views on education in other countries

[iggly2]

I wondered about education systems in other countries and what people thought of them. Which ones seem to get it right ? How is further education funded? What hours are children educated?

I am British but dd is going through the Italian primary system, and I have to say, despite grave misgivings I am very very pleased with everything. (the English teaching is absolute rubbish, but that doesn't affect us as she is bilingual anyway, and it's an improvement still on the UK system of language teaching)

That said, dd is very bright, gets top marks in everything etc. I do wonder how less academically minded children fare, as streaming as such seems non-existent, and any children falling behind are ordered into school for extra remedial classes in the afternoon which is horribly stigmatising. Likewise, I make sure her homework is done but that's where my involvement ends, yet I know parents (well, mums) of her schoolmates who dictate the whole lot to their children.

What always strikes me is how much more they seem to do here, compared to similar age groups in the UK and very definitely how much more homework. (I suppose this is one of the disadvantages of starting full time school at 6+ or even almost 7 as many of dd's friends did- the sheer amount of work you are expected to get to grips with straightaway. (I laugh wryly whenever the old "but they start at 6 on the continent, we should do the same!" argument is trotted out. Yes, they do, and get at least 2-3 hrs homework every night, are expected to be reading fluently (with no help from Kipper ) by Christmas and by the second year are writing critical comments on poetry and doing long division and multiplication.

Another thing though: the teacher training in the UK IMO is second to none.

If they forget everything and play computer games all day, that's not the fault of the education system IMHO

Well OBVS.

But it's an interesting insight, though, isn't it? I mean it's tempting to believe
children in other countries don't play computer games and everything is so much better. But apparently it's not necessarily true.

Where I come from children need to sit exams every trimester (or end of term). This exam is marked and helps the parents and teachers see if the child is progressing as expected. At the end of year each child needs to have a certain number of points in order not to fail the whole year. This is a huge motivation for children to study, because nobody wants to repeat a year.

Very very few children fail a year because there is a re-sit of the final exam if needed and plenty of remedial work is done to help, however if the child fails, then they need to repeat the year (it happened to my sister, she is a successful professional now, didn't do her any harm).

I always found it hard to understand why the UK allows children to move up a year regardless of how much they have learnt.

Lizcat, kids in the US go to uni at the same time as those in the UK. The only reason someone might be 17 is because school year entry runs Jan-Jan, not Sep-Sep, so if you have a birthday in the last 3 months of the year you might turn 18 in your first semester at uni.

mousymouse - just as an aside - the career I have is very specialised and in the financial sector. My degree is in a completely different subject. When I talk to my overseas colleagues they are amazed that I have been able to do this - the reason is that in law, banking and accountancy (and many other jobs in the UK), you can enter with any good degree. That is not the case in many countries (eg the US where everything is tailored to the job you are eventually going to do).

Iggly, we have just spend three years in Norway. I am Norwegian. We were in London for 16 years, and have had our children in both UK and Norwegian school and preschool.

The "everybody is equal" philosophy brought in by the labour government and the socialist coalition back in the eighties permeates the schooling. Children are not taught the same, but the lessons are set out in such a way that they all should know the same, and few knows more than the least shining bulb in the lamp, sort of. If your child is very bright, that is good, and he is kept back slightly rather than given more challenging work. For example my son, who started year 1 in Norway aged 6, after having done both reception and year one in the UK, so he was ahead in maths. Rather than following his pace, they gave him exercises to work with which were slightly different, but on the same topic, this way he was not overly bored.

They are not keen on homework. It is a fact that many parents dont spend time doing homework with their children, and if SOME children learn at home and come to school with their homework done, and this allows the class to progress, the children who have not done the homework will fall even further behind. So, the easiest solution is to adopt the stance that children do so much work in school, they should be able to relax and chill at home. This keeps everybody at the same keel.

etc

I am Italian and I now live in Italy, but I lived in the UK for quite a long time, our first dc in fact also did one yr at primary school there.

Traditionally in Italy state school has always been "stronger" than private school, but in the last 10/15 yrs - thanks to the lack of investments from right wing governments (who positively support private education which is largely run by priests and nuns here) many children have migrated to private schools.

Things I like about our system:

• primary school starts at 6. Children have 3 yrs of "scuola materna" from the age of 3-6. We have had a wonderful experience at materna, the teachers were wonderful and creative, the children incredibly happy there.

• at 14 you get to choose your secondary. There are schools that cater for more academic children (Liceo Classico, Liceo Scientifico) and other schools for those who prefer to learn a profession (Istituto Tecnico etc), also teaching Literature Maths etc. Children are able to choose what they prefer without an entrance test.

