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?!

I think you are hopelessly wrong. There is huge value in breadth of education as well as depth.

Just because a specific system wouldn’t have suited you personally, doesn’t mean it’s worthless.

It's a crap idea, and, as a PP said, two years of reluctant, begrudging 'study' as an almost-adult isn't going to rectify much. 16 year olds need to select their preferred areas of study if it's to be a valuable experience.

I am Irish and only discovered last month that children in England dont have do Maths or English past 16 and generally only do 3 subjects for A levels. We generally to 7 subjects including mandatory Irish, English and Maths.

Looking at the past paper, the ordinary level (lower) maths paper includes working out rates and percentages for house increases, areas of garden, commission rates, how to work out insurance costs - all very practical stuff. The English paper focuses on social issues, opinion pieces, how to express your views, comprehension of articles/posters etc. I cant see how any of that cant help a person in their daily life.

Do you honestly think bricklayers don’t know maths?

What happens with your less academic students ?
Mums net tends to focus on everybody doing A levels in a school.sixth form
When actually many schools only go.up.to.year eleven and GCSE,s
Post 16 there are lots of options including A levels .

I’d also agree on the how will they fit it in point. My dc is yr 13 and it’s very full on. 3 A levels and EPQ. Uni applications far more involved than my day - full day open days to visit, some subjects need additional tests passing (law/medicine) work experience and supra curricular - additional reading, podcasts, taster sessions. Plus life stuff like Learning to drive and pt jobs to hopefully save a bit for uni as most won’t get a full maintenance loan.
If they drop content from A levels as less time then knock on implications for degree study of some subjects.

Certainly if a bricklayer wants to progress in his or her career, they're going to need maths! Of all jobs it seems to require a lot of very important calculations.

Where did I say brick layers didn't know maths?????
My point was if you read it properly why would a brick layer need to study Maths, if they have already passed their GCSE ?????
The thing about mandatory,is that it means everyone post 16 not just those studying A levels !!!!

Again where did I say they don't know maths??
Maybe some posters could do with going back to.school and doing some comprehension lessons 🙄

You should tell (pretty much) every other developed country they're doing it wrong then.

I think it would be a really good idea for teenagers to continue developing a broader range of skills. 16 is too young to narrow learning as we do now. A very mathematically minded child scraping a GCSE pass in English, would arguably really benefit from continuing a bit longer and vice-versa. However it should really all be less academic nonsense and more real life applications, skills they will actually use.

i would have hated being made to do maths in 6th form. I had an A at GCSE and was perfectly competent but I hated it and giving it up really changed how I felt about school.

I think there’s an argument for non assessed targeted support such as essay writing skills, referencing, public speaking etc. from English and statistics skills etc. from maths but if he literally means continuing with an advanced curriculum for people who struggle with or loathe a subject, all that’s going to do is turn people of further education. Although as a PP said perhaps that’s the point of this!

My understanding are the plans would be to scrap A-levels altogether and replace with a bacc-style system. This is what most countries have rather than having 15 year olds specialise in only 3 subjects.

This is nonsense and just another pointless announcement from a Government desperate to find some sort of policy that will win them some support. I have no issues with reforming A-levels but surely right now they should concentrate on fixing the buildings and coming to an agreement with striking teachers before they start meddling.

I don't think it's necessarily a terrible idea, but I am not sure maths should be included. Everyone should have functional everyday maths skills, but GCSE maths already sits beyond that and isn't useful to many people.

I grew up in the Dutch system and whatever qualifications you did, English and Dutch were mandatory. This was combined language and literature for both, so broader than for example the A level literature spec. Something like that could work. I also did 8 subjects, not 3 or 4 (which meant I could drop my worst from the end result). The course I did in French and German was far more challenging than the UK equivalent A levels so you wouldn't necessarily l8se the depth by widening the range.

But surely the funding should be better put into primary education so that kids have the right foundations in place so that by the time they reach 16 they are competent in those areas? As a PP said, if 12 years of education has failed them by that point a further 2 years isn’t really doing anything is it?

I think we are too quick to see the grass greener on the other side, or, indeed, in another country. I feel for A-level students too. It is almost 20 years since I sat mine, I did 4 plus Advanced Extensions (if anyone even remembers them) and every year both then and since come results day there are pieces and pundits out there saying that the students aren't as smart as yesteryear or that the system in other countries is better. The UK system will be 'fixed' and the qualifications worth something just as soon as we change them. The system in other countries may not be better, just different.

