This post is really a question. A question with an open-ended answer. In fact, this post is an open-ended question with an open-ended answer. It is not a yes-or-no type of column, but rather a what-do-you-think and how-do-you-feel kind of outing.
I have written on this blog at length about the challenges an immigrant faces in their new country of residence. It does not matter whether they are a new arrival or an “oldie”, like me. In my case one subject about which I have always been confused is education. Despite the fact that for the last twelve and a half years I have worked with or, for the last seven, in schools. It is the sheer variety of school types that throws me off. That is why tonight my post will be rather short. I would like you to give me your opinion on the subject I am about to introduce. Especially, if you were born in this country or did your schooling here, I would love to have your input. Whether I agree with your comments or not is not the point, for I am looking for open-ended answers to my open-ended questions.
In a nutshell, schools in England (I use England as in the country or England, not the UK because differences exist between the four home nations; just to make matters more confusing!) can be community schools, which means that they are under the control of the local authority. I work in one and my children attend one. They are what you would call in other countries “state schools”. There are also voluntary aided schools, i.e., “faith schools”. They are run like state schools but are free to teach only about their own religion. Then you have “public schools”, a name that is so confusing that I have had to learn the etymology of the phrase by heart in order to explain it to non-Brits. This type of school is a fee-paying establishment (private) that differs from a "normal" private one in that its main aim is to educate students from low-income backgrounds (the "public" bit). I mentioned “private schools”. Self-explanatory really. You pay a fee as well but this is for the benefit of the owner. Have I not exhausted you yet? Shall I carry on? OK, I'm getting there, don't worry. In recent years we have had academies and free schools. The former do not follow the national curriculum and can set their own term times. They are managed by the government directly, not by the local authority. Free schools are government-funded, not-for-profit entities that can be set up by a charity, or a group of teachers or parents, or a religious organisation.
And then we have grammar schools. Nothing to do with the correct use of the verb “to have” in the third person singular or second person plural. It is all to do with selection. That is how this post came about. I read in the paper a few days ago that the government was planning to open an “extension” to a current grammar school in Kent and my immigrant’s mind was suddenly tickled. The brouhaha this attracted centred chiefly on whether opening grammar schools would entrench inequality or eliminate it. I asked work colleagues, born and raised here, what this meant to them. Some could not give two monkeys about the subject and others were disappointed after hearing the news. A grammar school is run by a local council, foundation or trust, but (and here’s the rub) selects its pupil intake based on an entry exam. How students fare in this exam is down to both academic ability and… means to achieve that academic ability. Without mentioning names, I know of one much-coveted school that applies such criteria and for which parents start preparing their child from Year 4 or 5 before they sit the exam in Year 6. A lot of money goes into hiring private tutors who fine-tune their little ones into the not-so-subtle art of passing an 11-plus test.
 |
| Image by Ros Asquith for The Guardian |
Is this fair? Of course this question is open to all, wherever you are in the world. But since this blog is visited and read by so many bloggers born on these isles, I would really like to read your opinions. What do you think about this new direction the government is taking in regards to our education system? How do you feel about it? Should we worry?
© 2015
Next Post: “London, my London”, to be published on Wednesday 28th October at 6pm (GMT)
Most interesting. Sorry I have nothing to add....
ReplyDeleteALOHA
ComfortSpiral
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
I have nothing useful to add either. Sadly, our government feels free to tinker with education. For both economy and idealogical reasons. And their tinkering rarely benefits the students, their parents or the teachers.
ReplyDeleteThank you both for your comments. It is interesting but also confusing. I remember when my children were in nursery and I was given a booklet for primary schools. I almost went into meltdown. And that was almost 20 years ago. Since then we have had academies and free schools to add to the mix in my neck of the woods in London. Both academies and free schools have not had a good press of late, especially with what happened in Birmingham with one of the government's flagship academies. One problem is accountability. When mistakes do happen, who is responsible? The other problem is the elephant int he room: class. Grammar schools, as some of my colleagues have told me, were supposed to level the playing field but became yet another tool to keep poor students away from high-achieving schools.
ReplyDeleteI know that this week's column is more UK-centred but, please, you are more than welcome to join in the debate with examples from your own country.
Have a nice rest of the weekend.
Greetings from London.
(US reader) We have roughly the same mix (at least in my area). We have tuition free "public schools" where the majority of students attend and "private schools" which include college prep academies, military prep academies, faith-based schools, special-needs schools, etc.
ReplyDeleteThere are also "charter schools", which are tuition-free public schools of choice, meaning that families may choose to include their children in a random public lottery. They operate with some freedom from regulations imposed on public schools. In return they are accountable for academic results and for mission statements made in their charters. (If a charter school does not meet goals/promised results, it can be closed.)
To add to the mix, there are now cyber schools" popping up all over the place.
