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?

I'm assuming all the PPs saying that children should be taught to swim by their parents. That's fine if you can afford it but there will be so many parents who can barely feed their children let alone pay for swimming and lessons.

Schools cannot be responsible for all the many things that some parents cannot or will not do for their children as well as providing a foundation for their academic education. It's simply not feasible.

School can't teach everything there is not the time, I'd rather a qualified teacher taught my children the complex academic stuff I can't do.

Most of the things you mention should be taught outside of school in my opinion. If you personally can't there are other options. You could ask friends, or family that are good cooks/sports people/arty/crafty to help.

Budgeting and how to manage adult life, bills, mental health, physical health etc is a job for parents and family imo.

Swimming lessons are available either privately or via council pools. Most schools don't have pools anymore and it's expensive and time-consuming to take classes out for swimming and the short course my children had whilst at primary school wouldn't have been enough to teach a quality technique that would save their life in an emergency, so there fire was pretty pointless imo.

I don’t know which school your kids go to OP, but in my kids’ pretty average state primary school they have compulsory swim lessons in year 5 with the aim of all kids swimming 100m they have 3 PE session a week with 2 of those outdoors, have an endless choice of sports clubs, teach PHSE which includes mental health care, yoga and meditation and have a huge focus on healthy eating to the point of policing lunch boxes.
Have you checked the primary curriculum? Because all the stuff you say they aren’t being taught are part of the KS2 curriculum

And yes to pp who say that throwing everything to be the responsibility of schools becomes a mask for other deficiencies in society, usually a lack of government funding or social support and a consequence of poverty and discrimination.

Whatever small amount can be achieved by school alongside a busy curriculum will always be eclipsed by those parents who can afford to outsource to other people if they aren't up to dealing with it themselves through their own education or support network 😟

I guess everyone has different priorities, I am also unhappy with some of the things taught in schools but not the same ones as you. I think there's too much focus on Sports/PE. For kids who are not into it, it's almost impossible to avoid. I only had 1 PE lesson a week when I was growing up. My kids have 3, plus compulsory sports events, including during lunchtimes! Similarly in secondary schools I think there's too much science. I dropped science at the end of yr 7 (not in this country) as I wasn't remotely interested and have never regretted it. My daughter has got to do 3 science subjects for GCSE whether she likes it or not. That's 30% of her GCSE subjects. Science (like art for example) is something that I think you need to be actually interested in, I know they want more girls in STEM but the ones who'll make strides in those industries are surely those who are actually interested! I find the lack of choice of GCSE subjects really depressing. They're being forced into a mold that the govt have chosen for them. www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jul/20/funding-cuts-to-go-ahead-for-university-arts-courses-in-england-despite-opposition

Science (like art for example) is something that I think you need to be actually interested in

This applies to all subjects really though. You can be interested or not interested in any of them. It applies no more to science than anything else imo.

I agree that the whole system needs an overhaul though, in terms of syllabi and the actual subjects offered. And indeed the whole way schools are managed.

As I said before, I work with offenders. Many can't read or write That is often because they have dyslexia which is diagnosed or undiagnosed.

Absolutely 100% this. If I had my way every child would be able to read music and play an instrument by the end of secondary school. Reading and playing music aids so much other learning and can help with mental health and stress. However it’s sadly not practical because it takes individual teaching to play an instrument and regular practice

@Silverswhirl, this is one addition - or rather, return - that I would support. Visual art is being pushed more heavily now, no doubt due to its many commercial applications now, but I do think music is a life skill now as much as it ever was. If nothing else it might help as part of the armoury against the modern abysmal “music” commercialism.

You are wrong to say that there is no instrument that can be taught in groups though. Years ago every single child in the country was taught to play recorder, because it is cheap and accessible and a good foundation instrument. Then the middle classes seized control of education and got snobby about the sound, changing to the rather more exclusive guitar. Which do we want, widespread musical literacy or snobbiness over prettier tones?
I definitely agree with the idea that education needs overhauling with a public debate over content, and it is too important a job to be left to the elitist few.

Widespread musical literacy and a chance for exposure / learning for all, that should have been.

@lazylinguist

Science (like art for example) is something that I think you need to be actually interested in

This applies to all subjects really though. You can be interested or not interested in any of them. It applies no more to science than anything else imo.

I agree that the whole system needs an overhaul though, in terms of syllabi and the actual subjects offered. And indeed the whole way schools are managed.

