What would you add to National Curriculum ?

Most parents can't help their children with academic subjects at secondary school. A secondary school pupil is quite capable of being an independent learner and that's what schools should be promoting.

There is so much snobbery around about vocational versus academic courses and that helps no-one to achieve.

We need all kinds of skilled and qualified people for society to function.

Good family centres, including those run by Sure Start did run parenting classes. One of the reasons the conservatives started to close Sure Start centres was David Cameron's (false) claim that they were only used by middle-class families like his own, which didn't 'need them'. The whole aim of SureStart was to offer support to all new parents, whatever their background/financial situation. Cameron should have visited the ones here in the north west, serving areas of high deprivation where support for parents is essential.

I would add older people who know nothing about the current system but criticise it at length. It would be interesting to see how they would do.

Having seen all the work my GD has in year 10, I reckon she works harder than I did for my O levels. Her science knowledge leaves me breathless and she can do maths, unlike her granny at 14.
School is different from when we went. I wish I had had such positive teachers. I didn't have the encouragement and guidance, they were quick to criticise in my experience.

The domestic science however was wonderfully taught and set me up for life. ( says it all. )

I think there are things that I would like to see REMOVED from the curriculum.

The last 2 years at primary school are spent learning things that they then do all over again in the first years of secondary school. It is fine for those who are academic and quick learners, but puts unnecessary pressure on those who find it a struggle. I would rather see the time spent on broadening their life experiences. There are some children who finish up being labelled as special needs because they cannot keep up, when in fact they are simply average children being forced to swallow learning that is inappropriate.

Every child is precious, academic or not, and there needs to be time and space for this special time as young children to be focused on age-appropriate activities.

Growstuff - Poorer children are assumed to be lower achievers and are directed towards so-called vocational courses.

When pupils choose GCSE options in Y9, if a kid is keen on history, the history teacher will ask if they've thought about History GCSE. No-one directs them away from something. The only steering might be if a student struggles with writing, an essay-based GCSE might mean it's daunting for them - but the subject teacher will tell the Y9 class the demands and structure of their GCSE.

I'm not sure how options are chosen now but the choices used to be structured so that Maths, English Lang, English Lit, Double Science and a language were compulsory then a compulsory choice of a humanity plus three other subjects which would fit into that timetable, which could be academic or vocational.

No-one directed poorer children away from the core academic subjects. How would they decide who was poor or not? By their address? Enquiring about family circumstances?

Iam64 thank you, I began to think I was imagining the Parenting classes run by Sure Start and I don't think they were patronising.

Schools in the Midlands are running courses to teach pupils how to deal with a stabbing