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.

@HeatwaveHoratio in reality there are some sorts where it’s assumed students won’t be going onto anything else

It's not comparable. Which type of secondary school kids go to is based on a mix of how academic students are, or are perceived to be, and socio-economic background.

For students who are reasonably academic and who don't know at 15 what they want to study at university, the Italian system is better. Students like this will typically be in one of the more academic schools (scientific high school, classical high school, technical school etc).

It is far from perfect because, in theory, there could be those who flourish late and who were sent to the less academic school. In theory someone could go to the hospitality school, and, while learning how to wait tables, learn that their passion is reading Homer in ancient Greek or studying theoretical physics. Perhaps. But I am not sure how many such cases there are.

Your comparison makes sense, especially the point about choosing subjects so early in the English system. The Italian approach of keeping more subjects together also seems useful for students who want a broader education before specialising. I agree there needs to be some balance on behaviour too, since both extremes create problems. The difference in exam marking is interesting as well, particularly with centralised marking in England versus school-based marking in Italy. The best parts of both systems would probably work well together.

What you don’t mention:

• PE is shit in Italy and you don’t learn how to actually play sports like in other countries
• bullying is rife, pastoral care nearly non existent especially in rural areas
• primary school often finishes at 12/1pm making it hard for working parents especially mums
• outdated teaching methods especially in primary school
• very low understanding of SEN

For medicine you just need Chemistry. And if you aren’t sure between Engineering and Medicine, you choose Chemistry, Physics and Maths. It is partly why that combo is so popular. And even if you do not do Chemistry, and do eg Bio and Physics there are medicine courses that you can find, it just narrows your options.

@Roulette29

• PE is shit in Italy and you don’t learn how to actually play sports like in other countries

True

• bullying is rife, pastoral care nearly non existent especially in rural areas

I don't know about this. I pointed out that there is too little discipline and that firing a teacher who doesn't do their job is very hard. For fairness, one should also point out that the kind of institutionalised bullying (by staff) seen in certain English schools is unthinkable in Italy. Think of Mossbourne Academy or that school in Holland Park (West London) - that kind of shit would have caused a revolution in Italy.

• primary school often finishes at 12/1pm making it hard for working parents especially mums

Are you sure about this? It used to be like this 30 years ago. The Italians I know in Italy collect their kids at a similar time to what happens in England. In fact, I know one family who moved from London to Milan and tells me that after school clubs are much better in Milan (comparing state schools vs state schools).

• outdated teaching methods especially in primary school

Possibly. But it's not as easy as saying that Italy uses outdated methods while England uses modern ones. Two things that drive me nuts about English schools are:

• no textbooks. How on Earth are kids meant to revise? Our kid sometimes asks for help. We help her. No, that's not how we did it at school. Fine, how did you do it? I don't know. Do you have a book? No. Do you have a reference? no. What the hell do you have, then?
• jumping around with no apparent rationale. My kid studied the Tudors and then the Romans. What the? A friend's son is studying history of one period and art of another. Make it make sense

very low understanding of SEN
This may or may not be true. I do not know. What I can tell you is that I know many teachers in Italy who started as dedicated support teachers for kids with special needs, and that families I know here were getting less support. I didn't mention it because it would be unfair to read too much into single cases.
Also, the other side of the coin of Italy having little to no accountability is that schools, unlike here, have no incentive in getting rid of special needs kids, or incentivising them to leave, because there are no precious stats to worry about which they could lower.

It depends on the university.
Eg Imperial requires biology and chemistry for medicine. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/courses/undergraduate/medicine/

For mechanical engineering it requires maths and physics https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/courses/undergraduate/mechanical-engineering/

For physics, maths and physics are required; further maths is recommended but not required, although, in practice, everyone has it https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/courses/undergraduate/physics-bsc/

Re: bullying - all the bullying my kids have had at school was coming from the teachers not the students! My son dropped out of school due to anxiety and they definitely preferred him to change school rather than help him reintegrate.Also my kids all did mornings only plus two afternoons at primary school.

Have nothing to add except that my DCs secondary school in London (independent) has many, many Italian families. Usually pretty wealthy. They all seem v keen on the UK (private at least) education. Lots staying on for UK Universities or going to the US.

