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?!

Where is the money coming from to have these extra classes? We can't staff schools as it is where are these extra teachers coming from.
Such a bad idea all it will do is put people off education more
I would of cried if after gcses I was told I had to analyse poetry again.
Bit off topic but I don't believe everyone wrote stuff that needed to be dissected and actually meant something else
Everything is on computers anyway so auto correct will catch any glaring errors.

My DD is studying for her baccalaureate. In addition to her chosen maths, physics and chemistry she also has to study 2 foreign languages , history and geography, philosophy and sport.

Those who choose humanities have to keep science and maths (but not anything like the level of those doing the maths options)

Even apprentices and trade qualifications have to keep up the core subjects until 18.

@x2boys - seriously, neither of those subjects you mention are academic. Maths and English are basic. Most developed economies teach Maths and English much later that we do. And having them means you can change careers or business later in life.

I don’t disagree with the general principle, I think the current system does encourage narrowing in too early. As someone who wanted to do STEM and arts and social science subjects, even exam timetabling made it hard. And most students don’t have the ability to choose to do IBAC unless they’re at an expensive private school.

But, this is completely impractical in our current system. So many things would have to change to make it possible never mind do it well, and it should be a lower priority than getting the basics right earlier in schooling.

I think where in theory it could be helpful would be to keep them at a grade 4 rather than the skills fading away.
However it would be more useful to make retake classes much much smaller or even 1-1.

To be honest, 3 or 4 A levels and an EPQ is already shed load of work. This summer was also full of essential summer work - coursework components.

Unless what’s adopted is actual Bacalaureat or very similar rather than grafted onto A Level structure, I can’t see it working.

My Yr13 was really glad to give up Maths and I don’t see he needs to worry about it as - despite disliking it - his Gcse was good and a natural point for him to stop studying maths

So definitely not in favour of this new approach

There should probably be more of a focus on restructuring and improving what is taught at GCSE level.

Instead of bloody areas of a triangle and Shakespeare, we should be concentrating on maths used in every day life, understanding bills and finances, and grammar and spelling, along with books/plays that are actually fun and don’t need to be overanalysed. When I read a book as an adult, I don’t sit there thinking ‘oh yes that was definitely a metaphor for xyz’.

I realise that because my son is at a college that offers those subjects ,this may blow your mind but not every 16-18 year old is academic and wants to.go to university Which is why different courses are available
They already have to keep.retaking maths and English if they don't achieve a t least a grade four so why do.you think they should keep.studying maths and English once they have got a grade four ?

Quite simply he's an arsehole who knows nothing about education and has tunnel vision about what's important in life.

So will the the DCs who get 9s in maths and further maths and English GCSE still have to carry on even if they are not interested in pursuing those subjects further? What level of maths and English will it be? Will they be repeating stuff they already know well?

If our teaching of Maths and English was better up to 16 years of age there would be no need for this. At the moment we're producing a generation who can't even write a decent letter.

I read the first part of DS's EPQ a few months ago and said to him, 'this reads in a really funny way but I can't quite put my finger on it.....' I read him a few phrases to illustrate what I meant - oh he said with sudden realisation, I've written it like it's a GCSE opinion piece!

Instead of teaching more Eng lit or lang why don't they teach them how to write a university research piece at A-level, the style is completely different to the weird things they have to write for GCSE - and it would actually be useful at uni or in a job. Even doing an EPQ ds doesn't seem to have been taught how to write a research piece and I've been showing him my dissertation and talking about structuring it and the language used.

Maths GCSE is more than enough to get you through life, and most of that you're never going to need unless you do something maths related. DS is doing A-level maths and unless you have an aptitude for it I think it would be a real struggle for a lot of students.

I'm really glad that ds has done an EPQ though as his subjects don't involve a lot of writing and god knows what his essay skills would be like otherwise. He does have to do an NEA for one subject but I still think the EPQ has been more important for developing his writing skills than the NEA - I just think it would be useful if school taught all the students how to write a research piece.

My children do a baccalaureate type system on the continent.

Because you are continually tested throughout the year, students need to "pass"the year to procede. A certain percentage don't, and will repeat the year. This isn't seen as a punishment rather a chance to improve, an opportunity to learn.

