Would parents choose a more practical and outdoor state secondary?

[OneHappyJoker]

We’re doing some early-stage planning for a new state secondary school and would love some honest thoughts from parents.
We’re trying to figure out what people feel should be part of a state education, especially for teens who don’t thrive in a purely academic system. For context, the school would be fully state funded and not run by an academy trust.
The big idea we’re exploring is mixing traditional lessons with a much more practical, outdoor and vocational approach. Things like animal care, camping, cooking, creative arts, water sports, equestrian, greenkeeping, construction, architecture, tech, and so on. We’re also looking at whether schools should give teens more time outdoors, more freedom to explore interests and more space to figure out who they are.
We’re also questioning how assessment works. We know GCSEs are a major part of the current system, but we’re exploring alternatives that focus on skills and project work rather than high-pressure exams. We understand this is a big shift, so we’d like to hear what parents think before going further.
We’re lucky to have access to several possible sites, including spaces that could be used for sport, arts, outdoor learning, animal care and even things like water-based activities. Nothing is final yet, but we’re trying to understand whether families feel this kind of education belongs in the state sector, or whether it would be seen as unrealistic or unwanted.
So here are the questions we’re hoping to ask Mumsnetters:
• Should a state secondary offer more outdoor learning and practical skills?
• Do you think teens benefit from non-exam-based assessment, or is sticking with GCSEs essential?
• Would you want your child to have access to things like animal care, camping, watersports, creative arts, greenkeeping, or vocational pathways alongside academic subjects?
• Does this sound like a realistic model for a state school, or something that parents wouldn’t trust or choose?
We’re genuinely open to all views, including critical ones. If you could design the “ideal” state secondary from scratch, what would you put in it?

I'd be more concerned about bullying than about academic qualifications. To be honest - and I'm hope I'm wrong in your case - the "can't cope with academic qualifications" narrative often seems to go hand in hand with the "can't be expected to behave / be nice to others" narrative.

I also dislike that people think of "academic" and "vocational" as a dichotomy. In my opinion, the attention to detail required to do well academically is also required to achieve high levels of technical skill (witness: music, chess, drawing, woodwork, engineering). I would actually LOVE a school for intelligent* and well-behaved children (which of course includes dyslexic / ADHD, ASD etc.) that gives parity to academic and technical skills and really challenges academic children to develop high-level technical skills alongside a rigorous academic programme. Sadly that does not seem to exist. The level of expectation for vocational qualifications seems to be quite low. It is a shame. For example, I think BTEC qualifications look great. They could be a fantastic framework for open-ended skill development that really stretches the most able. But in practice this does not happen, because BTECs are marketed and taught towards the least able.

• Should a state secondary offer more outdoor learning and practical skills?
Yes.

• Do you think teens benefit from non-exam-based assessment, or is sticking with GCSEs essential?
A core of academic GCSEs is essential: Maths, English language, Double Science, Geography, a FL. More aren't necessary, in my opinion.

• Would you want your child to have access to things like animal care, camping, watersports, creative arts, greenkeeping, or vocational pathways alongside academic subjects?
I would want them to have access to music, woodwork, electronics, programming (arduino etc.), gardening up to a very high level that demands dedicated practice and hard work. I would also want them to have access to outdoor activities that are taught in a way that develops teamwork and social skills (maybe look towards cadet training for ideas, minus the marching). The other stuff can be bonus - it looks like fun.

If you plan on keeping animals though please make sure they are 100% protected from abuse by children (and staff) at all times. Don't start with the assumption that everyone loves animals and treats them well. Unfortunately that is not the case.

• Does this sound like a realistic model for a state school, or something that parents wouldn’t trust or choose?
I think there are parents who would choose your school, yes. Probably parents who want to avoid an academic education (for reasons outlined above). Mind you, I think it is a valid choice, though I would not choose it myself for the same reasons.

@HelenaWilsonI suspect they don’t exist now but they were absolutely not what the op is talking about. They required dc to take O levels as well as more vocational subjects, eg office skills. This meant some dc would or could progress to university, via A levels, or night school for pre university courses. In my area they have become grammar schools but only the towns with a manufacturing base had them. They were not havens for dc who didn’t want academic subjects.

There’s not much of an incentive to put vocational courses on a par with academic qualifications because no degree requires them. They accept them but that’s not quite the same and schools that offer lots of vocational courses are not going to see the brightest dc on the courses because there’s no advantage in doing them.

I think you should look very carefully at studio schools. They sound such a good idea on paper, but in practice a lot of them aren't full.

The funding will be crucial. Doing anything out of the norm tends to cost more.