GCSEs are also arguably a form of social control. The state encourages the vast majority of school age children to have to study and apply themselves at a key age when they might otherwise be disruptive. And then our PISA tests do well as they are mostly reaching their potential around that age as it is too high stakes to do badly in the long run. Of course, it means that those who do not play the game end up paying for it in the long run (the flipside), including those who do try and have a learning disability. It is this latter aspect that is wrong in the UK system and pretty much only that I think.
GCSEs are also a whole industry of additional work currently with people picking up some extra cash in the marking process.

Any education system is a form of social control.

Most countries don't offer specialisation at 16. Sunak wanted to introduce compulsory Maths to 18. However, in my view, the idea that you can force legal adults to study academic subjects they don't want to study is for the birds. I remember the joy of choosing from the wide range of sixth form options and looking forward to getting real depth of learning. You have to narrow eventually and I think it's a good age to have the chance of more choice and autonomy.

@Genevieva I don't know which is the best system. Each would have pros and cons.

On one hand, forcing pupils to study subjects they don't like and will not need till the age of 18 isn't just too much - it's also unfair if, for example, an able linguist is penalised for scoring poorly in a calculus paper, or viceversa. Because, while maths is important, calculus is not a life skill everyone needs.

On the other hand, forcing kids to decide at 15-16 is also flawed, because not everyone will know so young what they want to do.

IO wonder how other countries do it. Are there countries where kids take 5-6 subjects, but then only a subset of those count towards university applications?

I think in Ireland students take 8 subjects, but then only the best 6 count towards university applications? is there anything similar in any other country?

PS 16 year olds are not legal adults. They cannot vote and cannot drink a sip of beer. They have more autonomy than a 15 year old but are not legal adults yet

As a teacher in the UK with experience of other systems (Dutch, Italian, US, German), I’d say they all have pros and cons and, in the wider picture, adults are the same the world over. There are artistic adults, scientific adults, lazy adults. The UK system has traditionally produced more ‘ creatives’, but the US students have a level of confidence we can only envy.

My Dutch relatives tell me that their children are the happiest in Europe, but they have formal, national tests at the end of every year when they’re graded against national benchmarks and, if you fail to make the grade, you have to resist the year. This goes on throughout their school career and would be viewed with outrage here - imagine if you failed year 6 SATs and had to stay in primary school.

My understanding too in Italy is that teachers are ‘assigned’ to schools from a list as and when vacancies come up. This means that weaker schools can still get good staff, but they’d be an outcry here if you tried to make teachers work in a school they hadn’t selected.

So swings and roundabout I think. I do agree with Andy Burnham that schools should be looking much more closely at the local area they’re in and possible career options as it would make communities more cohesive. And I think the same on a national level - what works in Italy, may not suit our requirements and vice versa.

My understanding too in Italy is that teachers are ‘assigned’ to schools from a list as and when vacancies come up. This means that weaker schools can still get good staff, but they’d be an outcry here if you tried to make teachers work in a school they hadn’t selected

This happens in France pile can opt for and Académie( which is a school district, not individual school) and will be assigned to somewhere in it, but thise with the best qualification eg agrégation have the best options and ironically teach the fewest hours.

Honestly, Mn has often made me worry about the English education system (DH and I are not originally from the UK, but lived here for a long time, meaning DS was born in London, and went to primary school in another part of England before we left the country) — those jokey ‘things I only found out in my 30/40s’ threads display such a huge ignorance of basic facts about, for instance, basic history and geography I find them unnerving.

I HATE the way that you have to stay back a year if you don't reach the standard required. (My son is now 2 years behind and this rule is hindering not helping). On the other hand, I am very grateful that there are generally no fines for absenteeism. When you are struggling with a ND child refusing school the last thing you need is a prosecution too.

History here is supposed to be taught as an analytical subject if done properly ie pupils need to analyse and compare a few historical sources, devise their argument based on these texts/facts/data and write an essay explaining their views on the matter and giving supporting evidence from the sources. I think it's a very deep and scientific way of approaching history. In real life though most schools don't have teachers qualified or interested enough to teach this way so history lessons become just a bizarre mix of random topics and tasks thrown at pupils and this can only create chaos and confusion.

History as a timeline of events around the world is just not a thing in British education so most Brits are astonishingly ignorant about worldwide or even European history. Those few who were lucky to be taught analytical history though are v very good at understanding history and can tackle any historical matter.

This is again a form of social control as understanding history is key to understanding modern politics, and the masses should be kept ignorant about this to be easily governed.

