Why schools do this!!?

[FedUpOfYetAnotherCold]

AIBU to wonder why children in primary school are taught 'head, shoulders, knees and toes' in French, can tell the difference between metamorphic, sedimentary and ignious rocks, can trace a stone age picture, can create great models of the tower of London, and learn (and promptly forget) all about the Victorians, Romans etc... but...

Quite a few can't swim 25m by end of primary (a skill which could save their life), many barely know what the term 'mental health' means - let alone know how to manage their own or support others with MH difficulties. Most state primary kids are not given access to decent sports provision to support future athletic dreams, better manage in-school behaviour, and promote healthy lifestyle and reduce obesity, and very few kids are supported to learn key life skills. (I'm focussing on primary here - but we also need more life skills like MH and budgeting and cooking etc... taught in secondary)..

Surely we need more teaching in schools on mental health, life skills and better access to sports and teaching which will lead to physically and mentally healthy adults of the future.

When my children finish primary I'd like them to be able to read, write and do basic maths. But in terms of the rest of the teaching - surely we now need to re-evaluate how much emphasis we place on teaching less vital skills such as French (if a language is deemed important why not Chinese, Spanish or Arabic, or something more useful in this current global village) which could be learnt later if desired?

AIBU?

KingVoid

To save you asking for other acronyms

www.mumsnet.com/i/acronyms

Most primary schools these days are constantly talking about mental health. PSHE is a massive part of the school day not to mention assemblies that focus on self esteem, behaviour, responsibilities etc.

Many schools do plenty of sport and offer lots of clubs.

Languages is part of the NC. Everyone will have a view about which lang. All languages are difficult. I am not sure many primary teachers have much knowledge of the langs you have names.

Swimming is down to parents. Schools do not have pools or the finances or time to devote to teaching children to swim.

I'm sorry, I'm going to mention French again!! - honestly if people enjoy it and want to study it at secondary school that's great! However, I honestly can't understand why it's part of many primary schools curricula.

I learnt french as a compulsory subject from age 6 to 16. The only use it has ever been to me was to order some cider on holiday when I was a teen. If I add up all the hours I spent learning French I just see it as a complete waste! I would have benefitted much more form learning CBT skills, DBT skills, ways to manage emotions, anxiety management skills etc... in that time.

I'm not knocking French if you do it from choice in secondary school, but given the limited resources in primary schools, what is the point of this subject?

Most schools have mental health first aiders in place. There is free MH training presently available for senior leaders.

Healthy eating and making healthy choices along with MH and mindfulness, exercise, body image etc and where to find help is covered in all our primary years. MH is also part of the SEND code. We have cooking in some years on a rota as we are a smaller school but we have a cooking after school club, and have done one for parents who do not know how to cook and provide healthy meals.
Swimming is taught is primary but not everyone will be able to make the distance but they also do water safety in forest schools along with cooking outside. But there are only so many hours in the day to cram everything in.

@FedUpOfYetAnotherCold

Surely some of the onus is on the parents? We have the ability to teach our own kids to swim, pay for lessons etc.

I get that, but many kids don't not have parents able to teach these things or provide lessons etc...

I think, as a pp said, we need a conversation about the role of schools and how we can support ALL kids (not just those privileged enough to have parents able to teach them) to keep mentally and physically healthy and manage to live in society in a compassionate way, able to stay on the right side of the law, and able to live happily and comfortably

If it were possible to teach all the things you want to teach you still have to get the child to attend regularly.

If you have a chaotic home life then that might be a problem.

Primary schools HAVE to teach a language, this was brought in before any primary teachers were trained to teach a language so it is normally which ever member of staff did A Level, or failing that GCSE.

@FedUpOfYetAnotherCold

Surely some of the onus is on the parents? We have the ability to teach our own kids to swim, pay for lessons etc.

I get that, but many kids don't not have parents able to teach these things or provide lessons etc...

I think, as a pp said, we need a conversation about the role of schools and how we can support ALL kids (not just those privileged enough to have parents able to teach them) to keep mentally and physically healthy and manage to live in society in a compassionate way, able to stay on the right side of the law, and able to live happily and comfortably

Oh ffs we do do this in schools, but to a large extent we are always fighting external influences...if a family considers that teachers are useless and have no authority then why would a child bother to engage at school? So they don't and no matter what we teach or how well we teach, we are always fighting a losing battle. This is the most heartbreaking thing about it, many times uniform strictures are about encouraging the idea of the social contract, every time a parent subverts it and allows their child to go against it with impunity they show that the wants of the individual are more important than the needs of society. (I know I am making major sweeping generalisations, but the point stands)

@RaininSummer

The time wasted after gcses are taken has always bugged me. It would be great if 4 to 6 weeks after the last exam were spent getting first aid skills, job application skills and useful stuff like cooking to a budget amongst other things. No doubt money is the block again as I expect the normal teachers are busy doing other things once exams are done. I do think all the history, language, science etc is important however or we really will produce a cohort of dullards with no sense of learning, what might interest them or ability to score points in quizzes.