@lazylinguist yes, of course you're right, for all subjects you have to be interested but science is 3 of her 10 GCSE subjects, one, you could live with but three is ridiculous imo Some subjects I think need to be compulsory, e.g maths, but I would equally disagree with having to do 3 separate maths subjects (algebra, arithmetic and geometry for example), if they insist on science, why not just a single science subject, then split it for A level and give students a choice to drop it.

@Silverswirl and @PickUpAPepper : The National curriculum already includes being taught to play an instrument, and being taught to read music (at key stage 2). A model music curriculum was published a year or so ago. It's very detailed and worth taking a look if you're interested in this.

@wherestheweightlosspill; the government doesn't force children to study three science GCSEs (unless you count maths as one of them). That will be a school policy. Many children do double science.

I agree with those who say swimming should be taught in schools. It is on the National Curriculum but many schools seem to neglect this. My children's primary certainly did back in the early 2000s.

Swimming is on the national curriculum for primary age DC, is it nit? Whether it's well delivered is another thing though

Languages however are not, so I find it curious that OP asserts that swimming doesn't happen, but languages do.

I do agree that it wouid be lovely to have better sports provision (prep schools seem to manage it) but I think the resource/facilities uissues might be insurmountable

Absolutely 100% this. If I had my way every child would be able to read music and play an instrument by the end of secondary school.

I love (making) music, but lots of kids really don't. Expecting them all to learn and practise an instrument throughout secondary school is hugely unrealistic imo. Even kids who actively choose to take up an instrument and whose parents pay for lessons etc often give up in their early to mid teens because they find it tedious.

@wherestheweightlosspill I think having everyone doing just a single science subject at GCSE would be a terrible idea tbh. Splitting it at A Level would be too late. You'd have to dumb down the A Level syllabus massively (and then the degree courses), because students simply wouldn't have sufficient grounding in the individual sciences to proceed to A Level.

I wouldn't be against students being able to choose to do one science rather than 3 separate or the 2 GCSEs' worth of combined sciences they offer now though. That's what was available when I was at school- I just did 1 GCSE in biology.

Swimming is on the national curriculum for primary age DC, is it not? Whether it's well delivered is another thing though

Languages however are not, so I find it curious that OP asserts that swimming doesn't happen, but languages do.

Languages definitely are on the primary national curriculum at KS2.

@lazylinguist

Absolutely 100% this. If I had my way every child would be able to read music and play an instrument by the end of secondary school.

I love (making) music, but lots of kids really don't. Expecting them all to learn and practise an instrument throughout secondary school is hugely unrealistic imo. Even kids who actively choose to take up an instrument and whose parents pay for lessons etc often give up in their early to mid teens because they find it tedious.

@wherestheweightlosspill I think having everyone doing just a single science subject at GCSE would be a terrible idea tbh. Splitting it at A Level would be too late. You'd have to dumb down the A Level syllabus massively (and then the degree courses), because students simply wouldn't have sufficient grounding in the individual sciences to proceed to A Level.

I wouldn't be against students being able to choose to do one science rather than 3 separate or the 2 GCSEs' worth of combined sciences they offer now though. That's what was available when I was at school- I just did 1 GCSE in biology.

@lazylinguist I wasn't suggesting one science subject at GCSE, I was suggesting a combined science at GSCE (like combined maths), that's what it was in Ireland (where I grew up), and then split to Physics, Chem, Biology for the equivalent of A - Level. Personally, I didn't even do the single science and it's never made any difference whatsoever to me. But if science must be taken, I think it should be a combined science. @Fifthtimelucky yes it's her school, she has to do 3 and if she's rubbish at it, they'll only have her sit 2 of them for the actual exam, but this means she's wasted 3 years studying for an exam she won't do, and hasn't had the opportunity to study for a GSCE she might have been interested in. Saying that, even 2 is too many to be compulsory imo.

@mnahmnah

You’re making assumptions about all primary schools. My DC’s school does do these things.

Mine too. My DD has swimming classes, sports twice a week plus extra clubs, mindfulness lessons and they learn about food and nutrition. As well as clubs like Brownies where they learn team work, environmental issues and problem solving.

Some children may not enjoy music. Some don't enjoy PE or history or maths. But they are still expected to learn them as part of a well- rounded education!

Obviously when they get older, at 14 and again at 16, they can make choices about what subjects to study. But until then I think it's right that everyone tries everything.

And yes, swimming and a language is on the national curriculum at key stage 2. The langauge doesn't have to be French, but most schools teach that, presumably because they have more staff able to teach that than Spanish, Mandarin or Arabic.

