COURSE PAPER
Education in the United Kingdom
Written by Isaeva Tatiana
Group 301
Checked by Makhmuryan K.
MOSCOW 2001
PLAN
Introduction
Primary and secondary education
The story of British schools
Arguments aboout the purpose of education
Changing political control
The public system of education (a table)
The private sector
Further and higher education
Conclusion (Education under Labour)
Questions
Introduction
| E |
ducation in England is not as perfect as we, foreigners think. There are plenty of stereotypes, which make us think, that British education is only Oxford and Cambrige, but there are also many educational problems.During the last fifteen years or so, there have been unprecedented changes in the system of education in England and Wales. I’ll try to explain the changes and the reasons for them. In my work I will also give a description of the system of education, which differs from that in Russia very much.
Primary and secondary education
| S |
chooling is compulsory for 12 years, for all children aged five to 16. There are two voluntary years of schooling thereafter. Children may attend either state-funded or fee-paying independent schools. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the primary cycle lasts from five to 11. Generally speaking, children enter infant school, moving on to junior school (often in the same building) at the age of seven, and then on to secondary school at the age of 11. Roughly 90 per cent of children receive their secondary education at 'comprehensive' schools. For those who wish to stay on, secondary school can include the two final years of secondary education, sometimes known in Britain (for historical reasons) as 'the sixth form'. In many parts of the country, these two years are spent at a tertiary or sixth-form college, which provides academic and vocational courses.
Two public academic examinations are set, one on completion of the compulsory cycle of education at the age of 16, and one on completion of the two voluntary years. At 16 pupils take the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE), introduced in 1989 to replace two previous examinations, one academic and the other indicating completion of secondary education. It was introduced to provide one examination whereby the whole range of ability could be judged, rather than having two classes of achievers; and also to assess children on classwork and homework as well as in the examination room, as a more reliable form of assessment. During the two voluntary years of schooling, pupils specialise in two or three subjects and take the General Certificate of Education (always known simply as 'GCE') Advanced Level, or 'A level' examination, usually with a view to entry to a university or other college of higher education. New examinations. Advanced Supplementary (AS) levels, were introduced in 1989, to provide a wider range of subjects to study, a recognition that English education has traditionally been overly narrow. The debate about the need for a wider secondary level curriculum continues, and Labour is likely to introduce more changes at this level. These examinations are not set by the government, but by independent examination boards, most of which are associated with a particular university or group of universities. Labour may replace these boards with one national board of examination.
|
|
A new qualification was introduced in 1992 for pupils who are skills, rather than academically, orientated, the General National Vocational Qualification, known as GNVQ. This examination is taken at three distinct levels: the Foundation which has equivalent standing to low-grade passes in four subjects of GCSE; the Intermediate GNVQ which is equivalent to high-grade passes in four subjects of GCSE; and the Advanced GNVQ, equivalent to two passes at A level and acceptable for university entrance.
The academic year begins in late summer, usually in September, and is divided into three terms, with holidays for Christmas, Easter and for the month of August, although the exact dates vary slightly from area to area. In addition each term there is normally a mid-term one-week holiday, known as 'half-term'.
The story of British schools
| F |
or largely historical reasons, the schools system is complicated, inconsistent and highly varied. Most of the oldest schools, of which the most famous are Eton, Harrow, Winchester and Westminster, are today independent, fee-paying, public schools for boys. Most of these were established to create a body of literate men to fulfil the administrative, political, legal and religious requirements of the late Middle Ages. From the sixteenth century onwards, many 'grammar' schools were established, often with large grants of money from wealthy men, in order to provide a local educational facility.
From the 1870s local authorities were required to establish elementary schools, paid for by the local community, and to compel attendance by all boys and girls up to the age of 1 3. By 1900 almost total attendance had been achieved. Each authority, with its locally elected councillors, was responsible for the curriculum. Although a general consensus developed concerning the major part of the school curriculum, a strong feeling of local control continued and interference by central government was resented. A number of secondary schools were also established by local authorities, modelled on the public schools.