In my personal experience I did not enjoy maths, I got an A at GCSE but had to work three times as hard to get that as to get an A in other subjects. I would hate to think of having had to struggle on for another two years.

A Levels are intended to be specialist, in other coutries they are doing 6/7 subjects, but are they going into them in the same depth? My partner did A levels in England and then a medical degree at an Irish University, 7 year course, the first year was all science, all of which he had already covered at A-level.

No need to panic. Reforms of this level take loads of time to develop and implement. Rishi Sunak has barely a year left as PM - nowhere near enough time to push this through.

I expect like any system of education it would suit some and not others. We've always had something more like IB here. Depending on the state it's 5-6 subjects at our A level equivalent, including English or English and maths, with 4 electives. Maths and English are very streamed at that level. There are also vocational paths too, but they're done through an alternative provision. I can imagine the crys of horror if out children were restricted to only 3 subjects. For me I would have found that really restrictive, others would probably have benefited from a more focused education.

I don't really mind if people have to study Maths to 18, the problem comes if they then have to pass an exam in it in order to get on with their lives afterwards.

The IB (which I did) is bloody hard work for anyone with a weak spot in any subject, not many people realise that if you do really badly at any of the subjects you fail THE ENTIRE DIPLOMA leaving you with nothing after two years. So many of my friends would have left college with no qualifications as they were unable to really get their heads round maths, English or a foreign language, despite being really talented in other areas. Thank god they could all do A levels instead.

Something like this could just leave more students on the exams scrapheap. IMO the only people who advocate that kind of system are either true all-rounders or those who lack any kind of empathy. Should the future teacher or journalist or physio leave school without a higher qualification because they find one area hard?

It is a very narrow focus compared to what many other countries are used to

My DS was educated in Spain and undertook a Bachillerato. He had the choice of 4 study streams Arts, Science, Humanities or Social Sciences. 2 of the 4 continued the study of Maths and 10 subjects are covered in each stream. The Bachillerato is designed that way because they know that a large number of students wouldn't carry on and go to university if they had to study maths. It offers the opportunity to study a far broader range of subjects to give you the widest choice of courses at University.
I think we could learn a lot from the way other countries operate their post 16 offering.
Sunak's vision will just stop a large number of young people from wanting to study if they have to continue with maths but with the constant focus on STEM and the demise of arts degrees perhaps that's what he wants.

I don't really think even the maths/English GCSEs are necessarily something every child should have in the format that they are. Everyone should have to pass a functional maths/English exam in Y10/11 but the GCSEs are more suited to those having an interest in them at A level. The functional exams should be the minimum requirement for A levels (unless maths or English is relevant for that particular a level). Science I'm not sure about, it's probably fine as it is as its generally not a requirement for A levels to pass anyway.

I heard this on the radio and although I agree that expanding the a levels is a great idea, I'm far from sold on the maths/English question. I know an extremely bright science post-grad who struggled with maths. She is French and the bac includes a maths element - she gritted her teeth and finally scraped a pass. The legacy is she's no better at maths for the experience but the bad memory lives on.

Each child is different. Some will embrace the extra subjects (I would have), others will be gutted and might put them off learning entirely. The prescriptiveness in education needs to stop.

For me two reasons why you don't reach level at 16. One is you are not able to, the other is you don't care or want to.

Making it mandatory and forcing people who don't care or want to is stupid. it's hard enough teaching kids under 16, let alone a bunch of 18 year old who don't want to be there. And who is going to make them turn up ?

Similarly if you are not able to you would probably be better off at least getting special needs teaching, or focussing on a career that you could do rather than continuing to bang your head against the wall with stuff you can't.

I think kids need to have it drummed into them that education doesn't stop at 16 and that it should be something you can come back to at any point, whether you continue after 16 and go onto university, or decide to go out into the real world for a couple of years, realise that mundane employment isn't for you and come back to qualify on your terms.

The message should be that if you want to come back and learn at any age the door is open. Because kids at 16-18 years old aren't always in the best position to decide on their educational needs, but that may change as they get only a few years older.