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?!

The British education system narrows far too young, its not good for people to stop doing something as essential to life as maths at age 16, even those who aren't academic.

For instance I'm at vocational college in Finland, as an adult. If I want to get the full vocational qualification I need to study mothertongue (either Finnish or Swedish), the other language (so Swedish if mother tongue is Finnish), a foreign language (generally English), maths, physics, chemistry, art, social studies and work-related studies. Its only a few study points for each so you're not studying all of them the whole time but it makes sure basic skills are up to scratch.

Making sure everyone has a decent grasp of English and Maths before leaving school is not the worst idea in the end. However, for a large proportion who pass GCSE they already have a decent grasp of both and don't need to continue to get a more advanced knowledge unless it is relevant for their future career. For those who don't pass, continuing to retake and fail GCSE is utterly pointless and it would be much better to encourage these students to take functional skills maths and English to get the skills they actually need for life.

Completely agree. So many adults and students run up debts - it's almost inevitable in this day and age - everyone needs to understand APR. There are so many individual businesses too that basic accountancy like you say is essential imo. Other things like what is VAT, what is a limited business. So totally relevant to large sections of our workforce, both white and blue collar.

I don't disagree with that ,my son has never been academic ,he was also very unwell in February in intensive care so missed a full.half term of his,year 11_#subsequently he's having to re do maths and English ,at college ,I think functional.skills in maths and English would suit him far better ,but currently the system is GCSE ,maths and English untill.a student gets at least a grade four

There are options for those that are less academic such as leaving cert applied but they would include literacy and numeracy these are seen as basic skills that you need to get on in life no matter what you end up doing.

As pointed out by other posters the majority of education systems across the world have mandatory subjects up to 18 which in general include numeracy and literacy. The UK education is not rated as a great system and I don't think it is good for any society to have young people leaving school without a basic grasp of maths or English. I also don't think it is beneficial to have to specialise so young

I also agree that there are much more useful skills than the ones taught in GCSE maths and English, and a focus on skills that are actually useful in life would be better than the deeply theoretical maths that is currently taught, and the endless analysis of texts in English.

Suggesting that English schools can realistically implement a curriculum overhaul is like suggesting that those schools currently closed due to RAAC could organise a full scale production of Hamilton.

The infrastructure, capacity and resources needed are so far removed from what is available that it is batshit to suggest it.

Agree. Its absolutely ridiculous.
Some kids will be fine but there are others who are particularly talented at the arts or at the sciences but are hopeless at the other... as long as they have achieved basic literacy and numeracy they should be able to pursue their actual gifts as they pass 16.
Really pissed me off as a more arts inclined person that even at gcse level I couldn't take music, art and drama.. in fact I could only choose one. Because you had to do endless subjects you weren't really that interested in.
I think its appalling to take up kids time with that at A level as well. Once again its just massive devaluing of the arts tbh... because English is basically useful even if you are an engineer or scientist but maths at an advanced level is of absolutely no real use to a dancer for example. As long as they have the basics of maths down theres no need to force it further on people and take up time they could be doing a subject they are actually engaged by.

I think they should instead teach maths and English on a more practical level.

Maths - How tax works, bank accounts, interest rates, credit cards, teh dangers of klarna,
English: How to construct an email, CV etc. I can spot a CV from an under 20 year old a mile off based on their email to me.

And I mean could this not just be part of 'general studies'? I remember in my school we started out doing 5 AS levels of which general studies had to be one and it contained segments on politics and economics etc... then the other 4 we could choose. We could drop general studies after AS if we wanted or continue it to A level.

But English doesn't have to be about dissecting texts. They could change the syllabus post 16 into two streams one use of English one more academic.

I think what others have said- it should be about English language, not English lit to 18

That way, you can learn how to apply critical thinking skills, how to write a CV and cover letter, how to get your point across in a polite (yet firm) manner, how language changes - when to use colloquialisms and when to be more formal - all of that would be valuable in the workplace

In my role as a copywriter it's about learning when to use different tones of voice, how to communicate with different groups - when to use jargon/when not - those are valuable transferrable skills that could be explored further

I wonder if instituting an British baccalaureate is to appeal more to EU students for university as there has been a significant drop in applications since Brexit. Lots of British universities do not have a good understanding of qualifications from other countries (I.e. non A level) and often make unrealistic offers? Wonder if Sunak has realised that this is making the Uk university market increasingly less attractive and hurting their bottomline which in turn is affecting higher education for home students. making uk leaving qualifications more comparable to other EU ones might resolve this issue…

Critical thinking, English, debate, language sounds good

I’d love to see economics brought more into school curriculum for part of the maths

Definitely agree economics should be brought in

When I set up my business, I didn't really know an awful lot about the accounting side of things (thats what I pay my accountant for!) but to teach kids how to read a balance sheet, how to tell the difference between profit/turnover, even teaching them how to use software like Quickbooks would again be a valuable lesson because many of them could easily go self-employed at a young age.

Plus definitely teach them functional daily maths - how to work out compound interest, how to know what the base interest rate could mean for mortgages/savings, how to read an energy bill - all those things that many adults struggle with - as shown by the posts on MN every single day

essentially, my view is if you're going to bring in compulsory lessons to 18, they need to be information relevant to ALL

Similar to the Irish system too.
Entry to universities is based on the points they get in their 6 best subjects.

