Rethinking School– Issues with the Curriculum. Why is it being taught?

Week 5 of or Rethinking School Series

Last week, we examined the national curriculum and questioned whether it truly inspires a love of learning. We also explored its stated aim: to prepare children for a “successful life.” But this raises a difficult question — what does “success” really mean, and who decides? This week, we dig deeper into why the curriculum is designed the way it is, and how this shapes the choices families and leads to rethinking school and makes them turn to homeschooling.

Until the nineteenth century, education in England was closely tied to religious institutions, making religious instruction compulsory. Access to schooling was limited to those who could afford tuition or secure rare scholarships. Prestigious public schools like Eton, Harrow, and Westminster may have started out to provide education to the poor now caters to the wealthy elite, while church schools and small private establishments—often run by retired soldiers or elderly women—served others for modest fees or donations.

By the 1880s, education became compulsory. Working-class children learned reading, writing, arithmetic, and religious studies, with boys prepared for factory or clerical work and girls trained in domestic skills. Middle-class boys studied for careers in management or public service, while girls were taught “accomplishments” suited to wives and mothers. Upper-class boys received a classical education in Latin, Greek, and mathematics for leadership roles, while upper-class girls focused on music, needlework, and social graces.

By the 1940s, the state had adopted a tripartite system: grammar schools for the academically able and university-bound, secondary technical schools for engineering and mechanical trades, and secondary modern schools for the remainder. Educational paths were shaped heavily by class and gender—boys for work outside the home, girls for roles within it.

From the 1960s, the tripartite system was gradually replaced by comprehensive schools, slowly reducing the overt gender bias. Yet in the 1970s and 1980s, gendered subject choices persisted: Home Economics and Textiles were dominated by girls, while Woodwork and Technical Drawing remained largely male domains.

Recent data shows that girls continue to outperform boys in GCSEs, A-levels, higher education, apprenticeships, and work-based learning—except in Year 9 maths and science, where boys lead, according to a 2025 UCL study. In August 2025, the BBC reported a shift: while girls had achieved the top A-level grades for seven consecutive years, this year boys secured the highest marks.

Despite strong academic results, women still face a 13.1% gender pay gap (Independent, 2025), with men more likely to hold leadership roles. Gender imbalance persists in STEM, where only 35% of students are female, dropping to 15% in construction. In education, 75.5% of teachers are women, yet men hold a disproportionate share of senior roles—26.9% of primary headteachers and 64% of secondary headteachers are male.

The pattern extends beyond education. In the NHS, women now outnumber men for the first time but earn around 14% less across all grades. In finance, women account for just 12.5% of fund managers and 10% of management positions.

Some female learners aspire to enter demanding, fast-changing industries like construction, where skills must be continually updated. We actively support those facing barriers to entry—particularly in trades such as house building, not just decorating. Yet female representation remains extremely low. Over the past decade, women in construction trades have risen by just 0.7%. Estimates suggest women make up only 1–3% of electricians, 2.4% of plumbers, 2% of bricklayers, 1% of carpenters, less than 1% of plasterers, under 0.5% of Gas Safe engineers, and almost none in roofing.

Gender bias persists even before training begins, with female applicants for construction courses often screened out, limiting their pathway into the industry. This is where we can support our home-educated learners most—helping them secure places on courses that lead to skilled careers. Many will work in small firms or start their own businesses, allowing flexibility to balance work with caregiving.

Gender imbalance extends beyond the workplace. A University of Bath study found that women in heterosexual couples, even when both partners work, do around 71% of all housework. This disparity is often linked to caregiving responsibilities—still largely shouldered by women—prompting many to choose lower-paid, flexible careers. Achieving gender equality in education remains challenging if men do not see themselves as equal partners in caregiving.

While women’s workforce participation has grown, nearly 40% work part-time compared to 13% of men, whose part-time work is more often by choice or due to difficulty finding full-time roles. This raises the question: are we equipping all parents, regardless of gender, with the skills to support their children’s development?

