AIBU to say they should NOT teach it in schools

[Calvinlookingforhobbs]

‘It’ being any problem that appears in our society... budgeting for adults, healthy eating, parenting skills, contraception, gardening, etc surely education and parenting are different?

Bit baffled by the "but where is it going to fit?" people. Schools have always had non-academic subjects as part of the curriculum, be they be called games, or pe, or physical jerks, or home economics, or food tech, or cookery, or needlework, or design and technology, or textiles, or woodwork, or pshe, or pse, or tutorial time. They're a valuable part of the school day, as they give kids a break from maths and English and let them spend an hour running around playing hockey or making cakes, and come back to science refreshed and engaged again.
We learnt all sorts of bollocks in these lessons - about twenty variations of "drugs are bad, mkkay?", lessons where we had to product design the perfect fruit salad, how to use CDT equipment we were never going have room for in our house, how to wire a plug decades after electrical devices started coming with ready-wired plugs as standard etc etc.
Why on earth WOULDN'T you want to sit down and work out the most useful and sensible things to teach in those sessions? You don't need to write an entire separate curriculum for thick kids. Just use home economics and tutorial time.

I absolutely agree with CuboidalSlipshoddy's post at Tue 27-Feb-18 18:15:19. If you remove the 'hard' stuff from the school curriculum you will reduce social mobility.

Even more importantly, schools should never, never be the instruments of state social policy, particularly in the UK, where teachers have so little professional independence. Schools should broadly reflect societal values (and should also reflect their diversity). A lot of responses on this thread confuse reflecting societal values with promoting state policy, even they they are in fact completely different things. mrssmith1415's post is a good example why. If the state fucks up, it will be an all-encompassing fuck-up on a vast scale, affecting the whole of the society in any given country.

In the past, there was an automatic protection against this: society left most things to families, who could be reasonably relied upon to raise children according to the societies they lived in, and exercise their own judgment rather than following some official diktat or memorandum. So, the state should be very slow indeed to replace parental responsiblity by treating schools as a sort of giant social worker, and doing so on the basis that a minority of parents aren't doing a good job is an insult and a disempowerment of the vast majority of parents who are. I really do question how much beneficial effect teaching budgeting has on a child who grow up in an impecunious family. Similarly, low abortion rates and similar things in the Netherlands tend to be explained (particularly by organs like the Guardian by sex ed in schools there, whereas the reality is that the entire culture is just different and is reinforced in various ways.

The fact that such an opinion seems to have become suspect over the last decade or so indicates that governments are overreaching themselves in this respect. A one-size fits all approach to societal issues will result in unconscious, ingrained intolerance of any alternative view.

Let the schools stick to their job, and the parents to theirs.

Judging by the current obesity crisis amongst Millennials

I've not seen an obese student in years (upper end of the Russell Group).

If you think obesity is related to cohort, and not to class and income, you're living in a dream world.

School is the largest platform we will ever have to reach so many children at once.

So why waste it on reaching the 10% of students whose parents can't teach this stuff, wasting the time of the 90% whose parents can, when you could instead be teaching the stuff that 90% of the parents can't teach?

YANBU
EVERY SINGLE TIME some "awareness raising" fucking campaign starts up so dolt pops up and says "well this really has to start in the schools"

No it doesn't - and as amply debated already, even if it did - there ain't enough time.

EVERY SINGLE TIME some "awareness raising" fucking campaign starts up so dolt pops up and says "well this really has to start in the state schools".

Fixed that for you. See also "Citizenship", "PSHE", "British Values", "Life Skills", "Money Lessons"...all things that state schools are forced to spend time teaching, all things that Eton isn't. Now, about social mobility and access to the professions...

I have had children over for playmates who don't know that chips are made from potato! YABU

I have had children over for playmates who don't know that chips are made from potato! YABU

Right. But do you respond to that by embarking on a "things your parents and other early life experiences should teach you" programme for everyone? Or just for those that need it?

