Ask UK

Things like history aren't relevant to a lot of students

Oligarchs, and fascists need an uneducated population of working people.

“We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat,” announced Reagan advisor Roger A. Freeman during a press conference on Oct. 29, 1970. Freeman, an economics professor at Stanford, was also an advisor to President Richard Nixon." https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/threat-of-educated-proletariat-created-the-student-debt-crisis/

This is one of the many roots of the fascist oligarchy currently unfolding in the US.

Replacing education with the acquisition of a skill that can be sold to capital (for less than capital earns from that skill) is a mistake you might not have made had you had a better education in history.

Things like history aren't relevant to a lot of students

History is relevant to all students.

Things like history aren’t relevant to a lot of students,

TLDR. Please ignore my typos I'm visually impaired on a tablet. So miss loads. Also my spelling is shit. This goes on to summarise the history of UK education and why what you want no longer happens. But I rant a bit, I'll clean up tonight when I get to my home(accesable) pc.

Unfortunately that is part of the job of early schooling. Without the history you have studied. No one including you has the ability to decide if it is relevent or not.

The job of further education is to take minimally educated children and allow them to decide a future. And while you may not like it. A basic understanding of the history of ours and other societies is needed to allow you to make that choice.

History is relevent to you and all humans in our society. It is your interest that is missing. But without a basic introduction to the subject. How can any student know if some random element of history will peek their interest. It id a huge subject. And society trully needs more understanding. Because I can tell you for a fact. Some of what I was tought 40 years ago. Was wrong and new stuff better understandings etc. Was developed by people at school when I was. Many who never really enjoyed it until the end of thier early schooling.

I don't know how old you are. But schooling is not just about you. Honestly however much schools and politicians try to claim that what is best for you as an indevidual is their goal. Nations would not fund it if it was not what the nation as a whole needed to be successful.

So early schooling intentionally limits the choices you can make. In an attempt to create as minimum education standard for all students. In my time the qualifications even openly stated this. (Certificate of secondary education, Ordinary Levels) a very clear reminder that nothing you had done at that point was any more then a bare minimum level of preparation.

It is not expected to be relevent to you. Until you have studied enough to be able to actually choose a direction.

You cannot do that without a board education.

But just to improve your history with some you won't learn at school. Pre 1960 exactly what you want was tried by the government at the time. Very early in school they would remove non academic students and force them down more practice lessons to help them decide what future career they were best suitable for them.

Non academic students concentrated on bricklaying carpentry farming etc from as young as 10. Cars were still not as huge in society at the time. This was as busses were starting to take over steam trains so only the wealthy tended to have personal transport.

It was learned in the 60s and 70 that this just increased the class decide. Preventing students whose parents did not have a high level of education from providing the basic ideals needed for their children to progress ahead of them.

So over the 60s and 70s children under 16 were pushed into more broard education allowing them to try to learn the basics even if their parents had failed. And the 2nd tier further education idea was created for 16 to 18 where children could choose/qualify for academic (advanced levels onto univercity) or more practical education. (The practice bit has changed so often in that time but can be summed as trade school. )

The hill id die on. Education should be a constant option for all of society until death. At any points anybody should be able to take classes on any subject and dedicate there own time to expand both accedemic and practical education for free in all but time.

Things like history aren't relevant to a lot of students, so teach them things they'll engage with.

Many children do engage with History. Not me, but many do 😁. Or is this more of a question of what should be funded publicly in education?

My hill to die on is that there should be a high quality local gym and fitness centre that is accessible to everyone young and old. And that people should be encouraged (maybe subsidised) to take active exercise choices throughout their whole life.