Talk:Education in England

Moved to Education in England

I've moved this page to Education in England as I realised a lot of the details on there are not true of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I don't know about the pre-1988 stuff, but since 1988 these countries have been moving further and further away from the English system. For example, Wales no longer have compulsory testing at KS1 and do not publish League Tables. Scotland does not have tuition fees for universities etc. Angela 17:17, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

It would be good to have a section on Church of England and other faith schools in the UK. I'm not too familiar with that aspect of the education system (especially how such schools are funded etc.). Anyone else want to have a go? Adambisset 22:42, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maximum starting age for Primary?

The article says that education was made "compulsory up to age 14" but not when it is supposed to start. I think the article would be improved by adding this. I have been unable to obtain any information from any other source and need to know it for my own child! ....I have now had this confirmed - a child must start school no later than the term during which his fifth birthday occurs.DavidFarmbrough

{{education}} template

I'm not sure what the purpose of this template as it stands. I will remove it shortly unless serious objections are raised Frelke 21:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No objection I've removed it. --Pfafrich 21:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Original research

The User who keeps trying to change the opening sentence has started identical Talk strands at two other articles, but not here for some reason. If you wish to respond, I have replied here:

• Talk:Education in Scotland#Suggested minor change to Intro

--Mais oui! 08:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

simple answer - I did not have time!leaky_caldron 08:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

further. I have no idea what you mean by "original research". The fact that material has been around for years - badly presented IMO - does not make it cannon. My improvements are intended to provide context in the overall scheme of education in the UK. I have hardly altered a word of following description and where I have it is simply to correct errors or improve readability

School Structures

I've noticed that on the Education in UK page there is a small chart showing the main structures of education in England. However, things are actually more complex. I have adapted the graphic, and uploaded it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:School_Stuctures.png but thought it better to leave it open for discussion whether the graphic is clearer than, or a useful addition to, the opening information about structures on this. Any advice? Tafkam 12:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Chart looks good to me, although I'm not sure what the different bands represent. Is the term Lower school actually common in the UK? --Salix alba (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Lower school is still used in areas where they have 9-13 Middle Schools - for example, the entire county of Bedfordshire. Not sure I feel I have enough authority to just drop the image in (nor, necessarily the right capability). Does anyone else feel happy with it and want to do that? Tafkam 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've only just come across this new chart you've made, so sorry for the long delay. The chart is much better than the one at present, but one or two things are worrying me. For example, with the top two rows, it looks like you either have primary school, followed by secondary schools and then a sixth form college, or else you have an infant, then junior, then a comined secodnary-sixth form. The char appears to show you cannot go to infant, juniro, secondary and then separate sixth form, or from a primary to a combined secondary-sixth form, yet these are possible. There are potential similar problems in the next section down too. I'd say include the chart for now until something better can be worked out...it is after all better than what is currently in there as it's more inclusive of the differnet school types while still being very easy to look at. Good work :-) Evil Eye 18:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I;ve just again looked at the chart on the UK Edu page and sen that it uses small arrows on the chart to indicate possible movement between different strands...would it be possible to inlcude those on this chart in some places where there could be ambiguity over possible movement betweens chool types? Evil Eye 18:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Have made the suggested amendments Tafkam 19:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Percentage of population who have enrolled in A levels and University

I was trying to find stats on what percentage of the UK have been to university or have done A levels. If anyone knows this could you add it to this article? This info would be seperate for percentage of people starting university out of all eligible young people, and percentage of UK adult population who have been to University. Thanks! 194.83.140.37 12:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Is 'Big Business' relevant?

This looks to me like a pseudo-advertisement for a Yahoo Group at best. I'm not convinced that the tone matches the remainder of the article, or that it adds anything useful for the reader. Reluctant to delete unilatreally though. Any thoughts? Tafkam 15:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree - the Big Business is not really relevant to Education in the UK - could it be moved to a seperate article rather then completely deleting? --Rossa 12:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Has been removed - Thank you Chrism. Not worth keeping Tafkam 17:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect link

Your link to my website is incorrect.

Since I reorganised my site, the correct URL for my Brief History of Education in England is now:

http://www.dg.dial.pipex.com/history/index.shtml

My apologies for any inconvenience.

