So, what do you actually need to do?
The answer (in my thoroughly un-professional and not- yet- proved- by- copious- research view) is: not as much as you might think.
Primary level
Perhaps it sounds radical, but I really believe that in the primary school years, up to ten or eleven, we need only to focus on the essentials. As I've said in the section on Primary level, if your child can read fluently, perform basic mathematical operations without difficulty and write simple, grammatically correct sentences, then he will be in a much better position than a child who has had to cram so much into his school day (history, science, geography, PHSE etc) that he has a smattering of many subjects but mastery of none. As the old adage goes, multum non multa. A friend who used to a be primary school teacher lamented that she was expected to teach Egyptian history (in a manner which heavily required reading and writing skills) to a class of children who could barely read and write. What she wanted to do was go right back to the start with them and do nothing but the basics until they were competent, but the fast paced, jam packed curriculum wouldn't allow it. That's why I say my friend used to be a primary school teacher; she was a good one too - she just wasn't allowed to teach any more, so she left.
Home-education is (or has the capacity to be) much more efficient than school. What this means is that many of the things which characterise school education do not need to be replicated in the home. Ask any teacher: much of what is done in the classroom is not done because it is necessary to the education of the pupils. Many of the conventions of school (timetabled subjects, registrations, constant testing, homework, having children plough on through work which is too easy for them, or, conversely, be asked to perform tasks which they have not yet had time to master) happen because they are necessary to maintain class discipline, or to assess progress, or keep a whole group occupied with one subject even though some have mastered and moved beyond that subject whilst others are lagging way behind.
In a home-education setting, these conventions are not needed. You can teach directly to the needs of a particular child: there is no obligation to plough on through a textbook if your child no longer needs to practice (he'd just get bored); instead, you can focus on the areas in which he really needs help. Similarly, you don't need to teach to the tests he'd be sitting in school: you can actually focus on educating him instead (setting tests only as and when you feel they would be helpful). You might find it helpful to have a timetable or schedule, but there's no need to keep your child at a desk from 8.30am until 3.30pm, because what takes a week of lessons at school need only take a couple of hours at home. You might find that your teenage children will like to work at odd times and that's not always a bad thing (one of my sons might spend a whole morning on maths because he was so engrossed in 'some beautiful algebra' -his words - then catch up with his other subjects at some obscure point in the evening/night. And of course there's no need for homework because the work which is set is done in lesson time. My children have no idea what 'homework' is - I'm sure there would be many a school child who might envy that!
What this means practically (for my boy-heavy family at least) is that a five year old might work on bible/saints stories, letters and numbers for half an hour a day (anything else being optional); a seven year old would probably get whatever work he was set finished in about an hour and a half at most; a ten year old might take a couple of hours, less if he was focussed (a rare thing in a ten year old boy, but it does happen). It is a rare child who wants to spend his day tied to a desk (even if he might choose to spend a lot of his free time reading books, it's not the same thing as being told what to do). The 'lessons' are your responsibility, your worry, but to your child they are likely to be just some tiresome thing he has to do before he can get on with the real stuff - playing football, climbing trees, jumping on his brother, reading a science encyclopaedia (delete as appropriate).
Middle Level
Even here, I would argue that the pressures of the school curriculum need not be replicated at home. The middle ages, about 11-13, are a stage at which the basic skills are mastered, which means that the mind is freed up to think more about the subject in themselves: in 'neo- classical' terms this would mark the transition from the basic grammar stage to the beginning of the dialectic or logic stage. You might think of this as the equivalent of moving on from learning your Latin declensions to actually being able to read simple original texts: it's reward time. Yet, the pressures of having to work to the strictures of a set specification (as in GCSEs) have not yet arrived. This gives a certain freedom to explore in greater depth areas which may only have been treated superficially, and, more importantly, to allow a little freedom for personal interests to begin to show through. This is when you find out that your son has a remarkable facility with electrical gizmos, or a fantastic memory for historical trivia; perhaps your daughter is a natural at literary criticism, or speaks French like a native. You have a few years to run with those talents - not neglecting everything else but focussing a little and keeping enough time free to allow your child to exercise his or her new-found talents and interests.
