To tell you that factual recall wont get you very far in your GCSEs and ask you what you think schools should be teaching that they are not

[stripybluesocks]

I keep reading about how schools need to adapt the curriculum to modern life and stop making children simply learn facts they can look up anyway. And read posters bewailing the fact that children should be learning how to analyse and evaluate more, as it is more useful in modern society.

A lot of parents don't seem to realise that factual recall is a very low level skill that won't get you very far in GCSEs at all - probably a few 3s and 4s, maybe the odd 5 if you are very very lucky.

Higher level questions require planning, application, analysis, evaluation and all the skills parents seem to think schools are ignoring. All this is taught from primary onwards. Many exam questions contain stacks of data that students are required to manipulate in many ways.

But yes, some factual recall is also required - students need to know the basics and understand the main concepts, or they wont be able to look up anything, because they wont know where to start, or what to believe!

I keep hearing suggestions about what schools should be teaching, but really, they are not very practical or useful suggestions- still keen to hear them, but dont be offended if I disagree with you

uk state schooling only suits a percentage of children, hence spiralling attendance and behavioural issues. All behaviour is communication as they say. A large percentage of children need something which U.K. state schools struggle to deliver. Some need a smaller more nurturing environment to excel, some (regardless of IQ) excel when physically using hands and bodies to learn, so need a completely different learning environment. Generally there needs to be a bigger focus on food, well-being, health, balance.

Have you seen the facts required for the science curriculum - especially if you do triple science?

AQA | Science | GCSE | Combined Science: Trilogy

I think making kids memorise quotes for English Lit is pointless. With an open book exam, you'd still need to know the book really well in order to quickly find the quote you need. And kids could use a wider variety of quotes if they didn't have to memorise them.

Also gcse maths is full of deeply theoretical stuff that is entirely irrelevant to daily life so it's ridiculous that it's considered a basic necessity for most jobs. It should be completely changed to include much more practical use maths, especially at foundation level, leave the equations and suchlike for higher and or A-level.

@pythag but what about the large number of kids who have no desire or need to progress to a higher level in maths? Surely more practical maths would be more useful for them than the endless equations. I have yet to be shown when you would ever need to use such an equation in daily life or any job that isn't directly maths related.

Cookery, well-being and physical movement is critical to health, longevity and weight. The cost to the NHS, social care and people’s mental health is staggering and getting worse year upon year. Sadly we have masses of second generation families now in living on substandard highly processed foods and unable to cook basic healthy meals. Yes these things should be taught at home but they are not and reeducation is critical

This is interesting.
As a teacher who often has to justify "fun" subjects- not the "real" ones, there are mixed messages.
Plenty of parents want their children to focus on the " important " lessons ( maths English science), at the cost of others.
Yet we are told that we're not teaching life skills enough.
Textiles is a good example. In plenty of schools it's becoming an endangered species, however- it's such a useful skill. Lots of people complain about the cost of a costume for kids, or not being able to mend clothes to get more life out of them.

There is only so much time in a school's curriculum- and so much to cram in.

I actually have taught much of that to my children. They are all well skilled up but they come from a place of privilege where I can cook, my parents taught me DIY, helped me navigate the world of mortgages etc which I can pass on. However the kids they go to school with (in a deprived part of England) many of them have parents who can't cook beyond opening packets, don't have tools at home, don't have engaged parents, or have parents working full time who don't have time to teach them such things. In an ideal world it would be parents as we know these skills are lost. The impending health crisis of obesity and nutritional poverty hasn't begun yet and it will impact us all as the health service will crash.

As a pp has said, kids, even 18 yo don't really want to learn about tax, mortgages and pensions. It feels so far distant, and especially pensions, v complex. I'm 47 and I don't really understand how they work, though as a teacher I've been paying in since I was 22 so just sort of assuming it's fine!). My DS at 15 is really struggling with the number and density of GCSE. Id like him to drop science which takes a huge amount of time and is v v technical and maths heavy and use the time to focus on his maths, English and chosen subjects. It's a private school so we DO have more freedom than otherwise and they do a lot of sport which is great, but we're still tied to the traditional subjects it seems. I cannot see the value in him sitting for two years learning (or failing to learn) about molecular bonding.

@Nokoolaidherethanks

Some jobs require higher level maths knowledge, these include lucrative-paying STEM related jobs, such as engineering, science-related, technology, related, accountancy, data-analysis etc. Of course not all kids will end up in those jobs. But as a teacher, I am acutely aware that anyone I choose not to teach equations to, I am also saying to that pupil that I do not think they can be an engineer, which is a “low expectation” statement for me to make. I would like to keep as many pupils as possible on the “potential engineer” track as long as possible, to give pupils maximum options and maximum future earning potential. This is particularly important for those pupils who may be able mathematicians but who may have been told by society (for example by their parents, or because they are female or because they are from a culture where education is not valued) not to try with maths.