Derek Gillard

Derek60 15:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Updated Tafkam 21:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

New Diagram

Is the image added by Tafkam really representative of the english education system. I have never seen of some of the structures put out in it. Can anyone back me up/ shoot me down. MHDIN Englishnerd 21:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I gave up trying to do something similar alst year as I felt it just wouldn't work. Whilst I don't doubt the accuracy of the diagram, I don't think its useful. Frelke 21:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• I can assure you they all exist. Obviously the 3-tier ones are far less common, but they exist all the same. Whether the diagram adds anything; not really for me to decide. Suffice to say, I won't revert if others remove it because it is 'getting in the way'. (Note that the diagram itself was discussed further up the page) Tafkam 21:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Labels within Secondary schools

I realise this risks appearing as directed attack at Englishnerd, which it is not but my wide-ranging experience of secondary education suggests that the labels given for the different stages of secondary education (a) are rare in state schools [whilst more common in independent schools], and (b) are applied differently in those few schools where they are used such as to make that particular paragraph unhelpful. For example, a reader in the US could be led to believe that 'middle school' commonly refers to Key Stage 4, which it does not. Tafkam 21:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a case where compromise will be easy: rather than removing the information wholesale, can we not simply emphasise that it applies to some schools, and make it clear which system is the most common? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I might agree, but I am not familiar with any school that labels different Key Stages in this way outside of the independent sector. It would probably be better listed in the independent schools pages.Tafkam 22:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

<add>I notice that Englishnerd's own school (a former public school) uses this system, but I would suggest that that is more to do with its public-school past than common usage in the state sector.Tafkam 22:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I have heard of some others which use this system, but if you don't think it to be a common thing, I'm fine for you to revert it. The problem is that the entire article to contradictory, as it includes the practices of so many schools, it is problematic as there is not one set-out way which things run in! S'ok Tafkam, I assume good faith, I know It wasn't a personal attack! Englishnerd 14:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that first section of the article does try to cram in rather a lot about different types of education. Perhaps it should be slimmed down, and then a separate section (either within this artcle, or as a separate article, I'm not sure which) should discuss the variations on the theme?Tafkam 20:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You are completely correct, but I can't work out any sensible way of cutting it down. It's such a complex system that it can't be summed up in a short paragraph or two! Oh, why do us Brits have to be so complicated?! Englishnerd 20:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Have tried to simplify on my userpage - any better? Tafkam 20:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, go ahead, with that simplification. Suposedly with the new diagram; That would make the whole thing a lot clearer. Englishnerd 22:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Done Tafkam 19:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Difference

At Ecclesfield School Of Visual and Performing Arts in Sheffield, the Y11s leave in May after their GCSEs. So why does the article say June? Nukleoptra 13:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Because, schools are legally compulsory students until the last Friday in June. As such, they are on official study leave, but are still officially full-time students. Tafkam 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now added a ref link to this effect, although the whole article needs some proper referencing, really, IMO. Tafkam 21:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

History - Bilateral Schools

I was just adding a bit to the history of Cranbourne business and enterprise college and realised I couldn't find any reference to this type of school. There is a definition here [[1]] Not sure precisely what it means, but is this the same principle as was used in the late 1960s? Mighty Antar 19:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There are so few bilateral schools left that it hardly seems worth creating an article; particularly as Partially selective school (England) already exists. Some expansion of the bilateral information might be appropriate there. Tafkam (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Links

Can someone knowing the relevant language see if the article at the Legislative Growth of English Education link is what is meant? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever was there before is no longer there, and there is now just a redirection to the section homepage. I have removed the link accordingly. Tafkam (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I was insufficiently familiar with the language to know whether it did relate to the subject.

Slight change of topic - something on earlier exams could be included (or a separate page) - and eg the Standards mentioned at the bottom of the 1870 Education Act article. Jackiespeel (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Sixth Class", etc.

Concerning education in England roughly 100 years ago, what did "Sixth Class", "Fifth Class", etc., represent? (Evidently, the process of education counted up, terminating [maybe] at First Class, around age 16? Maybe?) The Jade Knight (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong title?

Shouldn't this article be called Schooling in England? It conflates education and schooling as though they were the same thing. The opening sentence says..."Education in England is the responsibility of the Department for Children, Schools and Families". This is wrong. Education in England is, according to section 7 of the Education Act, the responsibility of parents. It goes on to cover "Compulsory schooling"... "School is compulsory beginning with the term following the child's 5th birthday." Since when? There is no such requirement to attend school. I propose that the whole article be moved to appear under a more apposite title but even then will need to be edited to correct the factual errors. Lame Name (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

While education does indeed cover a wider range of things than provision made by the state and independent institutes for provision of teaching, I don't think any confusion is likely to arise about the purpose of the article; certainly changing the title to "Schooling in England" would not be appropriate given the articles remit covering further & higher education. It also fits neatly with other similarly-named articles across Wikipedia.

Section 7 of the 1996 act only places a responsibility on parents to ensure their own children are educated. It is, however, the wider responsibility of the DCSF to ensure that education is available universally to a standard set down by the government of the day. Consequently, I'd argue that the current statement is quite correct.

