The UK seems to be a split elitist society with haves and have nots, which also becomes visible with education an the educational system.
That is not what I experienced in NL,D and A, as these systems seem more egalitarian, where pupils have access to education as far as their competence brings them.
In NL, the royal family, from the present king onwards, they all went to normal schools from primary on and normal Dutch unis, as Willem Alexander did history in Leiden.
I know that at least in NL and D, due to history, schools could be run by the state (municipality), catholic or protestant organisations, but the connection to religionffor pupils is largely diminished now and not as strict as it used to be.
the history of English public schools is fascinating:
A lot of my wifeâs family went to Guild schools, which by then were Grammar schools open to all but with reserved rights for sons and daughters associated with the Guilds, plus some charitable scholarships.
The requirement for public schools to take non fee paying foundation pupils was actually ended by an Act of Parliament. Strange legal knots a consequence of their history.
I went to an actual Private school, charitable and set up by William and Mary (Cheers the Dutch and the Glorious Revolution) designed for the sons of Navy types killed in the various wars of the time. Used to be based at Greenwich, now Holbrooke near Ipswich. Also took in orphans from Coastguard, RNLI, fishing fleet, Lighthouses etc. The Army have a similar school. I seem to remember that GLC ran a boarding school at Framlingham for children from London who werenât flourishing in Comps and Grammars, donât know if that one still exists.
My brother went to one of the Harrow schools, then my dad died, and he had to go to the local comprehensive.
Was a bit of a struggle as it was a pretty shit school.
There will be loads of evidence on the interwebs.
Basically the Finns see education as an absolute foundation for achieving social equality something Iâm not sure certain countries really desire but something the Finnish people recognised as fundamental to retain their independence from post war Russia.
Their system is often branded as non achievement focused but that is bullshit.
Their system starts with teachers who are the most qualified in the world,
Nursery age kids attend a paid for (the richer you are the more you pay) pre-school where the focus is on care, well being and learning and achieving goals. Play is a fundamental part but itâs not just dumping toys in front of them or sticking them in a poorly equipped playground, itâs proper interactive, supervised, learning linked play.
They then do a year of prep school with more classroom activities but again it has to be about the whole child with an emphasis on fun and enjoyment.
They start school proper aged 7 and have to do 9 years. They have class based teaching until year 6 then move to specialist subject teachers for years 7-9. All kids get free meals, individual focused guidance, psychological counselling and access to healthcare.
There is a National board which set a core curriculum but everything else is set by local authorities who are free to adapt teaching according to local circumstances.
They are then free to opt out or continue into
a higher education of academia or skill based education with equal prowess on both. The people who opt out are also free to return to education at anytime.
There is no compulsory testing, no teacher accountability, no schools ranking and no inspection system.
They have the best library system in the world and achieve a 100% literacy.
I donât find it hard to accept that fee paying schools separate society and stifle state education. It is in their business model to always be better. As @AmDismal said up thread if the children of the rich attend the same school as everyone else standards will be raised.
The truth is (imo) the idea that it held me in good stead and is best for my children stops us from even entertaining the idea of abolishing the antiquated system of fee paying schools. The same way we cling on to an actually powerless cosplay, ceremonial Monarch as head of state and suffer the pompous historical ceremonies of parliament and state year after year.
Crowns, robes, wigs and men in tights are for museums not a forward looking equal society.
2 Likes
And in âGreatâ Britain we have how many adults who canât read, prisons full of people failed by the education system etc.
3 Likes
They might well, but not necessarily equally. Within the current state system there are schools which do better and schools which do worse. Parents who donât send their kids to private schools, but who are still far from poor, spend a lot of time and effort and guile getting their kids into the better state schools.
They do say that one of the biggest determinants of educational outcome for children is the degree of support for learning they get at home. It could be argued that private schooling is just the extreme end of the advantage that ambitious parents want to give their children. Squeezing the desire âfor my children to do better than averageâ out of parenting might take a while.
So, totally anathema to what the Tory Government would want/ encourage then ? Deep fucking joy !
1 Like
This is because of our system.
This is why Finnish schools are individual focused, extra support is given to those that donât get the support at home.
It is education not an instant fix but as the Finnish people have seen the better the education for all the easier it becomes to educate all.
I see that one of the three bullet points at the top of @Waxy 's article is
Finlandâs common-sense practices and a holistic teaching environment strives for equity over excellence.
