What subjects do you think should be compulsory in school and how similar should each school be?

[Jbr]

I think IT and typing should be compulsory at GCSE level. It would save a fortune later on and then nobody could complain they had missed out on basic skills. Of course English and Maths should be compulsory but what else?

I didn't have to take a language at school (I believe you have to take French or German now) but I still took French. I had to choose between doing Modular science (different topics every 6 weeks) or taking Biology, Chemistry and Physics as 3 separate lessons. I didn't need that much depth for my chosen career so I took modular.

Should it be the same at all schools? Should all children get the chance to take the lessons they need for their chosen jobs? I took an NVQ during the summer holidays between school and university and I met lots of different people and some of them took GCSEs in subjects I had never even heard of. While they did all the compulsory stuff eg English, Maths and a science, they had much more choice in their other lessons. A friend of mine did Classical Studies which was basically the history of the Romans and Ancient Greece with music and geography thrown in. I would have loved to have taken that and likewise she did English but couldn't take Oral Communication!

I know there is a lot of choice between which exam boards individual schools and even teachers within schools can use. I took English A Level with one exam board and re-sat it with a different exam board and found the second time much better.

Should all children have access to the same subjects? Do you think it is fair that some schools give their students less choice than others? I realise now the National Curriculum is much more narrow but I bet some kids are still not getting a lot of different choices.

I think nutrition and cookery would be a good one.

I believe only Maths and English should be compulsory and pupils along with their teachers and families should be allowed to choose the subjects that they feel they can excel in and put to good use in the future.

In my school we had to do a language and a science. Both of which I was appallingly bad at was not interested in and subsequently failed.

Some children are clearly not academic, like myself but I learned to type at school and my spelling I think is fairly good. I enjoyed history and english which I passed. I wasn't allowed to take geography as it was in the same pool as typing and I had to choose typing instead.

at gcse they have hardly any choice at all. at my kids' school they all take 10 (it is a strongly academic school):
english lang, english lit, maths, double science (all 3 subjects but it counts as 2 gcse's, not 3), technology (food, textiles, graphics or systems) and a language are all compulsory. the other subjects are grouped and they can take 1 or 2 from each group, it's over 2 years since my 16-yr-old made her choices so i forget the groupings - humanities, arts, things like that. IT is available but as one of the 3, not one of the techs, which seems STUPID to me.

i think they should have a bit of time each week - like one double period at least - to do really useful stuff like child development/psychology (with so many 16-yr-olds having babies it would be nice if they knew their babies aren't being NAUGHTY when they do things they shouldn't, like throwing food and wetting pants), computer skills (including keyboard), managing money, organising a house, writing business letters...any other suggestions? and more time should be made available for sport again - they have games and one PE at ours. (when the tech subject was made compulsory it was added on to the existing curriculum and everything else was squeezed up - or out, like the other period of PE.)

the literacy hour and numeracy hour, admirable though they are, have had an even worse effect on primary school timetables...actual teaching time is just over 20 hours a week and 10 of those now go on those 2 things.

Most of the people who took child development in my school had children. One lad ended up with 5 kids! His partner has some sort of fertility problem and no type of contraception works except the one they didn't try - condoms. He paid a lot of attention in that class didn't he? Her contraception didn't work so that was that, because we all know it's the woman's responsibility!! Also the people who took child development were all the skivers and the kids who were always in trouble. It was seen as a lesson you took if you were slack. I didn't take it before anyone says.

The curriculum seems really restrictive but I still think all kids should have the chance to take all kinds of lessons. If a GCSE is available in one school it should be available in anothe. I don't know how this could be implemented though.

jbr, i meant that child development etc should be a part of the curriculum for everybody - properly taught - not a soft option for slackers.

can't say i see not using condoms as a logical consequence of not paying attention in child development classes - you do, obviously.

what an unusual outlook on life you have.

I know from kids who took this course at my high school that about 1/4 or more of the course was about contraception, it was mainly a re-iteration on what we all knew anyway. Our school (or rather the exam board they used for Child Development) had a heavy slant on prevention not just on what you do with your kids when they are born. This lad that ended up with 5 non-planned children ie all "accidents" as he called it couldn't have been listening much to the safe sex part of the child development lesson. There were lots of questions (25%) on contraception in the exam as well.