As to your point about school being compulsory, arguably the article could be improved by re-writing the sentence to state that "Schooling is compulsory beginning...", but I wouldn't imagine that there is any perceived lack of clarify or any confusion given that the statement immediately follows a statement outlining what is required. Tafkam (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph now suffers from undue weight, and the lead as a whole does not summarize the article. While the otherwise option should be mentioned in the article, it accounts for a small fraction of education in England. Also, the independent sector has influence disproportionate to its size, and ought to be mentioned in the lead. But there is surely no need to mention Waldorf schools in the lead. Kanguole (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have radically re-drafted the lead, although it is far from perfect. I quite agree that it is disproportionate to mention 'the otherwise option' in the lead given the tiny percentage of students for whom it is relevant. I have also removed the suggestion that Education in England is the responsibility of parents. While parents retain responsibility for ensuring that their own children are educated, the national responsibility rests with the government departments - and indeed it is they who determine whether what parents choose for their children meets the requirements of the state. Not to mention the nonsense to suggest that parents are responsible for, for example, a 58-year-old man undertaking a Masters Degree. While Lame Name's input on 'the otherwise option' has been valuable in adding to the breadth of the article, it is at risk of becoming biassed and imbalanced. Tafkam (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

But it is wrong. The responsibility for education rests with parents. There is no requirement of the state to be met. It is perfectly possible to educate a child without any input from, or dealings with, any government (local or national) department. Lame Name (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the Direct.Gov website it quite clearly states that the LA has a right to make enquiries, and even to serve a "school attendance order" if it feels that the requirements for "full-time education suitable to their age, ability and aptitude" are not being met. And of course, all under the auspices of the DCSF. Tafkam (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

They can do and probably do. But I do not see that that changes anything. I also, actually, object to your patronising tone Lame Name (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly let me apologise if you felt that my tone was patronising; that was certainly not my intention. I do, however, think that is easy when viewing aspects from a minority viewpoint (such as your clear views relating to home education) to see bias as being unfair, when in fact it is wholly appropriate. The article lead should be biassed towards mainstream education in schools, since this represents some 98% of primary & secondary education. I would add that I fully support your recent changes, such as outlining that DCSF & DIUS oversee, rather than take responsibility for education in England. Tafkam (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the switch to oversight is a great solution. There was no explicit statement about responsibility for either parents or government in the sources, so that was always going to be an original synthesis, either way. Kanguole (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this article ought to be restructured, something like:

• Primary and secondary education

• State-funded school system
• Independent schools (summarizing Independent school (UK))
• Non-school education (or something)

• Further and higher education

The state-funded part would inevitably be larger. I'm not sure about the history bit, which is basically a list at present. Kanguole (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Response

Please do tell; what are my "clear views relating to home education"? I do not see how the inclusion of a paragraph or two, within the scope of lengthy article, leads to bias and imbalance. Such was the blatant bias in earlier versions of the article that ridiculous disclaimers were added to sections excluding some aspect of the topic. A broad title like Education in England should cover the topic broadly and not get too weighed down by the minutiae of the school system, which will be the predominate example, as it then becomes an article about schooling.

I still think the two paragraphs of the lead should be reversed with the parental responsibility for the education of their children (as in - As a parent, you have a legal responsibility to make sure this happens ) shown as the prime responsibility.

There are too many laundry lists which clutter the article. The History section seems to duplicate the main history article and could be replaced with a quick romp through the history - I would like to see the inclusion of minor, but notable, contributors to the fabric of education in England such as Neill, Duane, Clegg et. al. and schools like Dartington and Summerhill School etc.

Lame Name (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Your points here are self-contradictory. Firstly you argue that the broad title means that the article should cover the topic broadly, and then you go on to argue that the lead paragraph should refer only to the significance of education for 5 to 16 year olds. I maintain that the DCSF has overall responsibility for education in England. Parents are indeed responsible for the education of their own children within that framework, but they only have this responsibility/right because the laws put together by government departments say they do. It would be perfectly possible for a bill to be passed removing that responsibility from parents.

When such a bill is passed (It never will be - Imagine all the LAs being taken to court for failing to provide a suitable education by individuals seeking compensation) the article can be changed to reflect that. Meanwhile it is perfectly possible for a child, or adult, to be educated without ever having any dealings with any government department. I am not arguing for an exclusive mention in the lead for 5 to 16 year olds just that it reflects, given that the bulk of the article will be about that group, the actual legal position as it currently stands. Lame Name (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that to omit mention of homeschooling would be an error, and I support your addition of detail in this area in the main body of the text. However, one must bear in mind that the vast majority of users coming to an article like this will be interested in the highest level of understanding, i.e. that which affects 98% of pupils between the ages of 5 and 16. It is also well worthy of note that other articles in similar veins follow a very similar structure focussing on school structures and processes (see, for example Education in USA, Education in France, Education in Australia, Education in Japan, etc.)

