What would you put in the curriculum?

I agree with much of the above, but would also include an element of self sufficient outside activity. This could be adapted to suit all key stages.
Older pupils could go on week long activities at outdoor centres. Giving them opportunities to experience a different part of the country, perseverance, and self awareness.
Unfortunately, a lot of outdoor centres owned by LAs have been shut down. X

The curriculum needs to cover three areas and these will change as society changes.

We need to work with industry and other employers to find out what skills are needed in today's work force and to equip our young in these. This doesn't happen nearly enough.

We need to offer our future academics depth knowledge and range of subject, not cut back, especially in the sciences. Our future depends on these thinkers.

Everyone needs to leave school with well developed life skills and a sense of worth.

Ability, attainment and aspiration.

But schools can't do this alone.

No, they can't, more's the pity. While ever our governments adopt a utilitarian, Gradgrind approach to education, all the wonder and enjoyment disappears from learning and teaching. Yes, our children need to be prepared for the world of work, there is no doubt about that, but we were, surely? I remember being truly inspired by some teachers, even in the very formal atmosphere of the late 59s and early 60s.

Having said that, some of us were also hoicked out of Domestic Science after Y1 in grammar school, so that we could concentrate on Latin instead. But we continued Art and Music up to Y3.

I retired from teaching (big comprehensive) as the constraints were kicking in, and it was hard to have to say to staff "we don't have time for that anymore". Many of my immediate family teach in secondary schools, and the word "relentless" is how they describe the many demands on their time and their teaching.

Sorry - this is a bit anecdotal!

I don't think that there is a "one size fits all" to educating the next generation. it must be really difficult to get the balance of subjects right -and the level of content. I have great admiration for anyone who can effectively teach in a primary school - all subjects at a variety of "levels."
My DGS could not read after over 2 years at school. The school is absolutely dedicated to the dogma of phonics but his third (older) teacher "broke the rules" and dug out some books from an aged scheme. Hey presto! He took to reading them straight away, but shh, don't tell the Head......
So, what is more important? the curriculum content or the ability and gumption of the teachers?

Yes quite. Kids that learn to read very easily don't seem to use phonics do they. They just get it. Pattern recognition of whole words.

I was 'hoicked' out of domestic science to study Latin, which I loved.

The type of domestic science I would have learnt at school would not have been of much use. I was lucky enough to have a mother who was a good cook and seamstress, and I learned also as I went along from recipes and patterns because I wanted to, and out of necessity when I had young children..

At 16 two friends and I decided to go to an evening class at the local Tech to do a cookery course. We were turned away, being told that the course was for married women who needed it!

Unfortunately, many young people today do not possess these skills to pass on to their children.

Phonics, phonics phonics. I have had to re-learn the alphabet just to read books with my DGC.

Granniepan I so agree about the reading! I believe phonic skills are a useful tool, like a screwdriver is to a carpenter, but you need much more than a screwdriver to build the bookshelf and more than phonics to read a book!

I am pleased that so many want to see a broad curriculum maintained. I agree about 'life skills' and I would include in that syllabus cooking/ health/Ist Aid/child development/ managing money/ daily skills/ courtesy & etiquette and not forgetting sex and relationship education.

I disagree re ICT . I do think we have to be up to speed with this..not to cut out other skills but that, like it or not, is the way the business and industrial world is going and out kids need to be up with the best.

Languages. (The ones that are going to be useful in the wider world)
And basic core subjects.
Other skills such as IT can be acquired as part of learning other subjects.

I think a lot depends on the ability of the pupil as well.

The trouble is, Penstemmon, there just aren't enough hours in the school year to cover all the subjects you mention (enough to make any impact, anyway). Of course it's desirable that children are taught all those things, but wouldn't we be in danger of spreading too thinly?

These can be taught and built on over the 13 years kids have to be in school and revisited cyclically. Managing money and child development are for older students but health/ cooking & SRE can be built up over time. At the moment kids leave after GCSE but more commonly they are back in school for July..this might be a good programme to put on then.