(my bold). I wonder if that aim would command a majority at the ballot box here ? It sounds a bit like âlevelling to the averageâ - good for the weaker students, but limiting for the stronger ones. Itâs hard for me to see this objectively. I went to a selective state secondary school in a county which still has them, and then to an even more selective university, which is showing no sign of changing in that regard.
Thatâs a harsh condemnation of The Finnish people, it certainly isnât a dumbing down system. You can go as academically high as it is possible to achieve and as I said their teachers are the most academically qualified in the world. It simply means that academic achievement is not the only goal.
Not making it personal but this is a huge problem and honestly it doesnât matter what schools WE went to.
Itâs about letting go of the past, the pride of the reputation of institutions like Harrow and Eaton and changing things for everyone.
Isnât this a good example of exactly the problem / attitude that we have created / fostered ? Many (not all) of the beneficiaries seem to be oblivious.
1 Like
Absolutely thatâs what I am saying.
Hang on, youâre quoting me. Iâm not oblivious. Iâm the one making the point. All our points of view are, to some degree, conditioned by the insights and blind spots that our own experiences give us. Maybe Iâm not the only one whose view is a bit coloured ?
Well youâll have to take that up with whoever wrote The Big Think. He or sheâs the one who said equity over excellence. If theyâd meant equity and excellence then they could have said that, but they didnât. Actually Iâm not sure they were condemning the Finns. They were just pointing out that theyâve chosen a different priority.
Well, not in Finland you canât. Their top university, the one in Helsinki, is ranked 98th in the THE list of the worldâs universities this year https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/university-helsinki. The UK has four universities in the top 20 Times Higher Education World University Rankings - Wikipedia. OK, they are a small country. But theyâre the same size as Singapore which has two universities ranked 25th and 47th. And theyâre not hugely different from Switzerland (5.5M Finns, 8.6M Swiss) who have ETH Zurich at 14th, EPF Lausanne at 43rd and U of Zurich at 73rd.
If you donât like the THE rankings then you could look at the QS ones. Now the UK has five in the top 20, the Swiss are in at 6th, 14th and 69th, Singapore is at 11th and 13th and Iâm afraid Helsinki is down to 104th.
1 Like
I suspect the bullet point is poor English on the part of the writer.
Fair point well made regarding universities.
It wasnât universities I was arguing against though. I donât see why the standard of The Oxbridge universities would be diminished by no fee paying schools wouldnât it just make the selection process fairer?
I think the Finnish universities position could be about their job market with a degree not being the be all for earning a decent living and population size , thatâs just my guess though as I would have to research how those figures are reached.
I still fully believe that it is the way to go based on my experience of our state education.
Perhaps this answers the reasons why.
â The first thing youâve got to realize is the difference in metrics. Finnish education (up to high school) has such a good reputation because of PISA rankings* which measure the skills and knowledge of students, i.e. the learning outcome. University rankings on the other hand mainly measure 1. the number of published peer reviewed articles 2. the number of citations those articles get and 3. the number of Nobel prizes awarded to researchers in the university. The metrics are completely different. Finnish universities do much better in rankings that measure the know-how of graduates**, but those arenât the rankings anybody talks about. So what are the reasons why Finnish universities donât do well with those metrics? There are a number of reasons:
- Resources aka money. This is by far the most important. If you look at the three metrics, you can see the obvious correlation: the more you research the more you publish and therefore the higher you are. So quite simply if you want to be higher in the rankings, you fund more research. You also need to have the faculties of chemistry and medicine, since those two publish much more than other disciplines. The second and third metrics are more of qualifiers for the first: if you publish crap nobody will cite you.
- Weâre a small country with incomprehensible language in a hostile northern climate. Itâs hard to attract âscience superstarsâ to come to Finnish universities, when they can easily get better pay in more famous universities in more hospitable environs. Famous names attract talent and funding, make it easier to get to higher profile papers and most of all attract citations. Being a small country we have a much smaller pool from which to find our own âsuperstarsâ so itâs harder to produce our own***.
- Politics. Finland has a small population spread out across a relatively large country. Politically we are trying to keep the whole country inhabited and for that reason we have many universities (way more than most countries with our population) spread out across the country. Itâs good in the sense that it makes it easier to get a university education and gives us an educated workforce, but it does spread the already lacking research resources even thinner.â
Perhaps more shocking than Finlandâs low ranking is that ETH in Switzerland is above Cambridge. A country of 8.6m out performing a country of 60 million with such prestigious fee paying schools to pick students from.
Statistics can be a bastard 
1 Like
Having groomed FOL1 to become the next Black Rod. I am conflicted here.