Secondary Level
What you aim for here depends almost entirely on where your child wants to end up. If he/she wants to study A levels at a grammar or independent school you might be looking at sitting eight, nine or ten IGCSEs depending on the school's requirements. If he or she wants to go into a local 6th Form college you'll probably only need five GCSEs to get in (but if your child has ambitions to go on to a 'top' University, doing a few extra might not be a bad thing). The point is to work with the child's abilities and ambitions. There is no need to put a child who has no intention of studying A levels or going to Uni through ten GCSEs; even most grammar schools and Uni's only look at the best eight results anyway, and it's better to get five or six really good grades than ten mediocre ones. Some children only take maths and English so they can tick a box to get a Saturday job: in everything else they prove competence via alternative qualifications or portfolio work. A few people have taken no GCSEs or A levels and still got into University (even Oxford), though I wouldn't personally recommend that route unless you are prepared to take big risks and gain a few extra grey hairs!
One last point: if a child is academically inclined and/or passionate about a subject, he will study it without any pushing from you. If he is naturally studious, he will probably be capable of (and want to study) a wide range of subjects to GCSE level without your having to push him. Conversely, if your child is not interested and/or not prepared to work - if he just doesn't care - then there is little point putting him in for ten exams and then having to wear yourself out with work and worry trying to make sure he gets through them. Push him through what you feel he actually needs and then let him go from there. He'll have to work with the results he has (and he might end up wishing he'd had a different attitude/worked harder, but then he's learned a valuable life lesson and you've saved yourself a lot of stress). One of my sons had to be dragged reluctantly through GCSEs: he didn't think they were worth bothering with. He was an avid reader (especially in history, chemistry and physics) but hated the idea of 'jumping through hoops'. With much persuasion and prodding he agreed to take five exams, and, with a minimal amount of work he did very well in them all. A few years down the line he discovered that the course he really wants to take requires five GCSEs. For the relatively little effort he put in to get those pieces of paper, he now concedes that the advantages were worth the costs!
The answer (in my thoroughly un-professional and not- yet- proved- by- copious- research view) is: not as much as you might think.
Primary level
Perhaps it sounds radical, but I really believe that in the primary school years, up to ten or eleven, we need only to focus on the essentials. As I've said in the section on Primary level, if your child can read fluently, perform basic mathematical operations without difficulty and write simple, grammatically correct sentences, then he will be in a much better position than a child who has had to cram so much into his school day (history, science, geography, PHSE etc) that he has a smattering of many subjects but mastery of none. As the old adage goes, multum non multa. A friend who used to a be primary school teacher lamented that she was expected to teach Egyptian history (in a manner which heavily required reading and writing skills) to a class of children who could barely read and write. What she wanted to do was go right back to the start with them and do nothing but the basics until they were competent, but the fast paced, jam packed curriculum wouldn't allow it. That's why I say my friend used to be a primary school teacher; she was a good one too - she just wasn't allowed to teach any more, so she left.
Home-education is (or has the capacity to be) much more efficient than school. What this means is that many of the things which characterise school education do not need to be replicated in the home. Ask any teacher: much of what is done in the classroom is not done because it is necessary to the education of the pupils. Many of the conventions of school (timetabled subjects, registrations, constant testing, homework, having children plough on through work which is too easy for them, or, conversely, be asked to perform tasks which they have not yet had time to master) happen because they are necessary to maintain class discipline, or to assess progress, or keep a whole group occupied with one subject even though some have mastered and moved beyond that subject whilst others are lagging way behind.
In a home-education setting, these conventions are not needed. You can teach directly to the needs of a particular child: there is no obligation to plough on through a textbook if your child no longer needs to practice (he'd just get bored); instead, you can focus on the areas in which he really needs help. Similarly, you don't need to teach to the tests he'd be sitting in school: you can actually focus on educating him instead (setting tests only as and when you feel they would be helpful). You might find it helpful to have a timetable or schedule, but there's no need to keep your child at a desk from 8.30am until 3.30pm, because what takes a week of lessons at school need only take a couple of hours at home. You might find that your teenage children will like to work at odd times and that's not always a bad thing (one of my sons might spend a whole morning on maths because he was so engrossed in 'some beautiful algebra' -his words - then catch up with his other subjects at some obscure point in the evening/night. And of course there's no need for homework because the work which is set is done in lesson time. My children have no idea what 'homework' is - I'm sure there would be many a school child who might envy that!