I don't know if it should be compulsory. I can't imagine being MADE to do that lesson, it would be awful for the pupils who didnt' want children. It's not like maths and english where everyone is going to need it at one point or other.

Jbr, just a suggestion but perhaps if everyone had child development classes - regardless of whether they think they want children or not (which when your at school is very hard to say), our society collectively might be rather more child friendly and (in theory) parental responsibility might be taken more seriously? I have to admit I've not thought about it before in these terms myself.

As for the issue of compulsory education it is a difficult question. Not having child at secondary level yet I am slightly confused about citizenship being taught. Does anyone know whether this has been implemented and what it involves?

I do believe that English and maths should be compulsorary but beyond that where do we go? It is very personal. I would like my children to learn a language. I believe it is essential. I would like my children to have a religious education which incorporates a large spectrum of religions because I believe it is only through knowledge that one can have understanding (as a family we have no religious faith but I do believe that we have high morals). Which brings me on to morality, how does one teach such a subject and isn't that too highly subjective?
IT would seem essential but I can imagine that lots of children learn their IT skills at home and perhaps get bored in the classroom. I'd like my children to have studied music (which I'd have a hard time justifying as a compulsory subject) and PE/Games are very important too!
The suggestion that cookery and nutrition should be taught is a good one as within my daughters group of friends very few have any knowledge on such matters...

Sorry to be babbling...I seem to be on a stream of consciousness that is not very structured blame that on lazy Sunday morning...

I firmly believe that children should learn philosophy. I studied it at University and it changed my outlook on life. There was a programme at the University encouraging the teaching of philosophy in school but it is not widely accepted for some reason. The point about philosophy is that it underpins all 'subjects' and therefore is useful whatever a child is learning. Winnie - philosophy also covers morality/ethics and it need not be complex. A lot of philosophy is stripping our ideas down to the bare bones and actually simplifying issues. This I feel would be greatly useful in our complex lives. It would also seem that children are crying out for some guidance and some basic 'rules' about right and wrong. Learning about them for yourself rather than relying upon parents I think is very important.

Oh yes and of course I forgot to mention morality need not have anything at all to do with religion.

Eulalia, although I'd not considered it, I do agree that philosophy would be a great subject to be taught in schools.

Furthermore, you are absolutely right; the idea that strong moral values are only possible with in a religious context is preposterous.

Excuse me Janh but am I missing something here? I thought that Mumsnet was meant to be a friendly place where we could exchange views whilst not necessarily agreeing with everybody. I really don't think it's fair therefore to tell JBR that she has a "strange outlook on life". This really bugged me - let's be nice to each other please! Apologies JBR if this is unrequired support but I got a little peeved!

Message withdrawn

candy, if you look at a few other topics, jbr disagrees quite strongly with almost everybody almost all the time...
bloss, all i was thinking of was a double period a week covering all those things by turns - not as full gcse courses or anything! mine already do what's called something like pse (???) (personal and social education or something?) in which they cover drugs, sex, etc. (can't tell you more cos they're not here to ask at the moment.) no exam or anything, but a lot of useful information.

ten gcse's seems like far too many to me; maths and english certainly should be done by all - a language at some level could be done by all but maybe conversational for those who struggle with grammar etc? some science on the same basis maybe. the curriculum could be broader and shallower in quite a few areas, but of course all schools aren't the same size and don't have the same facilities and the same priorities.

whatever happened to the idea of technical schools? non-academic children are often really good at all sorts of practical and/or artistic things and would surely feel much more fulfilled and confident from doing things they can do well instead of failing at things they can't do at all...a neighbour's son who struggles to read anything had to do 5 years of secondary school, ending up with one grade E - which was actually a huge achievement for him - and is now doing extremely well as a garage mechanic. those 5 years would have been much better spent doing mechanical things...

I think all kids should do the English etc, nobody should get out of doing the academic things. But I do think work experience should be better than it is. I did I don't know how many 1 week placements with employers who didn't even want the kids there, so why agree to it in the first place?