There's obviously a spectrum of "what can a family teach their children?" outcomes, ranging from wildly dysfunctional families where the children are essentially left to fend for themselves through to families where, whether they decide actually to do it or not, they could in principle homeschool to 16 or 18 without too much problem. Where do you position the centre of gravity of the school programmes? What does your decision do for (a) social mobility (b) inclusive education (c) stopping the middle classes running to the hills?

There's a good social and education policy PhD in an examination of the effects, both direct and indirect, of well-intentioned initiatives to close the gaps in what parents should, but some parents don't, deliver.

Teach more about chips and potatoes or, less facetiously, healthy eating, budgeting, first aid and contraception? Good for the children whose parents are unable or unwilling to support them at all, who might have better outcomes than they might otherwise. Less good for children whose parents can provide that instruction, but can't tutor or support GCSE maths, because it is directly impinging on those children's ability to get higher-paid jobs while not actually providing them any benefit. Irrelevant for children at Eton, which isn't going to take part anyway.

My gut feel is that well-intentioned "schools can deliver this stuff most parents do" initiatives is that they benefit the most disadvantaged, but not enough to really address issues of cultural capital, but disadvantage the broad majority of pupils whose parents can delivery that content, relative to the most advantaged whose schools don't waste time and resource on it. But research would be good.

CuboidalSlipshoddy my point exactly! This post was to question the reasoning behind the everchanging curriculum. I just think we are moving so far away from philosophical arguments of what we teach things to reactionary responses that are neither uniform or particularly organised.

"CuboidalSlipshoddy Wed 28-Feb-18 11:34:28

EVERY SINGLE TIME some "awareness raising" fucking campaign starts up so dolt pops up and says "well this really has to start in the state schools".

Fixed that for you. See also "Citizenship", "PSHE", "British Values", "Life Skills", "Money Lessons"...all things that state schools are forced to spend time teaching, all things that Eton isn't. Now, about social mobility and access to the professions..."

Actually my son's prep school covers gardening & cookery, did a whole day workshop with one of the high street banks, did another project on running a business etc. (One his classmates then went to Eton).
Private schools actually have a lot more flexibility on what they can teach and how they organise themselves. This is part of the unlevel playing field - the social skills, cultural capital etc.

So why waste it on reaching the 10% of students whose parents can't teach this stuff, wasting the time of the 90% whose parents can, when you could instead be teaching the stuff that 90% of the parents can't teach?

By the same argument, why waste time teaching 100% of the kids about simultaneous equations, solving quadratic equations, Shakespeare, the kinetic energy equation, chemical formula for carbon, etc., when only 10%, at best, will ever use it in their future lives after school?

Because otherwise we won't end up with any talented, high achievers in our society, except for those who go to private schools.

I'd be very surprised if only 10% of school children went on to use any of the things listed above.

By the same argument, why waste time teaching 100% of the kids about simultaneous equations

Because as society, being able to do decent mathematics and/or write well critically are rather more highly prized, and therefore paid, than being able to boil an egg. So if you make state education focus on boiling eggs, and not on things which contribute to more highly rewarded jobs, you're going to kill social mobility stone dead. Aspirational parents will respond in various ways, so children whose parents can't or won't respond will be condemned to low-paid jobs, with no obvious route to escape it.

Having educated parents results in a glass floor. Let's not reinforce it even further.

Isn't this argument missing one FUNDAMENTAL element here?

The child?

Children reject their parents as teachers (in the main) once they get to 8/10 years old.

It is infinitely more difficult to teach your own children than it is to teach others.

I am an expert in my field. My children reject my authority on this subject because I am their parent first.

My eldest son REFUSES to allow me to teach him basic cooking/budgeting/life skills and will argue with me until the sky turns green that I am wrong/don't know/haven't googled correctly etc.

It's the same reason that in the main, as a general rule, people learn to drive (for example) better with a qualified stranger than an expert parent. School offers a level playing field.

That's not been my experience ginger.

Evidently lots of parents are incapable of teaching their children those basic things, however.

@IWannaSeeHowItEnds and that's great for you. My experience is different, in spite of my best efforts. What are your secrets?

@SuperBeagle in order to learn, it requires a willing pupil!

