Mandatory subjects until 18 a terrible idea

[Mysteriousflo]

Thinking back to my school years, a key part of the excitement of going to sixth form was the ability to choose what I wanted to study.

I chose based on what I enjoyed and what would help me into the degree I wanted.

Focusing on a handful of key subjects was something that suited me and, if it didn’t, I could’ve made the choice to do the IB.

I believe having that choice was a key part of my success in my exams which set me up for my degree, career and where I am now professionally.

Why oh why does Sunak think mandating English and maths until 18 is a good idea?

It feels really regressive and like a terrible idea to me - AIBU?

Have I got this totally wrong and actually it’s a big vote winner?!

Reading and mathematical literacy need to be improved. Continuing education doesn’t need to mean every student ends up studying calculus. If a student is truly struggling with either subject, they are probably the person who needs to continue in the subject the most.

Courses should be available at multiple levels for those age ranges because there will be diversity in need. Some students need to work on basic reading comprehension, while others can discuss advanced themes in literature. Some students need to learn to keep a bank account or understand car financing and others can take more theoretical subjects.

Rishi won't overhaul anything, he's a gap-year prime minister in a dying government. Literally no time to organise anything except his impending house move.

It will damage the UK as a location for top overseas students.

How?

Absolutely not a good idea! All my children, and now my GC were so much happier once they had their subjects chosen at GCSE and could simply knuckle down to the things that really interested them.

And as for continuing English and maths .... even that is debateable. One of my children never got a pass at maths - 3 times of trying and always failed to get the pass grade. Teachers wanted to continue and try again - I told them to give her a break - her inability at maths had plagued her entire school life and was not going to be sorted by simply taking the b. exam over and over again. Maths concepts simply did not work in her brain.

Hated maths and English at school but managed to 3 a levels, degree and post grad without any further study. If you haven't grasped the basics by 16 fair enough but for the rest of us don't make us study them for just the sake of it

Should we call them children and keep them in school to 25 then?

YABU, I hate the way the British system specialises so early. I don't think it's the norm internationally at all. Everyone should continue with maths, English and a language -although I agree there should be a baseline qualification that focuses on fundamental numeracy and literacy skills for those who don't want to take the subjects to their full extent.

I worked with people who had entered the workforce from maths degrees and struggled with basic report writing because they hadn't written an essay since GCSEs. Likewise there are frequent threads on here demonstrating dire numeracy skills.

I have a stem PhD but only gcse maths because I am truly terrible with numbers and equations. Enforced maths, especially if it had counted towards grades, would have put me on a very different path. I'm still more than able to understand things like mortgage rates and price per freddo (multipack)!

I can see how a basic level of maths understanding is important for a functioning and educated society, but quadratic equations have no place in my life until my own children go through the same tedious process.

It's a terrible idea. My experience is that a-levels enable kids to thrive in the areas they are Interested in or things they are good at. It was arts/humanities in my case. For my sister who is extremely bright and capable excelled in maths and sciences but really struggled with English because of dyslexia. She passed her English GCSE then dropped it so she could focus on maths/science at A level and then went onto get a really good science degree and masters. For kids who do have learning differences such as dyslexia and dyscalculia this surely makes an education system that is already stacked against them even harder to navigate. This strikes me as something that will leave more kids behind with fewer options and waste a lot of potential talent. It really feels the the Tories care very little about state education. Ive got to the point where I absolutely despise the tory party and hope they crash and burn in a spectacular fashion at the next election. They have done so much damage to the country.

Where I live in Australia it has always been compulsory to study English until the end of secondary school (age 17/18) and from next year maths will be added as well (currently only compulsory until yr 10 which is age 15-16 here). We also only have one set of state-administered exams at the end of schooling. I think people get used to a particular way of doing things but in reality there are different ways which can all be successful. Personally I’m very pleased my kids don’t have to do a large number of high stakes exams at age 15, and I’m not a fan of early specialisation. But if we lived in the UK that would seem normal to us.

I think this is madness.
If you aren’t functionally literate in maths and English by the age of 16 we need to do something about education at an earlier stage, not force everyone to do it for another two years.
English especially - reading and analysing text and writing coherently is something that you should be able to teach and assess in almost every subject, why force students specifically to do English as a subject.

