A few thoughts on the Italian vs English education system

[ItalianParent]

I wanted to share a few thoughts on the Italian vs English education system. Italian immigrant here, with children in the English system. I studied in Italy and have many extended family and friends teaching in Italy. These are just my thoughts - many Italians will disagree, as is normal.

1. I would say that, for well-rounded kids, who do well in multiple subjects, a good Italian school is much much better than a good English one. You don't choose any subjects. A levels are on more subjects, but this means that you can apply to any university course. Choosing what to do at 15-16 is one of the worst aspects of the English system IMHO. Also, subjects are studied in sync. You tend to cover the same period in literature, art, history, philosophy. This gives students a much broader understanding.

2. For kids who do well in some subjects but not in others, I prefer the English system of choosing some subjects and choosing your A level. If you are a brilliant mathematician but poems make you lose the will to live, or viceversa, I think the English system is better.

3. For everyone else, it's a mix. There will be good schools and terrible schools in both countries.

4. For uniforms and behaviour, I think the two countries are at the two extremes, and I would welcome a compromise in between. Italian secondary schools tend to have no uniforms, no detention, and no real system to punish bad behaviour. This can make certain schools in rough areas an unmanageable jungle. But too many English schools take it to the opposite extreme, with detentions if you stare out of the windows, detentions if you buy the Asda skirt instead of the 99% identical, school-approved one, crazy dictatorial headteachers like the Mossbourne one and their seminars on shouting and instilling fear in children, etc.

5. In Italy, in-year tests tend to be oral for all subjects, and written and oral for only some (maths, Italian, foreign languages, etc). Written tests are fairer and more subjective. But AI is changing all of this. A-levels are more objective in England. Italy has no centralised marking; southern regions constantly score higher at national exams, but standardises tests like the PISA ones suggest that northern Italy scores better. In other words, when marking is not centralised but done by the schools, the results are not reliable.

6. Having multiple exam boards baffles not just Italians but many Europeans. I get it that there are historical reasons for it, but I still can't get my head around it

7. Private schools are not as much of a thing. International schools are very expensive but there are very few and cater to a tiny minority. Most private schools are religious but tend to have poorer teaching, because the best teachers prefer state schools, since they get a bombproof government contract: they become employees of the central state, not of a given school.

Pretty much everywhere is better than English system 😂

That's interesting. What do you think about the Dutch and German systems, where kids are streamed into technical or academic routes even earlier than the UK? I think for some kids it is a brilliant idea, while for others who aren't sure what they are good at yet it can close doors early.

How can you compare other systems with ours unless you have experienced them all. I agree with @ItalianParent that there are a lot of things we could be better at, one of them being able to learn a foreign language.

@MadMAGA I don't know the Dutch and German systems enough to answer the question.

A century or so ago, the Italian system used to be like that.
Now you still have multiple types of secondary schools: classical high school, scientific high school, technical high school, art high school, hospitality high school, etc.

In theory you can go to any university after any type of high school. In practice, if you have studied at an art high school or at the hospitality high school, you won't do theoretical physics at uni, shall we say.

The tricky part is that, on one hand, having to choose at 15-16 what to do, like in the English system, is perverse. You can be undecided between biology and medicine but I don't think many combinations exist that let you do medicine and engineering.

On the other hand, like I said, if you excel at some subjects but hate others, the English system is better. I had people in my class who were terrible at maths, were clearly not going to do anything math-related after graduation, and still had to go through the final years of high school studying calculus. Math skills are important. But not everyone needs to know calculus.

The English system means early specialisation but then saves on university time. Means people finish their degrees earlier including in disciplines such as Law and Medicine. For society, the idea was they then can have families earlier, in theory. Until relatively recently we had a higher birth rate than the Italians. Italy and Germany were known for students taking too long at university.

The English system can be great for those who already know what they want to do. Not everyone does. Not aged 15-16 at least. For those whose ideas aren't clear, the Italian system can be better.

Medicine lasts 6 years in England, the same as in Italy. Other courses can be shorter.

