here it sounds like they want school to be reduced to a series of Brownie Badges.

That does remind me that Scouts had been great for my children to learn practical things, from cooking for big groups to map reading.

I have managed to teach many of these things at school - even though I wasn't taught most of them myself either at school or by my parents. I didn't think it was anyone else's responsibility to teach me everything.

Do you not think there's a need to cover just a little more of the practicalities of living during all those years in the classroom noble giraffe?

Some may receive a good, broad education at home and in their communities, but others are more reliant on what is offered in school.

just a little more of the practicalities of living

As has been mentioned, schools do cover a bunch of stuff in PSHE already. But what is the purpose of school? Every extra thing that is added to the curriculum means less time for the academic stuff that teachers are actually trained to deliver.

Its all very well covering it here and there, or in AS level maths which very few people would be able to access. Maybe they could reduce time spent on things like Tudor history (which is not particularly relevant in this day and age, and perhaps this sort of thing is what Google could be used for.)

I'm quite surprised that more people dont agree. It's not about brownie badges. Its about ensuring children don't grow up ignorant of how the country works at a basic level so they can appreciate why elections are important, for instance.

I think parents need to take greater responsibility for teaching life skills and stop expecting schools to do everything. Why is it up to teachers to teach basic manners, potty train, teach nutrition and cooking skills and how to manage money. These things are the jobs of parents surely. I see it as my job to raise independent capable young people, regardless of academic achievement.

It's far more beneficial to learn through practice and experience rather than in the classroom. Get them to help around the house, prep meals, cook for themselves and help with shopping.

With regards to politics and current affairs put the news on have a discussion about what's happening, how voting works etc. What a great opportunity than to learn about politics than to experience the things that are happening right now. You can't learn about life from a book.

I don't see how this could possible be unreasonable.

The issue is how, resources, time and so forth.

The whole blogpost by Tom Bennett is worth reading but he says

"In any closed system, this is vital – if we’re teaching x, we teach less y. It’s easy to imagine, in the manner of a student procrastinating before their finals, or a teacher at the start of the summer break, that time is in infinite supply, and that the hour will never be late. But teachers have approximately 200 days of five hours apiece per year. As it stands, we barely get them through the syllabuses. Every week I hear a different call from a segment of the chattering classes, insisting that some social ill or other be fixed by (of course) shoehorning something into the curriculum. That’s what they aways say: teach it in schools, and the evil evaporates: sexism; body image; bullying; vandalism….

But if we focus on what will expedite practical matters alone, we rob them of their birthright. Worse (and here I’ll make a practical point), you’ve hobbled their further studies. If they’re learning about mortgages and how to sign on the dole, the cruel mathematics of time insists they don’t learn about Under Milk Wood, or Stalin, or Copernicus. If we dispute that a child should learn quadratic equations, then we leave the next generation of mathematicians helpless until university. And it’s no good, no good at all to bleat, "Well, we should teach them both then." We can’t, we just can’t. There aren’t enough hours in the day."

www.tes.com/news/blog/dont-stay-school-inspirational-teacher-bashing

Yes trollmummy but what about the thousands of children out there with parents who do not have the ability to teach their children those things? How do you ensure that those children grow up knowing what they should know about how the world works?

I'm absolutely not teacher bashing. If anything im government bashing.

With respect to that blog, what's more important - learning something about the electoral system so you are able to use your vote wisely and understanding the reasons why you are voting the way you are, or learning about copernicus?

Id say the former.

Loads of schools around the country are running mock elections at the moment. Already being done.

Parents should do this.

But I do think that schools are forced to spend loads of time "teaching to tests" that there is no time. We should have schools which produce well rounded individuals, not exam robots. That includes broader social subjects and sports.

Ok noblegiraffe that's one little aspect of what im talking about.

I think that many parents would not be happy with traditionally left-leaning teachers teaching their DC about the political parties.

What else do you want taught? Because either it's already being taught, or you'd have to pick something from the curriculum to boot to make way for it.

I suppose you have to balance the teaching of "life skills" to everyone - even though some (many?) of those children will be just repeating stuff they already know - against depriving some children of the sort of learning they might need in order to secure their academic future.

As has been stated above - there is a finite number of teaching hours for each child and each teacher.

I wouldn't like to be the one to decide.

What's wrong with not teaching circle theorum in Maths and replacing it with household finances and personal taxation. Would be far more useful to larger numbers of people. I'd like to know what proportion of kids actually need circle theorum in their later lives and why can't it be taught at A level or degree level or part of professional exams for whatever profession needs it instead??

Our much less academic students used to do ASDAN courses

www.asdan.org.uk/courses#course_finder