What this means practically (for my boy-heavy family at least) is that a five year old might work on bible/saints stories, letters and numbers for half an hour a day (anything else being optional); a seven year old would probably get whatever work he was set finished in about an hour and a half at most; a ten year old might take a couple of hours, less if he was focussed (a rare thing in a ten year old boy, but it does happen). It is a rare child who wants to spend his day tied to a desk (even if he might choose to spend a lot of his free time reading books, it's not the same thing as being told what to do). The 'lessons' are your responsibility, your worry, but to your child they are likely to be just some tiresome thing he has to do before he can get on with the real stuff - playing football, climbing trees, jumping on his brother, reading a science encyclopaedia (delete as appropriate).
Middle Level
Even here, I would argue that the pressures of the school curriculum need not be replicated at home. The middle ages, about 11-13, are a stage at which the basic skills are mastered, which means that the mind is freed up to think more about the subject in themselves: in 'neo- classical' terms this would mark the transition from the basic grammar stage to the beginning of the dialectic or logic stage. You might think of this as the equivalent of moving on from learning your Latin declensions to actually being able to read simple original texts: it's reward time. Yet, the pressures of having to work to the strictures of a set specification (as in GCSEs) have not yet arrived. This gives a certain freedom to explore in greater depth areas which may only have been treated superficially, and, more importantly, to allow a little freedom for personal interests to begin to show through. This is when you find out that your son has a remarkable facility with electrical gizmos, or a fantastic memory for historical trivia; perhaps your daughter is a natural at literary criticism, or speaks French like a native. You have a few years to run with those talents - not neglecting everything else but focussing a little and keeping enough time free to allow your child to exercise his or her new-found talents and interests.
Secondary Level
What you aim for here depends almost entirely on where your child wants to end up. If he/she wants to study A levels at a grammar or independent school you might be looking at sitting eight, nine or ten IGCSEs depending on the school's requirements. If he or she wants to go into a local 6th Form college you'll probably only need five GCSEs to get in (but if your child has ambitions to go on to a 'top' University, doing a few extra might not be a bad thing). The point is to work with the child's abilities and ambitions. There is no need to put a child who has no intention of studying A levels or going to Uni through ten GCSEs; even most grammar schools and Uni's only look at the best eight results anyway, and it's better to get five or six really good grades than ten mediocre ones. Some children only take maths and English so they can tick a box to get a Saturday job: in everything else they prove competence via alternative qualifications or portfolio work. A few people have taken no GCSEs or A levels and still got into University (even Oxford), though I wouldn't personally recommend that route unless you are prepared to take big risks and gain a few extra grey hairs!
One last point: if a child is academically inclined and/or passionate about a subject, he will study it without any pushing from you. If he is naturally studious, he will probably be capable of (and want to study) a wide range of subjects to GCSE level without your having to push him. Conversely, if your child is not interested and/or not prepared to work - if he just doesn't care - then there is little point putting him in for ten exams and then having to wear yourself out with work and worry trying to make sure he gets through them. Push him through what you feel he actually needs and then let him go from there. He'll have to work with the results he has (and he might end up wishing he'd had a different attitude/worked harder, but then he's learned a valuable life lesson and you've saved yourself a lot of stress). One of my sons had to be dragged reluctantly through GCSEs: he didn't think they were worth bothering with. He was an avid reader (especially in history, chemistry and physics) but hated the idea of 'jumping through hoops'. With much persuasion and prodding he agreed to take five exams, and, with a minimal amount of work he did very well in them all. A few years down the line he discovered that the course he really wants to take requires five GCSEs. For the relatively little effort he put in to get those pieces of paper, he now concedes that the advantages were worth the costs!