You are correct pointing out that Italian students historically took too long to finish university (not sure if that''s still the case).
That's a clear signal of the difference between theory and practice: in theory, I like the Italian system of studying more subjects and studying the same historical period across subjects. This gives a much broader understanding.

However, you can get this in a good school with academic kids.
In many schools, sadly, the difference between theory and practice is huge and this theoretical advantage vanishes completely.
This is one of the main reasons Italians took too long to finish university: because their secondary schools, so great on paper, in practice did not give them the necessary knowledge and training for university.

I hope it's clear that I am trying to present a balanced view, and not rubbishing nor praising any system in particular.

Medicine in England is 5 years at university. Law (bachelor) is 3 years plus 1 year of law school (simplistically speaking as the 1 year is different for solicitors and barristers). Then it is on job training. Medics is also on job training post the 5 year uni degree.

There was some talk of introducing the International Baccalaureate in England more widely. However, most recently the Labour Government has pulled the required funding from all state schools. The State in the UK is simply not willing to spend more to deliver a more balanced education until 18. They want to shoehorn people into careers early to save costs and increase tax take from those professional individuals and families. The entire country is run on that strategy pretty much.

The Italian style sounds chaotic to me and unregulated. What is the point then if the results mean nothing in comparison to others? How does an employer or university decide if you are capable

@ItalianParent I have an Italian niece and nephew and my understanding was they have to specialise at 14 choosing either technical, languages or Humanities for example.

I don't know whether this is just in Milan where they live but it certainly sounds similar to our GCSEs or even A levels.

@Araminta1004 A friend's child is doing medicine at Imperial, and it's 6 years. Maybe that's some kind of integrated programme with an additional Master's, but it's shorter elsewhere?

The international baccalaureate sounds great on paper. The problem is how do you balance providing a well-rounded education vs not penalising those who do well in some subjects but not in others. You shouldn't be penalised at your application for law school if you suck at calculus, and you shouldn't be penalised applying to engineering if you find poetry soul-crushingly boring. I don't have an answer.

@FillTheGoldenCupWithRoses The concept of studying the same period across multiple subjects is not chaotic. In that respect, the English approach seems much more random to me, because you can study the literature of one period alongside the history and the art of a completely different one.

What is chaotic is the lack of centralised, standardises testing. Letting schools mark the final exams does not work.
I think this is one of the many cases in which Italy and England are at the two extremes, both wrong. Too little accountability in Italy (schools don't publish stats and grades). Too much focus on Ofsted reports and grades in England, which leads some schools to create an hostile environment for special needs children, because they don't want them to lower their precious stats. This is perverse, too.

@Stowickthevast I have an Italian niece and nephew and my understanding was they have to specialise at 14 choosing either technical, languages or Humanities for example.
I don't know whether this is just in Milan where they live but it certainly sounds similar to our GCSEs or even A levels.

It is not similar to GCSEs nor A levels. Not at all. Not even close.

5 years of primary school, from ages 6 to 11
3 years of middle school, 11 to 14
5 years of secondary school, 14 to 19

Primary and middle school are the same for everybody.
There are various kinds of secondary schools.
Scientific high school and classical high school are the most academic.
Technical schools come next: less focus on the humanities, more on practical applications of science, design, engineering, etc
Artistic high school and language high schools.
There are also hospitality schools, where you learn how to become a chef or a waiter or how to work in a hotel

Note that the difference between scientific high school and classical high school is not huge. Historically you studied more maths in one and ancient Greek in the other but, in practice, they are both very academic. They both study the same history, philosophy and Italian literature, for example.

It is not comparable to the English system because the distinction is not as rigid.
In theory you can go to the art high school or the hospitality school and then study theoretical physics; in practice, of course, no one does that.

But an Italian student can remain undecided between medicine and engineering, for example, till the end. An English student cannot. An English student must choose their A level subjects around 15-16. There are combinations which let you do medicine and biology, or engineering and physics, but I don't think there exists a combination that allows you to do medicine and engineering.

This is one of the biggest differences for me.