I think it would be more useful for a child to do 1 day a week over 5 weeks and then have some contact with the company over that time or something and actually feel that they are part of the company in a way. I know work experience can be hellish for some companies. I went to ask HMV for a one day a week work experience off my own bat eg Saturdays, when I was at school. I wanted to work for no money for the experience. They said no because they had already ran a one week work experience for some kids and it had gone wrong. They were cheeky to the customers and some thieving had gone on!!

Thanks Candy by the way. I didn't take child development but I know contraception was a huge part of the exam and course work and almost everyone on that course had children while still at school. I just thought it was ironic and someone bit my head off for it!

Where I went to school (Canberra, ACT), Year 7 (first year at highschool) we had no subject choice. We did English, maths, general science, PE (Physical Education), history, languages (Latin, French, German, Spanish, Indonesian and Japanese), music and a compilation of wood and meatl work, art, food science and sewing (girls and boys!).

Years 8-10 English, maths, general science and PE were compulsory and we chose 4 other subjects from a very wide range (my choices varied each year and I did agriculture, music, art right through with a bit of history, Latin and typing!)

Years 11-12 were at a separate school (no bells, no uniforms, teachers on first name basis etc) and no subjects were compulsory. The vast majority of students did, however, choose to take English and maths at some level. The rest of the subjects were divided into those that would get you into Uni (Tertiary Accredited) and those that were more practical rather than academic (Accredited). Students following the Accredited path could partially complete the requirements of an apprenticeship/traineeship during their senior years while staying at school. The ACT has the highest rate of young people staying on to finish Year 12 in Australia.

I followed the Tertiary Accredited stream and studied maths, English, physics, chemistry, agriculture and art.

The school system in Australia varies from state to state. In NSW (where I live now and where my husband grew up) English is the only compusory subject in Years 11-12.

A question, in our Primary school for their Religious Education, our kids get taught about all Faiths. Does this only happen in Scotland or is it all over Britain.?

Tigger, in my daughters school, which is in a rural market town in the west country and has pupils from a multiplicity of faiths, religious education is quite narrowly christain and only touches on one or two other faiths. The problem is that schools by law, I think, have to have collective christain worship/assemblies and this is very difficult and undermining for both the teachers and the pupils who do not adhere to christianity. Doesn't this instil the idea in children that hypocricy is okay and normal?

jbr, "someone bit your head off for it"? well, excuse me, i forgot that was your job.

2 points. 1 - i was talking about child development. you were talking about a specific course which included contraceptive information, but you didn't bother to mention that to me, so your "ironic" point didn't make sense.
2 - i said unusual, not strange, which in the context of the above, it was.

if you actually READ what people say, and then thought about what they MEANT, instead of flying off the handle and dictating which words you think we should be allowed to use, you might get through to more minds and generate a sensible discussion. if that is what you want. which i doubt.

as far as RE goes, it sounds as if what is taught is down to the individual school. and, probably, whether it's a church school or not. my kids' primary is an english county school and they certainly cover all the major religions, including the odd visit to a mosque, synagogue etc which i think is brilliant. the pupils are mostly white but there are a few asians.

the prospectus is "interesting" though (and i should know because i used to be the governor responsible for getting it out each year!) - it mentions that the daily christian assembly does not have to be attended - which is true - but that no staff would be available to supervise any child who didn't attend. dot dot dot!

as assembly lasts 20-30 minutes as a rule, i wonder how many parents would want their child unsupervised that length of time??? (the actual christian worship bit only covers a hymn and a prayer, the rest of it is general school stuff, but still...)

urgh..I remember sitting thru' hymns and parables for 20 mins each day..

I must admit they do stick in your mind, do you remember the one about the people living in hell who all had 4 metre chopsticks to eat their food with, and they were all starving because they couldn't feed themselves. But the ones in heaven were all fine because thay all fed EACH OTHER!!

So I for all my ranting against religious schools the parable bit was a goodie!

lil, i never heard of that!!! the parable of the 4 foot chopsticks?

sorry, 4 METRE chopsticks.
that's even sillier!

Ha Ha maybe it was foot, I think the parables weren't metric!

Message withdrawn

Bloss, I've never been to church, so thought this was a standard one!!! all these years later and I've been hoodwinked - OK will add this to my reasons for not backing religious schools... LOL