Since we're talking about economics and inequality, let me touch on that. Funding formulas and regulations vary by state. In my area, the bulk of funding comes from taxpayers; specifically, real estate taxes. (the tax rates vary, but let's say if your house is worth $200,000 you pay $4000 in taxes once a year.) In one suburban township, there is a concentration of wealth and there are plenty of $500,000-$1,000,000 houses. Great schools with all of the amenities. Go into the city, and the average home might be worth $90,000. Plus, the city contains a ton of churches, 2 large hospitals - none of whom are required to pay any taxes. And the population of the city contains a large proportion of minorities, recent immigrants, and those who live at or below the poverty line. Therefore, because of the tax structure, you find crumbling schools with no A/C when it's 95F, leaking roofs, half-empty libraries, etc. I've worked in these schools, and the teaching staff is certainly NOT subpar - they struggle mightily to teach with what they have, and they spend from their own pockets for extra supplies, books, whatever they can come up with to motivate and educate their students. But it's a terrible struggle when many of your students come to school hungry, angry with their home life, have been living in a homeless shelter, etc.
Most (if not all) of our private schools/academies provide scholarships and financial aid to those who cannot pay out of pocket. The problem is that there just are not that many slots open compared to the size of the population. And so, while the playing field is theoretically level, it's postage stamp sized. If you live in a "poor" school district, pretty much your only option is to move somewhere else if you can.
It would seem that there's a relatively simple solution: a flat tax rate, for everyone. Then pool the money and pay it out equally on a per student basis, no matter which type of school is chosen. Not perfect, but better, I believe.
Of course, when that solution has been brought up, guess who sends up the hue and cry?
It's a very sad and nasty sort of discrimination.
Sorry about the rant. :(
The information is welcome. I believe in a flat rate, but I also believe in taxing those on very high incomes. This would probably bracket me as a socialist, or even worse, communist, but... well, I was born in Cuba. Socialist/communist I ain't. Pragmatist, yes. The equation is the better and fairer the education system, the emptier the jails, the fewer food banks. Why is it that we lose the long-term view the minute big business hovers into view? A tax system that prioritises education (especially Early Years), health, care in old age, facilities for the whole community a safety net for the unemployed. This is a system that will reap rewards in the long-term. Instead of gated communities with private security firms on patrol, we will have more cohesion. Education is the first step towards that. Over here with the whole local authority-run vs privately-run the main losers have been the children. I thought we were supposed to think of them first.
DeleteThanks for that very informative comment. Much appreciated.
Greetings from London.
Here in Montreal, the cut backs on education have been terrible, to the point even of the type of food that is offered in the schools.
ReplyDeleteOh, and as far as entry exams - children grow, mature and learn at phenomenally different rates. Not to mention that children from a home with no books, where no one reads to them, talks to them, plays games or provides structured activities are at an obvious disadvantage when it comes to test taking. And I know of no test that can truly predict with 100% accuracy a child's true potential.
ReplyDeleteSeems kind of pathetic at times as they try and push it off on private schools to get the cream of the crop, when the smartest kid could be home with no tools to let them see their true potential.
ReplyDeleteI wish I could provide something useful, but it's been decades since I was a teacher and dealt with public education.
ReplyDeleteYour topic is far too intricate for me on a Saturday evening, CiL. I only have a couple of indirect thoughts:
ReplyDeleteAs a teacher briefly on the high school level in a mid-sized, mid-America town and as an instructor for a year filling in for a university journalism professor on a sabbatical, my feeling is that teachers are the lynch pins in any educational system. Dollars make a difference, administrators make a difference, governing bodies make a difference, but the quality and the dedication of the teachers are the most important factors inside the school. Outside the school, a solid, secure, loving family life is even more important, and schools have no control over that.
I also think teacher unions are the greatest detriment to the educational system in the United States.
My only connection with "inner city" schools was a two-year stint as a sports reporter, which included both the city and suburbia. But, it provides a very different view than when looking at the educational dynamics within these schools. Different language, man; different views of the world; more fun, too.
Totally agree with you on teacher's dedication and hard work and the role of the family. The latter is actually my 9-5, ensuring that parents understand the role they play in their children's lives the minute they're born.
DeleteWhich leads me to unions. We have different views on that. I think they're vital, especially as the importance of teachers in today's society is losing out to an ever-increasing pernicious influence of individualism and solipsistic way of life. Good teachers teach good lessons, outstanding teachers leave a (positive) mark for life. Unions make sure that teachers are respected and paid fairly. There's not enough money in the world to pay teachers, it is the most important profession in the world. And guess? We, parents, are the first "teachers" our children will ever have.
Thank you very much for your comment. Always welcome.
Greetings from London.
I think we could have an interesting discussion about unions, CiL, whether teacher unions or unions in general.
DeleteI have what is called an "honorable withdrawal" from a branch of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which means I could reactivate instantly should I wish to do so, and my viewpoints are not solely from the outside. I even served as president of a local "chapel" for a year, and negotiated a significant raise in pay for the members. Someday, a discussion, maybe ....
I'm from the UK, and was educated - decades ago - in a single sex grammar school. It gave me the leg-up to get to university, and the world opened up to me. Had I gone to an secondary modern school, I'd have been expected to leave school at 15 or 16. Women (especially women) hardly even went to uni from a secondary modern school then.
