What do you think about teaching Standard Model in school? Here is a scan from an old Soviet textbook for school children: 
It shows the table of quarks and antiquarks of different generations, colours, spins.
The book also includes similar tables of gluons and their interactions with quarks and between themselves.
They all are coded in this fancy cake-shape code.
The standard model table includes Z and W-bosons, gluons as well as graviton and gravitino.
What do you think about such manner of teaching physics and in general, what do you think about appropriateness of teaching Standard Model in junior school?
Some other images from the book (quark-gluon interactions, hadron decay):

Illustration in a chapter about quantum parity:

Tha book has chapters about quantum chromodynamics, spontaneous symmetry breaking, quantum parity and so on.
 A: Of course, we don't know the age of the soviet schoolchildren here but I think we can be confident that they wouldn't have the background to understand the quark model. So it's just sterile dogma - empty facts for memorisation.
The crucial point which distinguishes physics, and science in general is that it's experimental. The theory is not taken on trust or authority, in the end it has passed experimental tests. This is the critical insight that school students need to absorb, through doing experiments and seeing how the theory they're taught is anchored in practical experience. Even future theorists need to understand that lesson.
If there is a way to introduce 20th century ideas such as QM and RT in such a way at school level I applaud it, but based on the experience of TV popular science I'm sadly skeptical.
A: First of all I should say that I find this particular way of presenting quarks rather unfortunate. Not only it delivers very little physics information, but it's even quite misleading (I mean those fancy shapes). On the other hand, I do believe that teaching some modern physics at high school is extremely important. Of course the students do not have the background to understand how quantum mechanics works - maybe apart from the semiclassical approaches such as Bohr quantization which should be avoided at any cost since it only leads to confusion. Of course, as Nigel Seel pointed out, the students should absorb the theory-experiment relation and understand their role. However, an equally (and sometimes even more) important part of the education of possible future scientists is a motivation for choosing a research career. Thus, the students should get in touch with modern physics as soon as possible so that they are not discouraged by the fact that they have to go through many years of study of theoretical background that was developed more than 100 years ago. In fact, one can get their hands on and have a lot of fun with physics without really understanding deeply the underlying theory. I expect objections that classical mechanics and all the other standard high school material can also be made interesting, yet I think that for the sake of motivation, nothing can beat showing the students a (though tiny) part of the actual current research.
A: While I agree with @Sigel arguments, that the substructure of matter should be delayed until the appropiate age for understanding its process of discovery, I think that it should exist an appropiate way to answer the question if the kids ask it. 
We can not just answer "turtles until the end" not to appeal to mistery or legend. And while we can explain that the technical details of the argument will be addressed at later ages, we must still stress that they can be addressed by the use of reason and experiment.
This implies that the teacher could need some support material in order to focus on how to answer this question -substructure of matter- if it is asked. The booklet above contains some good ideas, but it should never be a main teaching material, it should be support material.
A: It's chronologically impossible to write about M-theory in Soviet textbook. The good thing is when bright kids have access to information and can ask knowledgeable people the questions. 
