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?!

Won't happen as it would require more staffing and schools are struggling to recruit teachers.

Basic numeracy and literacy would be better solved by having more (and better ) maths teachers up to 16. There is a lot to be said for a broader range of subjects post 16 but if you force everyone to do calculus when they cant handle percentages you are failing them. Ditto if you cannot train as a Nurse because you cannot interpret The Merchant of Venice

We had this at my school in the 90s! For GCSEs, English, Maths and Science were mandatory, and you had to pick at least one of the humanities (History or Geography), and at least one modern language (French, German or Spanish).

At A-Level we had mandatory 'General Studies', which was basically a light overview of the core subjects, plus stuff like presentation skills and life skills, like car maintenance and wiring a plug.

I think I would have offed myself if I'd had to carry on with maths in any depth post-GCSE. I could do maths (I got a B at GCSE level, anyway!), I just hated it!

DD started the IBAC in year 12, did half a term and realised she was studying a lot of subjects she hated (English, maths,biology and German) and only 2 she liked so she switched to 4 A levels and an EPQ. SO I think that there are problems with the bacc model too.

WHere it might work would be to scrap GCSEs, institute a "standard level" Bacc at 17 where you could offer one of three streams - so an arts and humanities, a general or a STEM. So STEM might encompass sciences, tech, maths a language, philosophy and an English language paper like the old O level English with a comprehension , a precis and an extended piece of writing with a range of options from writing an essay debating a topic to creative writing. Arts might encompass Humanities/creative arts plus a language, "practical maths" which should include some statistics and a lot of everyday maths but less on the quadratic equation/calculus front and general science and the General stream could be more like the IBAC. Then those wanting to go on to higher education could take advanced papers in year 13 in 3 of the subjects they really wanted to study.

When I was in the sixth form there was a lad who was really good at science and maths but had to resit English Language multiple times. He got there in the end but it must have felt like a right pain for him.

I agree that 'some' studying of English and Maths alongside chosen subjects could be beneficial to many. But I think the key is it should be applied/practical based.

So for English, no need to study Henry IV part 2. Instead focus on drafting emails, writing CVs, job application letters, binning of bad habits from texting, creative writing, reading and discussing contemporary novels.

For Maths. Every day numeracy skills. Banking, tax returns, calculating living costs, understanding how mortgages work. Understanding interest and inflation, working with foreign currency - that kind of thing.

And no tests or exams. Just applied learning.

Interesting timing as DS and I heard that on the radio tonight and he's just starting A levels.

He passed England and Maths well but was delighted to leave them behind for the subjects he really wants to do. His early reports are excellent, way the best he's ever had through school.

His subjects require literacy and numeracy, it's not like you leave them behind.

I agree. I think if they are going to tinker with something yet again, they should reform the GCSE. If the A Level is going to be broader and involve more subjects, why does the GCSE need to exist at all? Yes, do maths, English and maybe a science at GCSE and then, as they are doing in some private schools, just have a broad curriculum of subjects, with exams at 18. And yes, its fine saying 'Maths to 18'but there is a chronic shortage on maths teachers, and teachers in general and a collapse in people going into teaching.

Very good point, I can't recruit maths teachers even with incentives.

I agree with this, I too am a product of British secondary schooling, whereas my DD has grown up in and been educated in another European country and where all subjects are continued to 18. My DD is lot more well read and has a lot more cultural capital than I was/had at the age she is now because of it.

There are specialised lycees for sciences classics, languages, art, humanities etc. and the level of maths, for example, is geared to the specialism. So for instance in a scientific lycee it would be more complex, but the level in an art specialism would probably be a bit lower (although some students might go on to do architecture where maths is required, so it’s definitely not dummy level).

Even in the technical and professional institutes, which are supposedly for the less academic, maths and local language (plus English as the main foreign language in all but a few) are kept up until diploma at 18.

I know, it basically is resits. I did a few weeks (supply teacher) teaching maths to students who had not got a 4, some of the students had a 1 most had a 2.

They were on a two year course but had to resit GCSE at every opportunity, they would IMHO be better actually studying a two year maths course, you are not going to go from a 1 to a 4 in a few months.

I think the theory is solid and the UK system is an outlier in allowing students to drop core subjects and specialise so much so early, but the actual plan is half baked. They don't have the staff or resources to implement it.

It would actually be lovely if they brought back AS-Levels to be quite honest. I can think of multiple fields that could use more maths than GCSE but not a full maths A-Level in particular.

Personally, I think the idea is good in principle. But students should be able to select a functional skills type option to help them with everyday life tasks such as writing a coherent email, turn-taking in conversations, constructing an argument in a meeting etc… or the more traditional A level style class.
in practice, this will be very difficult to achieve as a) recruitment and retention of teachers is an issue and b) most schools probably do not have enough classrooms. It would be a massive investment in a system where budgets have been cut or not increased enough.
But I do applaud the concept.

It would actually be lovely if they brought back AS-Levels to be quite honest. I can think of multiple fields that could use more maths than GCSE but not a full maths A-Level in particular.

There's Core Maths, it's about half an A-level, for kids who got a 4+ at GCSE and are doing e.g. sciences or social sciences but not maths A-level. It's got statistics that they might need for data analysis, finance and budgeting stuff and basically no algebra. They do it alongside their three A-levels.

My kids’ schools both did/still do AS level-they were a good way to try a 4th subject for a year and still come out with a qualification in it.

Governments have also been talking about English Baccalaureates and changing exam systems for years. It never happens. We have too many people in this country who look back to the good old days and are resistant to any type of change to make anything happen on these points. The only education reform they care about is to go back in time to Grammar schools. And they are the ones who vote, so it is all noise. It wont happen. Labour should be being more radical on many things, but they're worried about scaring the horses ( understandably I suppose) but we need radical thought in many areas. We don't seem capable of it as a country unless it's radically hauling us back to the 1950's.

When I went to school a very long time ago in Australia, the Higher School Certificate was the final one you did before going to University (one's final year), if you so desired. There were requirements that you had to take English language, which I think is fair enough, but English literature was optional. No maths requirement, but if you wanted to go to University then you needed either a language or Maths. I chose French. HSC was far more like a Baccalaureate than A levels.

I've always thought the UK system with A levels was too specialised too early. How many kids know exactly what they want to do with their lives? I think it's better to give a broader education and then specialise at University.

What we need are lessons in debt, credit, national insurance, the tax system etc. actually maths related to everyday real life situations. Wish I had these when I was in school.