Things I don't like:

• The quality of schools largely differ from region to region and from area to area. Basically in southern Italy there aren't enough scuole materne for instance.

• Money has been pumped OUT of the school system, leaving schools with teachers on short term contracts, bigger classes, no resources, no TAs when needed.

• Not enough attention of the creative side of the students or their critical thinking.

Another one here who was not enamoured by the french system. Very very grey curriculum. Littel outlet for creativity. Poor outcomes for DC with SEN.

Also the private system is not much improved as the state still impose their curiculum.

another point for (or against) the german system in the gymnasium: the subjects are kept very broad, every pupil has to take maths, literature, 2 sciences, music or art, 2 foreign languages, religious studies or ethics, geography. I had 37 hours of school in grade 11 and on top of that around 2 hours of homework every day.
a few years ago in some areas in germany the school years were shortened from 13-12 years, but the curriculum stayed more or less the same which is just insane.

I don't think any country gets its education "right" these days. There is too much competition from cyberspace.
I do think it is a pity when children are unable to read, write or communicate verbally in their mother tongue - and that applies to any country!
It is also a pity that there are no longer the opportunities for vocational and academic education that there were 40 years ago.
I do think it quite disgusting that teachers are not accorded the respect they used to have and the "consumer" attitude of some pupils is pretty dreadful. If you want to get on in the world, you need to learn. It is not a choice.
Brit, qualified teacher, lived abroad for 25 years.

Thank you for the comments. seems threre are lots of good and bad points to each country. I think it would need to be somewhere I know the language (French only) but I would want to look into life quality (sorry I know that is an awful phrase).

""Here in NL, if my son turns out not to be academic, rather than "forcing" him to do A-levels, he'll be able to go to trade school from 14 instead, so equipping him with skills rather than setting him on a course for failure."

What an excellent idea, and what a shame they don't do it here"

Well actually here (UK SE) quite a few kids go to the Technical college for 2 days a week to study practical subjects from 14, another group get onto specialised courses (eg. one at the local leisure centre). Places for these courses can be far more competitive than A'level, similar for apprenticeships.

But we also remember the old days when kids who were plenty bright enough for Uni but working class had their options limited; plus of course MC parents often find it hard to admit their kids are not Uni material.

I think there are probably good and bad systems in all countries. Its not as the media hype it. However, I am more in favour of a system which is "selective" in some way. I also think school culture and discipline are important and a culture that values education. Britian does not qualify on the latter.

My DW is Canadian and whilst we both know the Canadian system can differ widely according to where you are ( especially in the city) , we both want to take DS there for his schooling after 11. We wont be heading for a City. The option of private education would be cheaper there too but there are good public schools in most provinces

I was very happy with the education I got in Sweden 30 years ago- very similar to what Quint describes and with fairly high expectations on everybody.

But everybody I speak to in Sweden today says it's gone downhill since the introduction of the free schools.

Why, Cory? I am interested to see how Toby Young's mixed ability Grammar school/Free school goes.

We are potentially headed for increasingly grim economic times, will people begin to take education more seriously do people think?

French state schools are going down the drain very rapidly. Private schools here are full to the hilt, with huge waiting lists, whereas many public schools are half-empty.

spanish system works well for my 3, youngest works 9 till 12 and 3 till 5, home for lunch and a swim.. bigger kids do 8 till 2, plenty of homework, teachers accessible, continual assessment, and if they dont do well enough they dont graduate to the next year..

The pay of teachers relative to other professions with comparable levels of studies has plummeted in most Western countries. Hence the better graduates choosing more lucrative careers, leaving less skilled/ambitious graduates to become teachers...

I have always been happy with the Belgian system - my dd really enjoyed the Maternelle. I think that works so well as the dcs are used to the school environment, paying attention, behaviour, toiletting, having lunch, getting along with others before the work starts. My experience so far of Primary level - dd now in year 2 - is that it is much stricter than the UK. Desks all face the front. No teaching assistants - the teacher teaches the class. Home work. Remedial help is offered but lots of children "faire le double" ie stay back to repeat years if they do not pass the end of year exam.

Not sure it will have the same effect here, Cortina; it's such a different culture.

What Sweden had before the change was a very uniform educational system which had the support of pretty well the whole population and consequently was well funded, attractive to teachers and able to maintain overall standards.

It is a far less competitive society: education was (and still is) prized as a good thing in itself rather than a means for individuals to elbow their way past others. There was a general attitude that a well educated working class was a good thing per se: people needed a good education to be good citizens regardless of what job they did. There was very little if any competition between schools: you went to whichever school happened to be nearest and the assumption was that every school had the responsibility to provide a good education and that it shouldn't matter where you went to school. (This is of course particularly important in a sparsely populated country where there will often only be one choice within travelling distance.)