School systems vary but interestingly most people don’t like their system and think others are better, friends in Finland think their education system is rubbish and kids are not put into proper lessons early enough, they and most friends are paying for private nurseries (3-6) to bridge the gap

@hahabahbag I hope it's clear that I am not saying any one system is always better. I have tried to explain what I like more in the English system, what I like more in the Italian one, and why.

FWIW I see two common themes among Italians in the UK: they do not understand that the school they went to 20 years ago is not the same now, that standards have lowered and that, if their kids went to school in Italy, they would have a different experience from what they had 20 years ago. And they forget how unrepresentative their own case was. I was saying this to someone who went to a good state school in the centre of Milan and is now an academic in the UK. Their experience was not representative then, and is even less representative now.

Fascinating!
I am always interested in how different countries set up their education systems.
I have taught in France, Japan and England and good and bad elements in all of those, but given the choice of those would go for the French system. (And same for health service).

Relatives in Germany, France, Switzerland and lots of friends all over the world 😁

Letting schools mark the final exams does not work.

Schools don't mark GCSE and A level papers. Marking for these is standardised.

@RampantIvy Schools don't mark GCSE and A level papers. Marking for these is standardised.

English schools do not mark the final exams.
Italian schools do. That is exactly the problem I was pointing to!

The most prestigious Italian universities (Bocconi for finance, the Milan Politecnico for engineering and architecture) base admission on an entry test without giving any weight to the A-level equivalent. Precisely because it is not reliable. In case it wasn't clear, this is one of the things I was criticising about the Italian system, and which I think England does better.

@ItalianParent sorry, my mistake.

I have three children who have been through or are still going through the Italian system and it's been a wild ride! For me the cons outweigh the pros but I realise this may be my bad luck. However, for me the worst aspect is the one already mentioned- exams are not externally managed. This means students and parents are afraid to speak out when teachers are badly behaved or downright unfair because that person could be the one who decides the final grades. My daughter has a maths teacher who laughs at her in class - to avoid him she'd have to change school. LOTS of students change schools to avoid teachers who frankly don't belong anywhere near a classroom!

@Toodoloo I am sorry to hear that. Unfortunately I am not too surprised.
Italian teachers are employees of the central government, not of the school. Headteachers have too little power, and unions far too much.

The only thing I would say is that many Italian universities have finally realised that secondary school grades are too unreliable, and ignore them altogether, basing admission on their own test only.

Bocconi in Milan, the Polytechnics of Turin and Milan (among the best in Europe for engineering), all the medicine courses in the entire country - they all ignore the grade at the A level equivalents.
In fact, I am not sure if there is any university for which the final secondary school marks have any impact on admission.

So, it sucks, it's unfair, and it's one of the things I hate the most about Italy (the complete lack of accountability of certain workers on bomb proof contracts). But the impact may well be limited.

May I ask where this was? Region / type of school (liceo, istituto tecnico, etc)?

@ItalianParent Emilia Romagna and Liceo Scientifico. Some of the school system has been excellent but it seems to me that there is little incentive to be an excellent teacher - and very little effective management. I have also found that children with dyslexia/autism or indeed any additional needs are frequently ignored or moved on.

My eldest son did not get a great mark for his maturità but just graduated with "110 e lode". In this respect I am grateful that the maturità mark doesn't really count for that much in their future careers!

I forgot to mention: medicine is one aspect that Italy first got very right and then got very wrong.

Till a few years ago, there used to be a national admission test, same for everyone. Candidates would rank their preferences. I think cities like Milan, Bologna, Rome, Naples and Padua were the most coveted. Some small universities in the south the least coveted.

Then Meloni's government introduced a bonkers system, whereby everyone gets admitted, but only those who pass the exams of the first semester can continue. The problem is that, before, if you didn't get in you could choose something else. Now, if you fail the first semester, you have practically lost a year.

From my understanding although what you’re saying about the specialist secondary schools theoretically not closing any doors further on, in reality there are some sorts where it’s assumed students won’t be going onto anything else, the schools are assumed to be “rough” and teaching can be patchy. As alluded to discipline can be patchy. Yet school is six days a week (I think?) which seems huge.