To think the primary school curriculum in the UK is too advance

[Kerry987]

I think the primary school curriculum in the UK is too advance for the majority of children. I think it it is OK for kids who are very academic and self learners, bright, but I think at least half of the kids struggle to keep up with it and need lots of support at school and home.

What do other parents and teachers think?

I had a meeting with the special needs person at my daughter's school a couple of years ago and she told me that I would be surprised to find out how many kids need help and support. This got me to think there is something wrong with the curriculum if so many kids need extra support.

Why are we overloading with so much information? We have been home schooling and there are things that my husband and I didn't see until secondary school

@Lippyheaven

My 10 year old son struggles, he always has done. He needs extra help but now I’m home schooling it’s awful. I feel the stuff the teacher gives him is to hard for him. I need to help him and basically tell him what to do, while others especially girls in his class are way ahead., I’m in Scotland. My daughter is 8 and well ahead in literally. After this is all over I’m going to get my son a tutor.

Generally girls are much more ready for school, than boys. Just look at the start of primary and the start of secondary schools and compare the boys emotionally vs the girls.

Compared to Europe (I attended school in France and Spain) is the opposite of advanced. I compare my old books with my DC's and they are way behind

I'd wiped Biff and Kipper and the joys of phonics from my mind. Having remembered I need a lie down.

I don't think it's too advanced. I think it starts too early and I think it focuses on many of the wrong things - the fronted adverbials debate is the prime example of that. Language teaching is appalling in both primary and secondary schools; my DD2 got an 8 in French GCSE and can't hold a conversation in French.

But we don't need another overhaul. We've had too many of those lately, the system needs to be left to settle for a while.

@Iknowwhatudidlastsummer

but I think there is an argument to say that children should be taught in ability levels and not age groups.

Parents will never accept that, they will be mortally offended if their own child is not in the "top group". It's already unthinkable here to redo a year, there's an uproar if a teacher shares a funny mistake made by one among 30 or more children , parents are too precious in this country!

this is nonsense, children are taught in ability levels from 11 in this country. Setting based on ability, within age groups, would be a brilliant approach in primary, expect for the additional cost and logistical burden, which the majority of state schools are unable to shoulder.

And I think it's perfectly reasonable to be upset it your child's mistake was shared with the class! It might be funny to a grownup, but to a little kid it's just the teacher telling the rest of the class that they did something stupid.

I am currently teaching in Sweden but I trained as a teacher in England. The Swedish curriculum is extremely basic in comparison to the English. (I'm not familiar with the Scottish / Welsh / Northern Irish equivalents to compare). I wish there was an option in the middle because I think the English curriculum puts too much pressure on children very young but the Swedish curriculum has teenagers still needing to be spoon fed equivalent fractions.

I am a teacher. No I do not agree with you. It is too advanced for half the children and not advanced enough for the rest. It is a happy medium.

I'd call that an unhappy medium.

Setting based on ability, within age groups, would be a brilliant approach in primary, expect for the additional cost and logistical burden, which the majority of state schools are unable to shoulder.

Kids are already fairly obviously set in primary school at least for maths and english. Ask your kid which table is the "top" table and which the bottom, they will know.

I think it is very limited, especially in maths and sciences, and I think it gets only worse at the secondary level. I was shocked when someone showed me the GCSE Maths exam paper, which was somewhere at a level of average to above-average ability 12 y.o. student in my home country.

I dont thinking is too advanced, my youngest (6) can understand the work, whether she does it whilst at home is another matter .

I can see that there seems to be a kind of circular curriculum at primary level, with each year getting a little more in depth. I think this is good. Especially with multiplication and division and how they relate to fractions. I’m not a fan of partitioning to solve multiplication and division. I admit I taught my dd how to do long division yesterday instead to answer the Qs. The teacher said in the next live lesson (I sit in on them) that most of the class had used this method or as she calls it the bus stop method. Acknowledged it was fine to do that and said, “that’s the way I was taught and how your parents were taught,” she did a quick lesson on long division and said it was fine to use that method to answer qs.

Seems I’m not the only parent who has taken one look at partitioning and gone... er no that’s rubbish and taught their kids the old fashioned way!