Maybe I've just been fortunate but my kids were inclined to listen to people who could advise them. At least about academic work or how to cook chicken so that you don't die! I'm hopeful they listened to the contraceptive advice lecture. Time will tell.
They don't listen when I tell them to stop bickering though!

Nope. My kids definitely don't fall into that camp! Takes all sorts I guess

My son basically argues and ignores whatever we tell him (he's been the same since being a toddler). However, he hangs on everyone else's words, whether they're friends, relatives, teachers, and does exactly what they tell him to do. There's no way I'll be doing any driving teaching with him, in just the same way we failed miserably to teach him swimming, golf, etc yet he excelled when in proper lessons. Some kids are just stubborn and can't be reasoned with.

I think parents should take more responsibility for their children. I was walking behind some parents going into school. One of their children ran across the road without looking -a Year 3 child. The parent told their child off and then asked the other parent whether the school had taught them about road safety yet and it should be happening soon. So the school should be doing this when you are with them most of the time when crossing roads? Yes the school should help more where parents are unable to do so but how much is parents being unable or just not taking responsibility.

Schools already do a lot of this, internet safety week, my Y6 child has a day with the police and other emergency services coming up looking at first aid and what to do if there is an accident. How much should they do? Can other organisations do more? Our local children’s centre runs courses that cover cooking etc. Parent’s can use these to educate themselves and then pass it on.
For everyone suggesting it’s only half an hour on this or that. Do you really think that will work? If it’s an important subject like finance it needs reinforcing and building on to stick.

Our school is struggling to get Science, Geography and History lessons in due to the new requirements for maths and english. Its those that will lose out, and that really upsets me as its as important.

They need to be taught to children, healthy eating should be taught in with cooking so that should be there anyway and actually a lot of schools got rid of it years ago and as those now adults become parents youve got a missed generation.
Gardening should be part of science and nature lessons so that should be there
Contraception, of course that should be taught in schools. It should fall into science lessons with the emotional side into PSHE

Yes parents should be doing extra with children, its not solely the responsibility of the school, but most of it is all part and parcel of what lessons should be in schools anyway.

My parents don't believe in contraception, are fucking hopeless at budgeting, have no interest in gardening, have an appalling diet and frankly their parenting skills leave a lot to be desired. Had it not been for school and Guiding I wouldn't have a clue how to look after myself.

Yes my parents should have taught me these things but no one even bothered to teach me to brush my teeth til Brownie pack holiday, I learned about periods from a TA, budgeting and healthy eating from my amazing food tech teacher, contraception from DH Not all parents have these basic skills, others are just too lazy

@gingergenius I agree with you about some children just learning better from anyone that isn't Mum/Dad. I'm a TA, I am very good at what I do, I still can't seem to help my DD with her homework!

I teach secondary maths, over the years I have taught budgetting, how banks work, interest rates (compound interest and simple are part of the GCSE Syllabus. We do problem solving lessons about planning bedroom decorations, or shopping budgets, or ordering a takeaway within a budget etc.

I have done figuring out how much of a product is needed for a garden - ie grass seed for a certain area. So needing to calculate complex areas first.

We do exchange rates, we do depreciation on cars, we do caluclating sales prices, wage increases all as part of percentages.

Yes we do stuff that a lot of people will say is not necessary, but you can say that about any subject - especially one you don't like which sadly a lot of the population don't like maths - standard response when I say I am a maths teacher.

I have also taught PSHE lessons, what someone said above the students don't take it seriously - Our lessons are well designed but most treat it as a lesson off. Some know it all already, the others just don't care.

I also volunteer as a Guide leader and basic skills which I think should be taught by parents are slowly vanishing, I have done it for over 20 years and have seen a huge decline. Young people who can't thread a needle, sew on a simple button, wash up, clear up, simple cooking tasks - like peeling veg, using a knife safely, reading instructions on a pack.

There is a limit to how much a school can fit into the school day and how effective it would be.

I do e-safety with a tutor group in year 11 - the 'I know it all and won't listen to you old person who doesn't get us' attitude I get makes it hard work!