To think school is just crap

[moanymoaner]

I mean why in 2019 are we still teaching children the same generic subjects , making them choose what they want for a future at 14 when they care about nothing and making them sit exams at 15/16 that they will have to rely on for jobs for the rest of their lives!!

As time goes on the more appealing home Ed is becoming , if nothing else than my children being victims of other people's horrors!

I'm genuinely interested in people's thoughts around it . Also I'm not by any means dissing teachers , it's government policy not teachers .

Well what do you want exactly? A broad curriculum that encompasses taxation and growing potatoes, or a narrow one? Do you think bright university-bound kids shouldn't bother to learn algebra cos you never used it? If not what age do you think we should decide that kids can drop algebra and all those other topics that you've never needed? Write them off as non-academic age 11? Age 15?

Thing is, what's "pointless" for one kid, is the opposite from another. A previous poster described French as "pointless". For me, French was my passion.

I loved languages, did every French exchange, did a French degree and lived in Paris after university. So not pointless.

Fucking chemistry, on the other hand...

I take back the science , it came out wrong!!!! I meant the way it's taught . This whole post is about the content of the subjects not that we don't need them at all (some I don't think we do but certainly the core ones)

@titchy I'd like one that has a more realistic approach. However I am aware again we can't blanket it , each child is different . I just feel some children are totally failed which i don't think is right in 2019.

Maybe we should split school into 2 levels. The normal reasonably intelligent kids and then the ones that need to learn life skills instead.

But it is realistic for many many kids to learn algebra, Pythagoras, how the heart works, how an oxbow lake forms. How do you decide which child should learn the above, and more importantly when? Otherwise you're limiting a large number of kids' futures to plumbing and hairdressing at a very early age.

there is something up with our education. There seems to be about 50% who it is suited to, They get a rounded set of GCSES, do A levels or equivalents and head to university. Its like the people that designed the system followed that path and literally can not comprehend any alternative types of education. The whole system seems set up for these people from day one.

Then the other 50% seem to have a system that doesn't serve them very well at all.

@starzig that might be something that would be an option at year 9 , instead of making them all pick certain subjects OR adding some real life skills into the subjects . I don't have an answer I just think it's interesting that the curriculum is still pretty much the same as it has been for at least 30 years!

I agree with the OP. My son is just coming to the end of his school days and we can't believe just how little has changed since our school days in the late 70s/early 80s. Same subjects, same types of teacher, same exams, etc. Before we had our son, I genuinely thought that things had really moved on, but now I know they really havn't.

Only yesterday, I was saying how I'd just missed out on computer studies as my school bought it's first computers and started offering computer studies O level, a year after I chose my O level subjects, so I just missed out by 1 year. I was really saddened and annoyed by that as I had a computer at home and was really into programming (ZX80!). Exactly the same has happened with my son. When he started secondary, they only offered the ECDL which he started in year 7. When he was in year 8, they stopped it and closed down their computer dept., so absolutely zero computer teaching. Then, guess what, the year after he chose his GCSE options, they started offering computer science - 1 year too late for him. 40 years on, and exactly the same thing happens! It's diabolical. Computers and IT are the biggest things happening in the last few decades and will only get more important, especially for jobs. For a secondary school to simply not offer it is completely out of order. But hey-ho, he did GCSE history instead so had to learn his 1066, Agincourt, Wars of the Roses, etc - all the things that are so relevant today, much better to know that computer science!!!!!!!!!!!

never ever have I used algebra

You use algebra every day of your life, from working out how much change you'll get to the area of a carpet needed, to doing your finances

You don't think your children should be taught science!! Science is everything...our planet, our universe, our bodies, everything big and small and how it all fits together. It's how you learn about experimentation, analysing data. It's one of the most important subjects. Just because you can't see the value of what they're learning doesn't mean there isn't any value.

@Raspberry88 keep up I have said more than once I worded it wrong!

Then the other 50% seem to have a system that doesn't serve them very well at all.

Of course, before comps, they'd have sec mod schools where they'd learn life and workplace skills instead of raw qualifications, such as mechanics, brick-laying, secretarial, shorthand, etc.

Now with comps, less than half the kids get "good" grades in both Maths and English, mainly because the content is academic rather than life/work skills.

Ok, x posted as it took me ages to write. I see you've taken that bit back!!!

I agree school doesn’t meet the needs of a lot of children. There definitely shouldn’t be two tiers though...bad enough already that the 7% of privately educated children get 59% of the top jobs.

Vocational courses aren’t just for the thick. Students that lean by doing, or actually want to get a job early doors would find them useful. Vocational training should be opened up to more than just hair and beauty and construction. Proper qualifications that add up to UCAS points.

And no need to be rude...I was writing it whilst doing a million other things.

@Raspberry88 thank you. I do have a habit of getting what I need to say wrong sometimes.

@Raspberry88 again sorry wasn't trying to be rude.

I think what you’re suggesting is to revert back to Grammar/Secondary Modern?

I don’t think that’s a bad idea in principle. Has some flaws of course.

Some bright children are our future inventors, earth shakers and I’m afraid they should be taught the basics of chemistry and physics. It’s the ground work for the tougher stuff.

But if someone wants to be a plumber, bricky or a hairdresser then I see that may be no use.

You realise for some children, and for the benefit of society in the future, they should be taught grass roots academia? Yes?

No, it's me...having one of those days. I've reported my last post!

I don't like the one size fits all approach. I think we should have more appropriate setting and we should let students drop stuff they have no aptitude for in favour of more time on the 3 Rs

I disagree.

My DD is 14 and choosing her GCSEs. She doesn't know what se wants to do in later life. her GCSEs are general enough that she could go in many directions from them.

GCSEs give a General (clue is in the name) education. I think the science syllabus is pretty comprehensive. GCSEs are a bit like going on a cruise, you get a flavour for a lot of destinations and then you know what you want to go back and do in detail later.

Stuff like budgeting only really becomes relevant when kids have an income. They won't be that interested at 13. And it really isn't rocket science.

Though I do agree it is a shame that there seem to be fewer BTEC options to help the less academic along.

Your ds hates it

My dd loves it.

Perhaps your ds should learn to be more curious and open minded. Everyone can learn SOMETHING if they want to.

You use algebra every day of your life, from working out how much change you'll get to the area of a carpet needed, to doing your finances

Yes, but mostly self-taught in different ways. Most people don't think in terms of y=ax+b despite years of being taught that way. Why spend years on pi when 95% of the population never need to use pi? Less than 1% will ever need to solve a simultaneous equation once they leave school and even fewer will have to solve quadratic equations, yet all still feature heavily in the schools. I'm convinced that schools are all about teaching what the teachers can teach rather than what the pupils need to learn.

I think the problem with secondary moderns is that they were divided too young at 11 - it would make more sense at the age you start exam courses, and it was too blunt. its perfectly possible to be top 1% in maths and physics but need functional skills level English. Everything needs to be flexible