ReplyDeleteMy own children went to a 'comprehensive' - because I really wanted them to have a range of opportunities. They're bright, and were encouraged to go to uni. And they had a great time, making friends from all over the town, and with all sorts of abilities. Their education (in the widest sense of the word) was significantly better than mine. It has paid off - they have a view of the world that encompasses ideas and experiences from all walks of life, abilities, and ethnicities.
So I see the expansion of grammar schools as hugely regressive. Bright children mixing with other bright children, with the potential to reinforce a view that they are somehow better than other people simply because they have big brains.
Precisely the sort of anecdote I was looking for. It's interesting that you are in a (privileged) position to compare both systems. My children have always been state-educated, so was my wife in this country (well, she's British) and my brothers-in-law. Like you said, my children have been exposed to other kids of all abilities and backgrounds. I would like to think that that's one reason why they are so lovely, polite, intelligent and open-minded.
DeleteThank you very much for your comment. Really appreciate it.
Greetings from London.
honestly - it worries me what goes on with the school systems - there's a tendency to have elite schools and often it's a matter of money if you can go there or not
ReplyDeleteeducation should be fair and free for everyone who wants to learn
happy sunday!
not an easy subject!
ReplyDeleteIt is many years since I had to worry about education but I do think governments interfere too much with it. When my son was school age it was a lot easier to select a school and give him a good education. I wouldn't know where to start now. It will be interesting to read the comments on this subject.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis actually makes sense to me, as in the US, we have the roughly the same thing. As opposed to "grammar schools" we have "charter schools", which are usually private schools sucking on the public teat for money (always about the money) and students (who don't matter in the overall picture). All of which are done with the overt blessing of the politicians, who enjoy mocking/ruining the public school system here.
ReplyDeleteAmazon
I have heard a lot about charter schools. Usually people say that our academies and free schools resemble charter schools in the US, because they are outside the local authority's remit.
DeleteGreetings from London.
I have to admit that I really dislike what is going on with the school systems here. There is an aura of elitism that seems to be getting stronger with each passing year (and each successive government). If a family are unable to afford the type of education they desire for their child, then in effect, that child is entered into a lottery. It will be pure luck as to whether their education will be a good or a bad one.
ReplyDeleteAs you probably remember, it was for precisely this reason that I withdrew my son from school at the age of 13 and taught him myself at home. Our encounter with the education system was an utter disaster, which led to extreme stress, bullying (both by some teachers and pupils), and constant blame directed at our family by certain members of staff who refused to carry out their part in the strategies set out by their own superiors. The eventual outcome was that my son became suicidal. Even after my son left the school, we were still being bombarded by threatening letters about home education being illegal.
Had I known what I now know, I would never have sent him to school in the first place. He was learning nothing at all at school. He now has 7 GCSE's.
It is my firm belief that certain areas of the UK schooling system desperately need a radical restructuring...
There! Many thanks for the opportunity to get this off my chest, CiL...I so needed that!
Sunday Greetings! :)
Thank you very much for writing about your experiences. I'm really sorry to read what your son went through.
DeleteGreetings from London.
In the United States, we used to have public schools and private schools, one was free, the other had fees and requirements for attendance. Since the middle nineties, a political current pushed the formation of a different type of public school, called charter schools and magnet schools also free, but, open either by lottery, or by special application, application that matched the school to the child's potential, so gifted students ended up in gifted magnets and music students ended up in music magnets. The public went along as long they had choices, of curriculula, emphasis, even leadership. The rich people, meanwhile, still sent their children to private schools, and insisted that their taxes be reduced for the amount that it took to educate public students. They received "vouchers" to finance any school they chose. Mind you, anybody could apply for such vouchers, but only certain states plugged them in and made this known.
ReplyDeleteI have worked in public education all my life; and my children have attended public schools as well. Dismantling public schools was and is a political ploy to support private education, not to improve public schools. .
That was interesting to read. certainly to a non-US resident the lottery system makes it harder for certain students to attend a good school. I don't know whether an element of "luck" would level the playing field or do the opposite. I still firmly believe in public, state-run as the better alternative.
DeleteGreetings from London.
I was educated at a comprehensive school that had 'streams' for different abilities in Maths and English but not in other subjects. I think it was a very effective school, many of us left to study at University and it seemed to give the less academically minded a good start too.
ReplyDeleteHere in the US it seems like so many states have declared war on the public school system. Politicians blather on about the need to educate our children, but then always slash education funding with reckless abandon, while making sure to give tax cuts to the rich and to corporations. One can only conclude that they want a country full of minimum wage slaves who will work until they drop and believe in malarkey like trickle down economics.
ReplyDeleteAgree with Rob K above--I don't know very much about UK schools. There is a huge amount of confusion (it seems) in the U.S. school system. They keep thinking that some magic method can make up for cuts in funding and oversized classes. I don't think so. Thanks. k.
ReplyDelete