So not dis similar to the english systen then where it is already mandatory for all 16_18,year olds to keep.doing maths and Ennglish at GCSE untill they get at least a grade four? ,As well as whatever course they do post 16 ,there are lots of choices other than Alevels

I dont actually think there are many people who are 'hopeless' at maths and English though. Definitely some people that find some subjects easier than others but that doesnt mean they cant learn it. The vast majority of people with enough time and good teaching can get up to a decent standard. It's about the culture that surrounds learning mostly, no learning is pointless.

Just to add as well basic literacy and numeracy is a really low bar. Surely you want more for your kids than basic literacy?

I once, as a favour to a friend, did some tutoring with a lad who was at an independent school which studied for IB; he was a science/maths student (although a good violinist as a hobby), but needed a decent grade in English, and I dragged him through the construction of a literary essay with "painting by numbers" approach which suited his scientific mind.
He was/is a lovely lad, perfectly articulate and capable of writing in sentences(!) but we both found it heavy going.
He managed to get a good enough result for his needs, went off to be a civil engineer, but I really don't think it helped him to dissipate his energies in this way.

I'm in favour of children studying more subjects, for longer times. I think English-speaking countries short-change their children - and by extension their citizens in general - by expecting so little of them while they're at school and so leaving them mostly poorly educated.

(Of course many people don't realise how ill-educated they are. Why so? - Left as an exercise ...)

I'm a product of UK education, A-levels, university, postgrad etc. Very narrowly educated at school, filled some gaps in later years ...

My children, by contrast, outside UK where we stayed for all their schooling, studied three sciences, maths, history, geography, philosophy, art, music, four languages, sport, until age 18. Then they went to UK universities to study different STEM subjects, where they found to their surprise they trod water at first while their British peers with much-vaunted A-levels (gold standard!) caught up with them. Some of them went elsewhere in Europe for a year with Erasmus etc., studied in other languages (physics in Spain for instance). And so on.

Now each of my children has a STEM doctorate and a variously interesting career. And they still speak lots of languages, can quote Shakespeare, Molière, Goethe etc. in the original, and are aware of (particularly but not exclusively European) history and geography. They also play different musical instruments - in the past in various orchestras/bands - sing in choirs, and teach their children to paint, draw and sculpt.

Reading this, you probably think I'm making it up, or that my children were/are exceptionally talented. Neither is true. OK, me and partner are middle class, relatively well-off, concerned with educating our children well back in the day. Involved. That helps, of course. But ...

Of course I think highly of my kids, like any parent. But really they were never exceptionally bright, although they did study exceptionally hard as adolescents. Also, they had good teachers, well-qualified (and well-paid!).

My point is that any child of average or above talent and intelligence can do this. But we don't ask them to. It would take resources - financial and otherwise - we are not prepared to offer.

Anyway, so overall I support Rishi S and others who wish to do more with children in post-16 education. (That's not enough to get me to vote Tory, but never mind. Another story, OT here really.)

[Oh, and as for the state/private divide in British education: ... Ugh! And those of you who see public schools (private schools) as offering anything decent: think again. Eton and co. are awful - just look at their alumni: ill-educated in a different way. Awful. But that's a different matter, also OT.]

Perhaps not mandatory subjects but I think for students who have very weak areas like Math or English then even if they aren't doing exams in those subjects they should have a basic level of competence. I've known people very strong in arts subjects who went to university, have degrees and are essentially innumerate and equally people who excelled at Math or Science subjects who have very poor English skills.

I do think there is a lot to be said for this. I would add that what I learned in Home Economics, is also still useful.

Part of the problem with this idea is the thinking that nothing would change with GCSEs.

The UK is something of an outlier in terms of how narrow the curriculum goes at a relatively young age and how early the "main" big exams are held.

A level reform is much needed for an economy that needs better literacy and numeracy than we're currently churning out, and certainly isn't serving students well in terms of forcing them to make life choices so young, but that also involves not rushing in so soon to major qualifications. A serious 5-18 education system wouldn't have such a major break point at 16.

Having come from a proper education to 18 system, the UK secondary system seems completely mad.

I was at school in the '80s, before the National Curriculum and when the leaving age was 16. We had a lot stay on for one year in the lower 6th, doing extra literacy and numeracy, but I doubt that would happen now, because of league tables and so on.

You can't study anything else without a decent level of English. Maths is useful to everyone. Even hairdressesers mentioned upthread will have to measure dye mixes, take money from customers, pay bills and taxes, maybe pay wages - budget.

We have a lot of functional adult illiteracy and innumeracy. It doesn't have to be literary analysis and advanced trigonometry, but report writing, complaints, public speaking, critical thinking, budgeting, interest rates and other practical calculations would all be good. It would make sense to have different levels for different students, but they A-level, apprentice, BTEC or whatever other qualifications they're working towards.

In any case, I'm another who thinks we specialise too early in this country - many equivalent countries to things like baccalaureate or other leaving certificates covering more subjects.

So I can see a lot of arguments in favour of it. However, the devil is in the detail, and it's more than possible that the government would screw up what is basically a good idea and come up with something that doesn't work for any teachers (of which we don't have enough,) students, parents or employers...

I think that providing a child has passed GCSE Maths and English Language, they should be able to leave school at 16. The exam should be to a standard that equips them with adequate knowledge and skill in the two subjects.

There is nothing wrong if you have them in starting in the world of work and not going into a sixth form or equivalent.