When I began teaching, fewer than half of women worked outside the home, and children typically entered nursery at age three potty-trained, able to eat with cutlery, hold pencils, sing rhymes, and speak in sentences. Today, reports describe Reception-aged children (aged 4) still in nappies, needing help with basic hygiene, and in some cases unable to talk when starting school (press reports, March 2025).

If teachers have to start with the basics; potty training, teaching children how to hold a fork, or even how to sit on a chair and then reading, writing, and maths take a back seat. The truth is, when we say a child is “falling behind,” it’s because they are. They’re not meeting the developmental milestones schools expect at the very start of school.

Why has this happened? In part, because parents aren’t being equipped, or encouraged, to prepare their children for school. For decades, schools have sent the message: “Leave phonics and early learning to us.” That well-meaning advice has backfired and leaving parents feeling sidelined.

Add to this a heavy reliance on screens to occupy young children and the time squeeze on working parents, and we have a perfect storm: less one-to-one interaction, weaker early skills, and a harder road ahead for both children and teachers.

The Financial Conduct Authority reports that one in ten UK adults have no savings, and less than 21% have under £1,000 in emergency funds—evidence that school-based financial literacy lessons are failing to improve money management skills. (In our upcoming blog on “Subjects You Wish Were Taught in School,” personal finance is one of the most requested topics.) Financial insecurity on this scale makes it hard to claim the education system is preparing young people for a “successful life,” if success includes stability, resilience, and the ability to weather life’s unexpected costs.

Meanwhile, the Centre for Social Justice notes a shift in the gender gap: young men aged 16–24 now earn 9% less than women of the same age and face major challenges in education and employment. Over half a million are not in education, work, or training, raising questions over whether they will one day secure leadership roles over their better-qualified female peers. These figures suggest that traditional academic achievement alone is no longer a reliable marker for long-term success.

It’s time to ask the uncomfortable question: what really defines a “successful life”?

For many, education hasn’t delivered. Gender norms still push people toward careers dominated by one sex, and too many women find their education hasn’t translated into fair pay or career progression. Our newest generation of young men is also struggling—leaving school without the skills or financial literacy to build stability. Add the cost-of-living crisis and widespread money mismanagement, and the foundations for security crumble.

We’ve also lost vital early-life skills that once prepared children to truly benefit from education. If the system can’t deliver equal opportunity—or equal outcomes—for half the population, why should we expect it to change on its own? And perhaps it’s time we went further, ensuring equal pay for equal work, no matter who’s doing it.

This is where homeschooling makes its case: tailoring education to prepare every learner—regardless of gender—for the life they want, not the one the system dictates. Then we need some real understanding just how homeschooling can help and how it is making that difference!

Why are Orchard Training’s Homeschool children being taught differently?

Not every woman measures success by a paycheque. Some—whether for cultural, personal, or practical reasons—choose to be full-time mothers or non-paid partners. While I firmly believe in the value of financial independence (I’ve worked my entire adult life and run my own business), I’ll defend the right of any woman to homeschool her children and take pride in running a home.

If that’s your chosen path, then let’s call it what it is: a profession. In Germany, the Hausfrau is recognised as the manager of the household—responsible for its smooth running, respected for her skills, and not labelled “unemployed.” This role requires organisation, financial management, problem-solving, and time management—skills that are not only valuable day-to-day but fully transferable should you ever choose, or need, to enter paid work.

The point is simple: success isn’t one-size-fits-all. For some, it’s building a business. For others, it’s building a home. Both deserve recognition.

This week, we explored another of the key reasons families are rethinking school and turn away from mainstream education: the system’s struggle to balance individual needs with national expectations. Too often, “success” is defined narrowly by exam results and standardised benchmarks, leaving little room for personal ambition or diverse life goals. In contrast, home-educated learners can shape their studies to align with their own vision of a successful life—whether that means pursuing passions, building practical skills, or preparing for a specific career path.

Next week, we’ll tackle another driving force behind the homeschooling choice: how much homework is enough, and whether current expectations are doing more harm than good.