The 1944 Education Act introduced free compulsory secondary education. Almost all children attended one of two kinds of secondary school. The decision was made on the results obtained in the '11 plus' examination, taken in the last year of primary school. Eighty per cent of pupils went to 'secondary modern' schools where they were expected to obtain sufficient education for manual, skilled and clerical employment, but where academic expectations were modest. The remaining 20 per cent went to grammar schools. Some of these were old foundations which now received a direct grant from central government, but the majority were funded through the local authority. Grammar school pupils were expected to go on to university or some other form of higher education. A large number of the grammar or 'high' schools were single sex. In addition there were, and continue to be, a number of voluntary state-supported primary and secondary schools, most of them under the management of the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church, which usually own the school buildings.
|
|
By the 1960s there was increasing criticism of this streaming of ability, particularly by the political Left. It was recognised that many children performed inconsistently, and that those who failed the 11 plus examination were denied the chance to do better later. Early selection also reinforced the divisions of social class, and was wasteful of human potential. A government report in 1968 produced evidence that an expectation of failure became increasingly fulfilled, with secondary modern pupils aged 14 doing significantly worse than they had at the age of eight. Labour's solution was to introduce a new type of school, the comprehensive, a combination of grammar and secondary modern under one roof, so that all the children could be continually assessed and given appropriate teaching. Between 1965 and 1980 almost all the old grammar and secondary modern schools were replaced, mainly by coeducational comprehensives. The measure caused much argument for two principal reasons. Many local authorities, particularly Conservative-controlled ones, did not wish to lose the excellence of their grammar schools, and many resented Labour's interference in education, which was still considered a local responsibility. However, despite the pressure to change school structures, each school, in consultation with the local authority, remained in control of its curriculum. In practice the result of the reform was very mixed:
the best comprehensives aimed at grammar school academic standards, while the worst sank to secondary modern ones.
One unforeseen but damaging result was the refusal of many grammar schools to join the comprehensive experiment. Of the 174 direct-grant grammar schools, 119 decided to leave the state system rather than become comprehensive, and duly became independent fee-paying establishments. This had two effects. Grammar schools had provided an opportunity for children from all social backgrounds to excel academically at the same level as those attending fee-paying independent public schools. The loss of these schools had a demoralising effect on the comprehensive experiment and damaged its chances of success, but led to a revival of independent schools at a time when they seemed to be slowly shrinking. The introduction of comprehensive schools thus unintentionally reinforced an educational elite which only the children of wealthier parents could hope to join.
|
|
Comprehensive schools became the standard form of secondary education (other than in one or two isolated areas, where grammar schools and secondary moderns survived). However, except among the best comprehensives they lost for a while the excellence of the old grammar schools.
Alongside the introduction of comprehensives there was a move away from traditional teaching and discipline towards what was called 'progressive' education.-This entailed a change from more formal teaching and factual learning tc greater pupil participation and discussion, with greater emphasis on comprehension and less on the acquisition of knowledge. Not everyone approved, particularly on the political Right. There was increasing criticism of the lack of discipline and of formal learning, and a demand to return tc old-fashioned methods.
From the 1960s there was also greater emphasis on education and training than ever before, with many colleges of further education established to provide technical or vocational training. However, British education remained too academic for the less able, and technical studies stayed weak, with the result that a large number of less academically able pupils left school without any skills or qualifications at all.
The expansion of education led to increased expenditure. The proportion of the gross national product devoted to education doubled, from 3.2 per cent in 1954, to 6.5 per cent by 1970, but fell back to about 5 per cent in the 1980s. These higher levels of spending did not fulfil expectations, mainly because spending remained substantially lower than that in other industrialised countries. Perhaps the most serious failures were the continued high drop-out rate at the age of 16 and the low level of achievement in mathematics and science among school-leavers. By the mid-1980s, while over 80 per cent of pupils in the United States and over 90 per cent in Japan stayed on till the age of 18, barely one-third of British pupils did so.