My school offered a program like this after GCSEs and A-Levels last year...less than 30 kids across both cohorts signed up to any of the 22 different courses on offer.

I wrote with primary school kids and the children that can't read and write are the ones who's caregivers never read ti them the kids that get bedtime stories and storyline can read and the children who can't I promise don't.

I would have benefitted much more form learning CBT skills, DBT skills, ways to manage emotions, anxiety management skills etc

It's really not appropriate for schools to be teaching CBT and DBT skills. Teachers aren't medical professionals.

To the PP who discussed using the time after exams are finished in year 11, we offered something similar. Had under 20 kids interested so didn't run the classes. At 16, most students don't want more school, however you dress it up.

I completely agree with you.there is a massive denial by lots of people here.If you compare say an apprentice in this country and in germany,its a huge huge diference.it is the immaturity of older students that is so striking.glad I didnt had to educate my kids in british school system.

@FedUpOfYetAnotherCold

Surely some of the onus is on the parents? We have the ability to teach our own kids to swim, pay for lessons etc.

I get that, but many kids don't not have parents able to teach these things or provide lessons etc...

I think, as a pp said, we need a conversation about the role of schools and how we can support ALL kids (not just those privileged enough to have parents able to teach them) to keep mentally and physically healthy and manage to live in society in a compassionate way, able to stay on the right side of the law, and able to live happily and comfortably

You’d need a far bigger overhaul of how specialty raises children to achieve these goals. Teaching ‘mental health’ awareness or whatever you’re advocating for here won’t mitigate against a life on the edges society, in care, dealing with substance abuse at home etc. Far wider systemic issues at play here. Schools aren’t the panacea for everything and everyone which is wrong in society.

• society raises children

The answer to every social problem is not "teach it in schools!"

The immaturity in student stems from the government putting pressure on the wrong output. There's pressure on teachers to get exam results, teachers can (and do) lose their jobs if the results aren't good enough. This means teachers will spoon feed kids through a qualification to get SLT/Ofsted off their back. The government has taken away so much responsibility from individuals and put it on to schools and other services. This creates a culture of immature and spoon fed kids who struggle to think for themselves. Not all of them, but there is a definite shift in attitude.

Because if I was being cynical I would say that schools’ main reason for existing is childcare and teaching kids to pass exams. Education is down the list of priorities.

Also, it gets harder to learn languages the older you get. When you're young, your brain is basically set up for it and if you don't continue to use it, you start losing it.

So starting pupils learning another language only at secondary sets them up to fail/not achieve as well.

"Why do schools do this?"
Schools don't set the overall curriculum, the government do.
Schools don't sell off playing fields or decide what site a school is built upon.
Schools don't set the budgets that mean swimming is only available for short bursts throughout their time at school.

Your OP should be "Why does the government do this?"

Speaking as a teacher in a Primary School, in a nutshell, it all comes down to horrific lack of funding & the ever changing, utterly ridiculous dictats made by the ignorant cockwombles who run the educational system in this country!

I’m not knocking French if you do it from choice in secondary school, but given the limited resources in primary schools, what is the point of this subject?

Literacy. The discipline of rote learning. We live in a world where we would benefit from some kind of inter-cultural understanding? Communication skills. Speaking out confidence. Fitting language into the wider curriculum so it links with RS, history, geography, maths. Tolerance. Respect.

@FedUpOfYetAnotherCold

I'm sorry, I'm going to mention French again!! - honestly if people enjoy it and want to study it at secondary school that's great! However, I honestly can't understand why it's part of many primary schools curricula.

I learnt french as a compulsory subject from age 6 to 16. The only use it has ever been to me was to order some cider on holiday when I was a teen. If I add up all the hours I spent learning French I just see it as a complete waste! I would have benefitted much more form learning CBT skills, DBT skills, ways to manage emotions, anxiety management skills etc... in that time.

I'm not knocking French if you do it from choice in secondary school, but given the limited resources in primary schools, what is the point of this subject?

Maybe so that Brits abroad are not like total dicks in regards to at least make an efforf to speak french.

Teach your own kids swimming. Schools aren't substitute parents