With the break-up of this system, funding has become more erratic and education itself has become more of a post-code lottery. The lack of regulation sometimes means you end up with a half full (and therefore half-funded) free school and a half funded state school where previously you would have had a fully funded state school. "Soft" subjects have multiplied and state schools now find it difficult to insist on the old-fashioned baccalaureat type curriculum: why work hard on learning to speak German when you can do media studies instead?

There have been serious concerns about the curriculum and delivery of teaching in some free schools. A particularly scandalous example was the Muslim school in Gothenburg where only 70% of the girls reached basic standards as against 100% of the boys.

There has also been a problem with free schools folding suddenly, leaving pupils without a school in their final year and local state schools having to scramble desperately to take them in.

But who's to say what will happen in this country? The Swedes imho had more to lose because they had a better system in the first place.

I'm in NZ and so far so good with the school system. I have one in yr3 and one in yr0 (started school in June when she turned 5). We are in a small town and it's a very good state school. I think yr0/1 has a limit of 17 per class, slightly higher numbers as they get older but still only 21 in DS's yr3 class. Just one teacher though, no teacher aide unless they come with a SEN child. As somebody said, there is flexibility as to which year a child is in - officially it is 1st July, but our school assess each child whose birthday is between April and June, and are quite keen to keep children in the lower year. They teach in groups from the start and are setting for maths from year 4. I have no idea how the curriculum compares with the UK, but it seems to me that they are a lot more relaxed and have more flexibility with what they teach. For example the whole school have been studying around the Rugby World Cup for the last term - learning about the other countries involved mainly, with a touch rugby tournament during the last few weeks. There seems to be plenty of time for sports - each term there is a sporting event (athletics, swimming sports day, cross country, winter sports) which they practise for during the term. Plus extra curricular sports of course.

It is very competitive, I find. They have prize giving at the end of each year when awards are given for academic achievement, sports achievement, etc - I find it quite odd to give a certificate to the cleverest kid in the class and the best reader, etc. DS has just done poetry recitals and that was a competition, next term there is a talent show, again there will be winners and losers. Quite different to my 'non-competitive' state school.

Our school is a bit lacking in music and drama though - I think that may be down to the head rather than the norm. And dismal foreign languages - there is no provision at all, just a smattering of Maori.

High school qualifications aren't getting a good press. They have a very complicated system that most people (including me) don't understand, so I'm just hoping they have it sorted out before DCs get there. There are more and more schools adopting international qualifications though - IB or Cambridge exams.

Interesting topic!

Another positive point re: Italian system. Even for those who take a more vocational route, there is a minimum level of "academic" subjects that they are expected to continue studying: as long as you are in school you will take Italian and Maths, for instance. Of course the expected level is much lower than for students that take the academic route, but no one can drop the basics. I think this compares well to A levels, who in my opinion are too restrictive (in the UK I worked with far too many science graduates who could not write, and humanities students who panicked when asked to interpret a graph).

On the negative side: 1) teacher training in Italy is not really sufficient. Some people should not have been let into schools at all - so it's all down to luck whether if you have a half competent teacher; 2) Strugglers at secondary will get left behind or are asked to change school (unless lucky enough to have great teachers who care) 3) Although there is a pretty good and very extensive national curriculum, there is very little standardisation of grades across regions and even across schools. You will get teachers that refuse to give the maximum grade on principle, and teachers for whom "a pass" is 50% and for whom is 80%. This creates a lot of confusion and discrepancies, and universities cannot use exam results as an indicator of achievement.

""Here in NL, if my son turns out not to be academic, rather than "forcing" him to do A-levels, he'll be able to go to trade school from 14 instead, so equipping him with skills rather than setting him on a course for failure."

What an excellent idea, and what a shame they don't do it here"

They do the same in Belgium, but at 12/13. How do you know at that age how a child is going to develop academically? I have taught some shockers in Year 9, who grow up over the summer, come back and take Year 10 and 11 seriously, going on to A levels and uni. That opportunity would be missed entirely if we streamed into academic and vocational much earlier.

There is something called the 14-19 curriculum which allows for more vocational education, and this works, alongside doing the Maths, English and Science GCSEs.

Interesting thread ,Scary. Not really relevant but heard recently that Shakespeare went to school from 6am to 6pm in summer with a 7am start
in the winter. They crammed him full of Latin.....Another interesting fact the great Bards father was illiterate. So does that mean there is hope for us all?