I think you’ve got this wrong. Certain degrees do require certain subjects but I think you can have both a medical and engineering options with your a level choices. Some degrees will require that as a specific a level but a lot of degrees don’t have any pre requisites in terms of which subjects you do

I have 2 children who’ve gone through the Italian education system. One did Liceo Scientifico-Medicine-Paediatrics specialisation in one of OP’s “coveted“ cities. The other Liceo Classico- Lettere Moderne.

The greatest problem is the lack of training and uniformity in teaching skills. Until recently anybody with a degree was allowed to teach their subject, no PGCE, and it became a matter of teaching “persona” and popularity. Or a fall-back option. Even young enthusiastic graduates were reinventing the teaching wheel before they become proficient at their job. Fortunately they’ve made changes in the past 10? years.
So the standard varies wildly not just from North to South or school to school but from class to class! When a friend found out DC1 was having a certain teacher for Maths she gasped and said “Change class, NOW!” In fact, it was a disaster in their main subject and the class was disbanded in Year 3.

Personally I think Italian Scuola Media (10-13yo) should be abolished and split between Primary and Secondary. It’s a hotbed of hormones (2nd year is the wilderness year from which they emerge in their final form), doesn’t teach much and I’ve seen so many kids get lost to the system either by bullying, lack of motivation or falling in with the wrong crowd. Much better to have an older cohort to look up to.
Mine did Musical Middle school which was seen as a strong choice but they weren’t exempt from those problems.
The kids who choose Technical Institutes at 14 are extreme choices. They are either hyper fixated on the specialisation (car mechanics were a great bunch, as were digital marketing) or training for family business (accounting or surveyors). Many cities have a technical school that feeds directly into the local industry like Turin for Fiat.
I’d say the Licei are more commonly the choice for students without a clear future in mind. They get a well rounded curriculum in any case. All high schools must do Italian, Maths and English.
Oral testing in high school is a farce both for the students and the teachers. Even at 15 minutes each student you’re losing HOURS of teaching time while the rest of the class daydreams. Written tests can take months to be corrected…

DC1 did the national test for Medicine in 2016 and got the first of 3 choices (a bit like UCCA). This year Medicine Entrance was a disaster. DC2 did an online aptitude test (which also graded English and Latin) in the first month of University. Pretty much a formality.

On a happy note, Scuola Materna (3-6yo, voluntary state or private but nearly everyone does it) is wonderful until the last 6 months when the kids are screaming to be able to read instead of coloring in! I just taught mine to read at home.
Primary, again it depends on the teacher. If you get a dud you’re stuck with them for 5 years. Mine did until 4pm but plenty did until 1pm and got homework.

More food for thought: Italian university fees.
DC1’s Medicine degree cost €3000 in fees per year.

Oral exams alone are a reason I’d never put my kids in Italian school. I didn’t go to high school in Italy but did university there (in Milan, as it happens) and hated every exam. I’m not someone who is a confident public speaker, so that shook me to start with and meant I didn’t show my knowledge as well as I should have.

But discussing with friends after, the conversational style of the exams meant that there’s no way you could objectively compare students. I had exams where I felt everything went really well and I got a low pass mark, and exams where I feel I was barely questioned on the relevant material and got high 20s.

There are a lot more degrees nowadays based on written exams.

I sat A levels at a time when 15% of 18 year olds did so (as opposed to 40% today). It was quite common then to take General Studies A level alongside your core three A levels. Whilst not particularly demanding, General Studies was broad ranging and ensured non-STEM students kept basic maths skills alive and STEM students their essay skills. This balancing element no longer exists, though Core Maths is an attempt to address that for some students.

It is possible to take a mix of STEM and non-STEM subjects (I did; as did my children) but it can depend on the timetabling flexibility of individual schools and colleges. Universities also, possibly without really thinking this through, encourage focusing on either STEM only or non-STEM only, because of subject preferences and/or grade incentives when making offers.

I think in Ireland students take 8 subjects, but then only the best 6 count towards university applications? is there anything similar in any other country?

I’m in Ireland and students mostly take seven subjects at Leaving Cert level. The school timetables are usually built around seven subjects with English, Irish and Maths being compulsory (unless the student has a dispensation for Irish for a reason such as dyslexia).
Some do take an extra eight subject but they study for it outside school hours.

As you mentioned, the best six subjects are counted for university applications.

I also disagree with starting school at 6. That’s way too late. Parents shouldn’t have to pay for childcare for that long for one and for another I could read at 3, why wait another 3 years to start?