Obviously, not everyone is going to be able to do higher level maths and for those, foundation level GCSE is still available. But as a nation we should keep as many pupils on track to higher level maths as long as possible.

In terms of what maths to teach, the purpose of mathematical education is the same as the purpose of any other subject. It is not merely to teach things that people will find useful in their daily lives. If we limited teaching to things people find useful in daily lives we would not teach vast amounts of literature, history, science, modern languages etc - which - let’s face it - most of us almost never “use” as adults. The purpose of education is to increase cultural capital and to elevate people mentally. This is why I am glad that I was taught Shakespearean sonnets, or how to speak French or how photosynthesis works or the history of parliamentary reform, even though I never ever use these things. So it also it with mathematics. Most people will never use Pythagoras’ theorem, but it is part of knowledge and encourages conceptual thought and should be taught to everyone.

By practical maths (I assume by this you mean things like calculating percentages, eg for tax purposes of interest rates or how to look at data and arithmetic?) is of course taught. But this is a relatively small part of mathematics and for lots of pupils is something they can do comfortably in year 7 or year 8. We are doing a disservice to pupils if we limit maths to that - both in terms of their future earning potential and in terms of their appreciation of the totality of human knowledge.

Absolutely this

I agree, but they don't really need to be tested to ensure they have a broad education. You can do that through assessment and actually teaching the content. Huge swathes of time is taken up on revision ( almost half of year 11). Everyone needs core skills, so English, maths and maybe science tested at 16 and if you haven't got to the standard, compulsory until 18, then maybe for people who have got to the standard, look at practical applications like finance for 16-18 year olds applied to things like budgeting and finance when they are closer to needing that, but the rest, at 16 doesn't need to be examined. At post 16,they will either be going to A Levels/T Levels or apprenticeships. Examine them then as that is what determines University/ jobs etc. The GCSE's are mostly redundant 2 years later apart from English and Maths.

It is ridiculous that English literature is a compulsory GCSE but other more important subjects like history

Why is history more important than English literature?

I love both history and Eng Lit but I could certainly argue that history (especially current GCSE pretty modern post wwII history) is relevant to understanding the current world. DS is actually studying the origins of Israel/Palestine right now. Eng Lit is great and has all sorts of cultural importance but if I had to pick one over the other it would be history.

I think people often drastically over-estimate the extent to which the content of lessons in any subject up to GCSE at school is remembered in adulthood or has a direct impact on the extent to which the average person understands the current world. I did history GCSE and remember little of use from it. My understanding (such as it is!) of the world in terms of history and politics has been gained as an adult. And some of that was from reading literature.

True but what was really useful about gcse history was learning to assess sources. I still remember a really impassioned discussion about who is more reliable- someone who was there, someone writing 10 years later or someone writing 50 years later. I ended up going into finance/ banking- understanding inherent biases, different contexts and info blind spots has been unbelievably useful in analysing conflicting info/ estimates

That's the one my DCs school do. And that's the curriculum for the less able students, the more able do 3 seperate GCSE sciences.

I agree. I remember virtually nothing from.my GCSE', apart from.various stitches which have been useful for sewing in millions of beavers/cubs badges over the years. But I remember huge tranches of my A Levels, just 2 years later. Subjects I was interested in, have used to some extent in adulthood and where I did 3 subjects in depth rather than 11 subjects.

Get him to concentrate on the subjects he needs for whatever he wants to do next. Let him bomb out on the one's that aren't important to him. He does need to pass maths and English though, if he's struggling in these make sure they let him sit the foundation papers they are easier to pass.

I do think that they do teacher more then facts, but there is to much reliance on learning facts also. In real life if you couldn't remember something at work.you just look it up, weather that be in a book or Internet. It's far more important to have those research skills.

I look at the work DD did in her English and there is no way I could pass that GCSE as you have to remeber a lot of quotes. Yet I got C when I did mind as most of it was course work.

Have all the changes actually improved the quality if education though?

of not if

Yes, since the changes put in place England has improved outcomes relative to other countries by a significant amount according to international studies (particularly in my subject, maths).

Thanks @Pythag

You don’t need a single quote in English Language GCSE ~ it’s comprehension and writing (examiner here). English teachers need to teach how to read between the lines, generate ideas and write fluently.

For GCSE English Lit you do need quotes but for two of the questions (unseen and Shakespeare) you have an extract on the paper that you can use. For the play, poetry and novel you can get away with three quotes each ( power quotes that are versatile) and they can literally be one or two words. I do wonder what teachers are teaching sometimes ~ they make it much harder than it is.

BTW no Foundation/ Higher split in English now. Everyone does the same paper.