PE is actually pretty well funded at primary level (in England anyway). As well as what schools should expect to provide as part of the curriculum, there is a ring-fenced PE and sports premium of £320m (I think that's just for one year but I might be wrong). Schools have to publish online how they spend it so I'd recommend any parent of a primary age child who is unhappy with the PE/sport on offer at their school to check how it is being spent.

But if science must be taken, I think it should be a combined science.

As far as I'm aware, almost all English schools do offer combined science, but it takes up 2 GCSEs. I don't see the benefit of not allowing the option of 3 separate sciences for those that want to do them though.

Some children may not enjoy music. Some don't enjoy PE or history or maths. But they are still expected to learn them as part of a well- rounded education!

If that was a response to my post, I wasn't arguing against music being taught, I was just responding to the poster who was wanting all students to be able to play an instrument by the end of secondary school.

wherestheweightlosspill
Students all doing triple science is a school decision, not a government one.
My school covers all 3 sciences but most students only study combined sciences, which gets them 2 gcses.
We also offer a range of creative arts options, vocational options and a full range of academic subjects.

@cassgate

Society has a parenting problem not a school/teaching problem. I work in a primary school and the difference in children now vs when my children were in primary (same school) is massive. Reception children still in nappies, not able to put on a coat or undress/dress themselves, expecting you to feed them at lunchtime because they have never been shown how to use a knife and fork. Children not knowing how to look at a book and which way the pages turn, not able to hold a pencil or know what scissors are let alone use them. The list just goes on and on. These are all children that do not have any Sen, they just have parents who can’t or won’t teach them but expect schools to do it for them. This is life in every primary school, every day. I work at lunchtimes and my aim this week was to target year 1 children who can’t use a knife and fork. It has taken just 3 days and all but 1 are now using a knife and fork to cut up food themselves. They were all so proud of themselves and rightly so. At the beginning of the week I had 1 child tell me she wasn’t allowed to cut food up herself because mummy won’t let her. She was happily doing it herself today. This is the reality.

As an early Years teacher for 15 years I 100% agree. I have to spend practically the first term teaching this stuff before I can get a move on with a lot of the academic stuff. Kids on screens much more, low communication skills, low independent skills. I don't care if your child can recite numbers to 10 if I'm changing their pissy pants every day! Teachers are swimming against the tide and it starts at home- the government know early years are formative but, as they don't give a shit about the masses, they cut funding and close Sure Starts. But because they know it needs to happen they push it all onto schools so they don't have to fund it and do their damn job!

Yabu swimming 25 metres in a swimming pool is no guarantee to save your your life if falling into open water. Falling into a swimming pool will most likely have life guard anyway. Therefore no life saving of oneself.

More than happy with my kids school teaching French, Victorians, etc at school.

Our local school is a tiny rural one - there’s no way they would have enough money to organise the kids going to swimming during school hours. However I can take my kids to classes in the city in my own time.

I can’t teach them French, but can talk about kindness, empathy, emotional health.

I can’t teach them much about geography but we can cook family meals together and talk about meal planning.

Teachers are stressed and resources overstretched enough, we can’t expect them to do everything and I’m really happy with the curriculum at my child’s school.

In a nutshell op, the things that you mention should be taught in school are THE PARENTS responsibility.
Teachers are there to educate academically. Family is responsible for health, well being, growing and nurture. Schools do what they can and the lines can blur but you could always swap and home educate your child.

@Howshouldibehave

Since qualifying as a teacher, I have read on here that teachers should be responsible for…

Teaching swimming
Teeth cleaning
Applying suncream daily or twice daily
Doing head lice checks
Toilet training (bearing in mind schools cannot refuse to accept children who are still in nappies, this does happen more than you’d think already).
Teaching whatever language/art/sports subject the poster has a degree in or is quite good at, and thinks primary schools should be doing more of.
Makaton

There are probably countless others!

If you want the curriculum changed to include these things-write to your MP.

IMO as a parent, those are things for the parent not the school. I'm happy with what my son is learning, I pay for swimming lessons for him and have for years, it was a priority bill for me so I cut money from somewhere else when I had too. Parents can even take their child to the local pool and teach them themselves. The school is not there to parent children.

[quote UndertheCedartree]@Abraxan - I'm not sure what it is about our area but we are on the seaside. My DD's school pool is outside. It has a cover and is heated so can be used for half the year.[/quote]
But it really really isn't the norm. As a pp has posted, approx 2-3% of UK schools have their own swimming pool. I'd imagine most of them are also independent schools, or at the very least secondary schools.