Bring back mothercraft classes they had in the fifties, showing girls/boys how to bath, dress and feed a baby properly. Cookery classes showing nutritionally sound basic meals this could lead to economics-how to manage a budget. (practical maths). Also the basics maths/English etc

By the way my daughter was in a group for under achievers in English in primary school, the teaching was crap. She entered secondary school and improved so much she sailed through a levels and now has a honours and masters degree in literature. (now considering a phd).This was all achieved by caring teachers. So it really doesn't matter what subjects as long as it is taught by experienced and dedicated teachers.

These days all 16-18 year olds are supposed to be either in school or an official training scheme e.g, apprenticeship. This is recent.

Why are GCSE and 'A' levels taken so early in the year?. They used to start in June and go through until nearly the end of July years ago. We seemed to have a lot more intensive teaching time when I was at school.

Post GCE I remember having a programme of activities : we spent a week going up to London to see various landmarks etc: Smithfield, Billingsgate, The Monument etc! I did little work at secondary school! I worked hard for the teachers I liked but those who did not engage me I put little effort in.

I think, rosequartz, the timetable for external exams had to be extended to allow for a greater range of subjects than there once was.

I thought that would be the case. There is no point in extending the curriculum then surely, as exams would be starting even earlier?

Personally I think we need a narrower range of subjects taught thoroughly, and if students have to stay in education until 18 that is the time to teach some of the subjects suggested above to equip young people for the outside world.

Agree with most of the above suggestions
I'd add a variation on Citizenship - rights and responsibilities; local and national government; how we can play a part in society and make a difference at a local and national level; our electoral system; how we can
campaign for change if we feel strongly about issues; the Criminal Justice System, the role of the police, other ethical/topical issues including euthanasia, abortion; sexual responsibility; gender roles......just a few suggestions off the top of my head.

A level timing is also driven by the University application thing. In order for students to be placed and find themselves accommodation etc the A level results need to come out in August. So there needs to be time between the exam being set for the exams to be marked, the moderators to do their quality checking procedures, the separate marks for the various subjects a student to be collated etc Computers undoubtedly help. It takes a while for a marker to wade their way through a huge pile of A level papers, ensuring that they are marking consistently. There are far, far more students sitting far more A levels than there were 40 years ago.

A Level timings! Memories of sitting in a glass sided hall with the sun beating down on us for three hours at a stretch. And this in the days before bottled water

(That's not an embarrassed bunny it's an overheated one)

Scottish Highers were - and I think still are - earlier in the year. Always appreciated the irony of taking Higher Latin on the Ides of March. We stayed on at school and sunbathed behind the pavilion prepared for the year ahead, if we were taking the exams in 5th year and for Bursary exams if it was 6th year. At the end of 6th year, my classics teacher gave me preparatory work on my first year university Greek texts. Very helpful!

Wow! You're a Classics Scholar then. Respect!

Anno I had similar experiences and eldest DGD is about to go through the same. Here the schools are back and she'll shortly embark on Highers - the very last time Highers as we know them will be set. Obviously all exams have to be set early enough for marking and moderating to take place in plenty of time for college/university places to be offered.
Staff at your school were a bit more helpful than mine. As soon as we said 'university'to the careers staff they switched off and there was no further discussion. Far from preparing us for university, my french teacher spent part of 6th year reading Gide with us but it wasn't until university that we discovered that Gide was gay, very significant for understanding his work, but a topic our very traditional teacher wouldn't discuss!

Classics scholar? Moi? Sorry to disappoint you, Aka. I gave up Latin and Greek after first year at University and stuck to English, though a background in classics has come in useful on many occasions. mcem, we didn't even have careers staff in my school. My French teacher went ballistic when he found out I wasn't doing French at University. Well, he had never advised me to do it and, with hindsight, I wish he had!