IME people become far more engaged with their education once they have some control over the direction and application of it. I think if anything we should encourage people to specialise earlier but make it easier to return to education later if you want to change or change direction a bit. We’re moving towards a world
where highly skilled technical jobs are rewarded more than any other and dragging out general non-specific education for longer and longer mostly just puts people off the concept of learning.

How would it be timetabled though? Don't the 3 A levels take up most of a student's time, including reading/lab work/field trips and/or projects and extra curricular activities (eg if studying Music/Art)?

I did 4 A levels - 3 foreign languages and a humanity, plus compulsory General Studies, which was, I will agree, even more of a waste of time than the proposed extra English and maths. I did plenty of reading and essay writing; I didn't need to study English to get that experience. I already had an A in English language and a B in English literature at O level. I went on do a BA in my humanities subject with languages as my supplementary subjects in years 1 and 2. I then had a career in publishing in my humanities subject, in which excellent English language was essential. I was not held back by a lack of 6th-form English lessons! I now live abroad and have used one of my A level foreign languages every day for 20 years and another for 3 years prior to that. I've used them both in work situations.

As for maths, I got an A at O level and I knew I had peaked! I had friends who did maths A level and my mind didn't work like that. A level maths is very different to GCE/GCSE.

Maybe we just need to wind the clock back 30 years?

I'm in Ireland and it is really normal for kids here to do 7 subjects for the Leaving Cert which is out a level equivalent. English, Irish, Maths are mostly compulsory. Most take a second language like French or German, then a science subject, then it could be geography/history/music/art/tech graph/wood working/metal work etc. English, Irish, Maths can be taken at different levels to suit your ability. For us it would seem odd to only take a couple of subjects and to specialise so early rather than have a more rounded education. It all just depends on what you are used to I think as to what feels odd to you.

When I was in 6th form a very long time ago (early 1970's) we had to do one lesson a week of maths if our A levels were arts subjects or one lesson of English for those doing sciences, so this is very much not a new idea.

I agree. If it’s useful stuff like this it would be a good idea. If it’s just an extension of GCSE maths and English Literature then it would be a really bad idea.

As I understood it the point wasn't just to add them to A levels, it was to revamp the whole system so make a British baccalaureate. My DC are doing IB, having done MYP earlier in Secondary so I'm probably biased as it's what I'm used to - despite growing up with GSCEs and A levels myself.

In the IB, there's a split between Higher and Standard levels, so you do pick certain subjects which you focus on a bit more but keep the breadth. Even in Maths and English, there are actually different types (4 alternatives for each) so there are options for those for whom Maths or English brings little to no joy. Beyond that, some IB Schools are also running the Career Path option, which is more vocational.

Neither system is perfect but just because something has always been done one way doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged so surely it is worth investigating alternatives to A levels before denouncing the idea?

I basically think you’re right, but this system does turn out a lot of scientists who are very poor communicators, and arts grads with minimal number skills. I’m one of the latter - though I have an A grade at GCSE, my practical number work is underused and I’ve forgotten a lot. But - would advanced maths have been right for me? I don’t think so. Sorry - not a very useful answer. I can see both sides.

I think it's a good idea! A lot of students go to university now without good skills in either. They are basics.

I think they should be mandated for those who achieve a basic gcse standard - couple of extra years going over the keys areas to get that grade needed (,used to be a c nit sure what it is in new money)

My son is already doing maths and English As he didn't get grade fours ,ge grade four is enough ,in most cases .
Not everyone does A levels there are loads of courses available to students post 16 I can't see how maths and English ( assuming they have a t least a grade four ) is beneficial in any way to.them.

It already is.

Yes I totally disagree with mandatory subjects until 18. I found it bad enough I had to study music and art until 14.

I will say that maths can still be important if you want to apply for graduate schemes after uni, as the maths tests are bloody hard. But I don’t think that justifies a level maths studies.

English studies also takes the fun of English. I did English Language at a level, which I don’t think was of much benefit tbh. But I avoided English Lit as all the texts I was made to study at school were boring, overdramatic or depressing, like Shakespeare and Death of A Salesman.

How would it help someone who.is say doing beauty and hairdressing or brick laying at college ?
As long as they have a grade four .

1. They haven't got enough English & maths teachers anyway to do this.

2. Perhaps before they do this they could sort the black hole whereby my (y14 equiv) DD doesn't qualify for adult education in English & Maths (too young), but also no one will teacher her or enable her to sit exams within the state system unless she is doing a full time course (which isn't appropriate this year). So we are having to do it all independently.