I can only speak for KS1 so far but I’m surprised at the degree of ‘formalised’ learning for want of a better word. Be that fronted adverbials type stuff or maths methods. I am sure some of it is an improvement (my recollection of learning to read was just having books and working it out...I suspect phonics methods are probably better) but I think it misses out on some learning through doing/play which I feel were a bigger part of our early education.

Haven't read whole thread, sorry, but my two cents worth is that it's not the curriculum that's the issue, it's the age. I think the whole curriculum, including expectations etc, kept largely as it is but with the children all starting a year later as they do in other countries, would be wonderful. Because children who are not ready at age 4, rapidly fall behind and struggle to catch up as a result.

And I think it's perfectly reasonable to be upset it your child's mistake was shared with the class! It might be funny to a grownup, but to a little kid it's just the teacher telling the rest of the class that they did something stupid.

how precious.

I think that expecting children born within a year of each other to work at the same level is part of the problem. Within each class, the ability and aptitude vary so greatly that it seems an impossible task for one teacher to differentiate enough to meet every child's needs.

I don't know if there are countries where children are grouped according to ability rather than age and I wonder if that might make it easier to support every child to achieve similar levels of attainment?

I have a primary age DS with SN, but he is ahead in literacy and numeracy. Every child is different and we're very lucky to be part of a school that can (in normal times) move groups around so children are working at similar levels.

He is in Y1 and they're starting to use words such as verb which is something I remember learning in y7.

Times change, educators learn and things move on.

To those saying that we should start later as other European countries do, you need to look at what happens before school age.

In many of the stronger countries that start later, there are clear expections on what parents do with their child before they start school and that's supported by the Government with additional leave for both parents in the early years, classes to develop parenting skills, fostering a more open culture around parenting etc. Whilst some families in England would do well with that, others wouldn't. We're seeing an increased number of children starting school with delayed or underdeveloped speech due to a lack of interaction at home. When I taught in early years, I actually had parents say things like: "Why should we teach him to use a toilet? You're the TEACHer - that's your job," about their four-year-old. For children in those situations, a later start would just make the issues so much worse.

I feel exactly the opposite. I find they have learnt very little "general knowledge", geography, history or science. Very little information at all.

Mainly they focus on literacy and numeracy and not to a particularly high level. I know these are important but I'd hope they could do this alongside more.

I don’t think it’s too advanced, I think it’s too rigid, too jam packed with little time for free play and self directed learning, and too much focus on preparing children for tests rather than teaching them how to learn. I think we start school too early.

A teacher above said it is too advanced for 50% of children and not advanced enough for the other 50% - doesn’t that mean it suits nobody and isn’t fit for purpose? It should be differentiated (properly, not in a token way) to a child’s stage not age, and with a more flexible progression through the curriculum. It also doesn’t recognise that a prescriptive curriculum isn’t right for every child. Or that things take a long time to learn when a child isn’t ready (and risk destroying their love of learning) but are learnt quickly when the child is ready. The focus should be in motivating and enabling the child to learn what they need to know when they need it.

@Thatwentbadly

Having SEN does not mean that a child is struggling, it’s possible to have SEN and be working at or above the expectations for that age group.

It absolutely does mean that a child needs additional support or consideration to access the curriculum.

That begs the question of whether the curriculum is fit for purpose.

Hmm home schooling has been a bit of an eye opener that’s for sure!
I think in some ways expectations are quite high when they are still quite young.

Iknowwhatudidlastsummer

So you’d be happy for your amusing and cute cock up to be shared with your colleagues so everyone can laugh?

No? How precious.

I seem to remember something like the average mark for the maths SATS was very low like 50% or something and feeling that it’s not good if lots of kids come out of school feeling like they haven’t made the grade. If it’s that low maybe it does all need looking at

I think early years is a bit too busy but KS2 is less than it should be.

But I expect parents to spend time supporting and reading to their children, not just leave it to the school.

@Fressia123

Not in the slightest. I was schooled in Mexico and the level of education over there is way higher. My DD is in year 5 and still stuck with times tables. I had "graduated" in year 4.

That isnt the English curriculum though. Children should know all tables by year 4 and schools increasingly start in Y1 with an aim for fluency in tables (not application necessarily) by the start of Year 3.