They are all equally wrongly named ;-) Lame Name (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As for your other suggestions, being something of a fan of both Neill and Clegg myself, I think they may well be worthy of mention, although as you mention in other respects, they might be better placed in the History article. Tafkam (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the History section. It contained nothing that wasn't a verbatim copy of text in History of education in England, which is itself somewhat listy. So I've cut the whole section. It needs to be a summary of that article. Kanguole (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be useful for the "otherwise" section to include sourced estimates of the number of children involved. Kanguole (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Special Educational Needs provision

There is no mention of SEN provision, the statutory provision requirement, the support structures. Disability Equality Duty (DED), nor the categories of disabilites which require SEN provision. Or is this part of the Government attempt to avoid the expense of providing SEN support by fialing to provide adequte information for those who may require such support

dolfrog (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's more that no-one has got around to it. Feel free to add a section under "The state-funded school system". Kanguole 08:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

currently I do not have the time as I am midway through editing the WIKI Dyslexia project, and the related articles Categories, and my next WIKI project is to revise the article regarding my own disability Auditory Processing Disorder , I only raised the issue as part of the Dyslexia project concern the Management of Dyslexia which does include each countries national statutory provision of education and SEN etc. I will come back lated when i have the time dolfrog (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality of Higher Education in the UK

Unijean (talk · contribs) has been adding the following (sentences numbered for reference):

1. UK undergraduate qualifications are respected and valued all over the world.
2. Each area of education has its own council responsible for the quality assurance in that particular area.
3. For example, GMC has the responsibility of supervising the quality of medical education in the UK.
4. World class teaching, internationally excellent research, astronomical governmental expenditure on higher education puts many of the British universities at top places in global rankings.
5. Universities in the UK has higher number of Nobel Prize winner staff than any other country making UK renowned across the world for the quality of its research and the reputation of its academics.
6. It is observed that UK universities' graduates generally takes the biggest share of the job market.
7. Being in the country of the world's highly developed industry and business centre enables students to learn not only from the book but also in the place of real life application giving the students valuable experience in the area of study.
8. The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is an exercise undertaken approximately every 5 years on behalf of the four UK higher education funding councils (HEFCE, SHEFC, HEFCW, DELNI) to evaluate the quality of research undertaken by British higher education institutions.
9. Research in the UK has led to important innovations, developments and discoveries changing and directing life all over the history.
10. Currently, UK higher education institutions executes research of extreme importance in various areas that may change the way life goes on when completed, as many of the research did in the past.
11. Major areas of educational strenght and areas of research of UK institutions include medicine, technology, space exploration, life sciences, business&management sciences, arts&humanities.

There is an element of hype here, and all of it needs supporting references, but to take it in parts:

• 1, 4, 9 and 10 are matters of opinion (and who would agree with "astronomical"?)
• 2, 3 and 8 are objective statements and seem accurate (but still need citations)
• 5, 6, 7 and 11 are objective statements, but are dubious. They would certainly need citations.

Kanguole 11:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments on "homeschooling"

Good, informative article! As someone who has been home educated (albeit in Canada), I would like to point out that "any semblance of structure in the educational provision is abandoned" as a description of unschooling (while technically accurate) sounds quite biased. Those who unschool allow their children to choose what they would like to learn and when (in a nutshell...), and while this does mean that there is no "semblance of structure", that phrase suggests that structure is inherently better than lack of structure. Also, one minor quibble, if referring to all education that occurs primarily in the home, it would be more accurate to refer to that as "home education", rather than "home schooling". I know the second term is widely used and communicates clearly...but it's a pet peeve of mine, since you don't necessarily educate in the home the same as you educate in the school! :-) envsgirl —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC).

3 year Bachelor's?

Is it ever explained why the Bachelor's only takes 3 years in England to obtain? In Australia, US, and Canada, it still remains 4 (or 5, for some late ones). 75.4.252.249 (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Reads like a brochure

There is just isn't information about the problems with education, how many drop out, how many children may be considered troublesome, the problems at the moment with not enough money to modernise old schools and so on. 78.146.69.31 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.69.31 (talk) 09:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Performance Assessment

It is not clear from the article how pupils' performance is assessed within each "key stage". For example, is there automatic progression from one year to another within the same key stage ? Or, alternatively, is pupils' performance assessed every year with each annual assessment contributing to progression ? Please clarify. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added a brief comment just above the years table, noting that progression is almost entirely based on age. It is very rare for students to be accelerated or held back in English state schools. Tafkam (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

1880

We are told "System Type...1880". Possibly 1880 is a date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.8.149 (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It was a bug in {{Infobox education}}; now fixed. Kanguole 10:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Declaration by Trevj

In connection with this edit, I declare that I personally know the author of the cited article. Please note that my preceding edit was made with no knowledge of her piece or connection with the survey. I understand that this is a conflict of interest but request that my edits be accepted in good faith. If they are considered to be of undue weight (bearing in mind they're under a heading entitled 'Criticism') then please remove them and discuss here to achieve consensus. Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)