I'd have core subjects at the same time every day and fluid levels so a kid could move around from subject to subject at different levels.
I want to pick this up, not to pick on you G3 but because it's often suggested as a thing schools could do, but seems to me counterproductive (after about the first couple of years, at least). Why? Because it means you can't have those subjects being taught by subject-specialists, and I think that's *crucial*, at least for maths which is what I know most about.
Many primary/elementary school teachers are very uncomfortable with maths beyond the basics. (I don't know how it is in the US, but IIRR, here they have to have at least a grade C at the qualification normally taken by 16yos, and as part of their training they have to pass a "numeracy" test, but they can take it as many times as they need to, and many do need to retake. For comparison, that C is in the same qualification where Arran Fernandez, aged 5, got a grade D a few years back - and TBH it's clear that the reason more kids don't do this is the need to be able to sit 1.5-2hr exams, not the need to absorb the concepts. One could argue about exactly what a grade C at GCSE shows, but I certainly contend that you do not want your HG+ mathematically inclined child taught maths by someone who has only that level of mastery of maths.)
It seems to me that it's really important to have children taught by people with a deep understanding of and love for the subject in question, as soon as possible. DS's school moves to all specialist teaching by age 8, I think. But obviously, that means they can't timetable all the maths lessons together, because there aren't enough maths specialists.
Why isn't this point obvious to everyone who suggests this solution? Is it that people don't agree that teaching by subject specialists is important, that it doesn't happen in US schools, that there's something I'm missing...?