This system focuses on educating a nation rather than selecting certain students to pursue certain further educational degrees. If a student at 16 is studying at an art school, but then decides to become a doctor, then they can technically apply to do medicine. If they pass the national entry exam, then they will be accepted.

All students will sit a written essay exam plus one specialty subject exam plus an oral examination in front of a commission.

It's a formality really because nearly all the work has been done beforehand, the end grade won't have a consequence on further study because any screening will be done by universities if they so wish.

Schools are judged more on how their students perform after school, either by the percentage in relevant employment within a year of leaving, or grades after a year at further education.

It's obvious that some students who ace Stem might find a 6 hour current affairs essay gruelling, but because it won't close any doors to their further education if approached as an opportunity should be a benefit. Maths however is taught and monitored throughout the whole of high school but will only be examined for those doing specific schools.

This is my son's timetable

If you look at the hours they have 30 hours teaching time up until end of high school, and this an academic high school so has fewer hours than others.

It's a really bad idea.

Lots of students are motivated to scrape a C in old money and 4 in new and then have the reward of not doing those subjects any longer.

If you are going to have to study until 18 why bother at school?

Some numeracy and or literacy offered alongside vocational courses would be more useful, someone mentioned bricklaying and hairdressing, well for both of those working out the cost of providing the service, making a profit and knowing to save up to pay your tax would be better than resitting GCSE maths if you don't already have it.

For literacy designing a flyer / poster and using the correct homonyms and knowing how to use an apostrophe is again more useful than examining poems.

I.was the person who mentioned brick laying and hairdressing ,but I did actually ask why would they need to.carry on studying English and maths if they had already achieved a grade four?
There is already a system in place for students to carry on studying English and maths until they get a grade four .

It's rare that I agree with Sunak on something (okay, this is the very first time), but this is a great plan. I come from a country where these subjects (and one other) are mandated til the end of school, and if you are not especially good at it, you can do the lower tier and there is no stigma around it - in fact people are more likely to be surprised/impressed that you did the higher tier. If a child is struggling with maths at 16 the answer is to teach it MORE and BETTER, not let them just walk away.

As a foreigner, I feel that children are leaving school in England with too narrow a range of skills. I would go one step further and mandate one modern language, perhaps with an emphasis on speaking above all else though.

Boys, especially poor boys, are increasingly less less likely to choose a language at a-level and that's definitely a problem that the govt needs to address.

English, maths, MFL and THEN 3 more subjects of choice.

Isn't that an argument in favour of making sure everyone gets taught them for long enough to reach a certain standard?

OP, having to choose just 3 or 4 A level subjects narrowed down my choices significantly at 16.
How could I have just chosen the IB? Would have required a move overseas or transfer to private school.

Complete overhaul of maths syllabus would be better.
I hated maths at school, I was an A grade student stressing if I’d get a C in maths as I was so desperate to avoid resit. I got a B and announced to my dad I was never doing maths again and he laughed (he had accounts job) but it was true I’ve never used what was in maths gcse - quadratic equations?!
I was actually good at science got highest score in school in Chemistry gcse but was totally put off science A levels by thought of having to do maths.

I'm Irish, and Irish, English and Maths have generally been mandatory for our A-level equivalent (closer to IB, six or seven subjects, usually). Having taught at universities in Ireland and the UK, I think it's valuable. Specialising too soon narrows options, and leaves great gaping holes in general knowledge and basic abilities.

I do think that there is room on the syllabus for a "real world applied maths" course, for less academically inclined students, focused on household budgets, interest rates, debt, taxes, SME business accounting, Excel, main accounting softwares used (Quickbooks/Xero etc.), conversions and measurements. Apply it to real life circumstances that young people handle, so that they can fluently price up a project, do year end accounts, write a script in Excel, instantly spot discrepancies and so on.

God, offer it to more academically inclined students too!

I can confidently say that I have never used cos, sin or tan since 1995.

Less academic students already have to.study English and Maths until.they get a grade four ,maybe functional.skills would be better for my less academic son but it should be either or not both.

I was good at English but terrible at maths and scraped a C in my GCSE. I went on to do a law degree and then a masters and being shit at maths has not affected my life in anyway. But at 16, having to pass maths to carry on was miserable and soul-destroying.