I. Arguments about the purpose of education.
There is a feeling that the schools are not succeeding - that standards are too low, that schools are not preparing young people with the skills, knowledge and personal qualities which are necessary for the world of work, and that schools have failed to instil the right social values. These are the criticisms and therefore there have been changes to meet these criticisms.
However, the criticisms take different forms. First, there are those who believe that standards have fallen, especially in the areas of literacy and numeracy - and, indeed, unfavourable comparisons are made with the other countries as a result of international surveys. For example, the recent Third International Mathematics and Science Survey (TIMSS) placed in England and Wales very low in mathematical achievement at 13 - although very high in science. Therefore, these critics emphasize «back to basis» and the need for more traditional teaching methods.
Second, there are those who argue for a rather traditional curriculum which is divided into «subjects» and which calls upon those cultural standards which previous generations have known - the study of literary classics (Shakespeare, Keats, Wordsworth) rather than popular multi-cultural history, classical music rather than popular music, and so on. Since there are many children who would not be interested in or capable of learning within these subjects, there is a tendency for such advocates of traditional standards to support an early selection of children into «the minority» who are capable of being so educated, separated off from «the majority» who are thought to benefit more from a more technical or practical education.
Third, there are those who question deeply the idea of a curriculum based on these traditional subjects. Many employers, for instance, think that such a curriculum by itself ill - serves the country economically. The curriculum ought to be more relevant to the world of work, providing those skills, such as computer, numeracy and literacy skills, personal qualities (such as cooperation and enterprise) and knowledge (such as economic awareness) which make people more employable.
A very important speech which expressed those concerns and which is seen as a watershed in government policy was that of Prime Minister Callaghan at Ruskin College, Oxford, in 1976.
«Preparing future generations for life» was the theme and he pointed to the need for greater relevance in education on four fronts:
1. the acquisition by school leavers of basic skills which they lacked but which industry needed;
2. the development of more positive attitudes to industry and to the economic needs of society;
3. greater technological know-how so that they might live effectively in a technological society;
4. the development of personal qualities for coping with an unpredictable future.
In what follows I give details of the different contexts in which this concern for change was discussed.
a) Economic Context
It is generally assumed that there is a close connection between economic performance and the quality and context of education and training, and that therefore the country’s poor performance economically since the second world war (compared with some other countries) is due to irrelevant and poor quality education. During the thirty years from the end of the Second World War not enough pupils stayed on beyond the compulsory school leaving age. There were too many unskilled and semi-skilled people for a much more sophisticated economy. Standards of literacy and numeracy were too low for a modern economy. There was not enough practical and technical know-how being taught.
As a result, it was argued that there must be much closer links between school and industry, with pupils spending time in industry, with industrialists participating in the governance of schools, and with subjects and activities on the curriculum which relate much more closely to the world of work.
Furthermore, there should be a different attitudes to learning. So quickly is the economy that people constantly have to update their knowledge and skills. There is a need for a «learning society» and for the acquisition of «generic» or «transferable» skills in communication, numeracy, problem-solving, computer technology, etc.
B) Social Context
There are anxieties not just about the future economy but also about the future of society. Preparing young people for adult life was what the Ruskin speech was about, and there is much more to adult life than economic success - for example, living the life of a good citizen, of a father or mother, of involvement in social and political activity. Therefore, schools are required to prepare young people for a multicultural society, to encourage tolerance between different ethnic groups, to promote social responsibility, to encourage respect for the law and democratic institutions, to develop sensibilities towards the disadvantaged and to ensure girls enjoy equal opportunities with boys. And schools have. Indeed, responded with programs of social education, citizenship, and parenthood. Moreover, they have often done this in practical ways such as organizing projects.
C) Standards
The need for educational change arises partly from a concern about academic standards. The sense that Britain is declining has been reinforced by statements from employers. According to them, Britain’s workforce is under-educated, under-trained and under-qualified! These criticisms of standards are pitched at different levels. First, there are worries about low standards of literacy and numeracy. Second, international comparisons give weight to misgivings about the performance of British schoolchildren in mathematics and science. And, therefore, the subsequent changes have tried to define standards much more precisely, and o have regular assessment of children’s performance against these standards.