Урок лекция по теме: "Образование в Великобритании"
план-конспект урока (11 класс) на тему

Урок лекция

Цель: Познакомить читателя с системой британского образования

- практический аспект – совершенствование умений практического владения студентами английским языком по теме «Образование в Великобритании»;

– образовательный аспект – расширение знаний, кругозора учащихся; развитие  у них общих и специальных умений;

– развивающий аспект – развитие навыков оперирования языковыми единицами

в коммуникативных целях;

– воспитательный аспект – воспитание интереса к  чтению,

воспитание трудолюбия, самостоятельности, активности.

Задачи урока:

– тренировка учащихся в употреблении лексики по данной теме;

– совершенствование слухопроизносительных и ритмико-интонационных

навыков;

– совершенствование навыков чтение;

– совершенствование навыков понимания незнакомого текста

Оборудование:

Интерактивная доска, компьютер, карточки, мультимедийный проектор,

раздаточный материал, доска, словари.

Education

The basic features of the British educational system are the same as they are anywhere else in Europe and North America: full-time education is compulsory up to the middle teenage years; the academic year begins at the end of summer; compulsory education is free of charge, but parents may spend money on educating their child privately if they want to (public means private!).There are three recognized stages, with children moving from the first stage (primary) to the second stage (secondary) at around the age of eleven or twelve. However, there is quite a lot which distinguishes education in Britain from the way it works in other countries. Much of this is the result of history.

Historical background

British governments attached little importance to education until the end of the nineteenth century. It was one of the last countries in Europe to organize education for everybody. (Britain was leading the world in industry and commerce, so, it was felt, education must somehow be taking care of itself.) Schools and other educational institutions (such as universities) existed in Britain long before the government began to take an interest. When it finally did so, it did not sweep the existing institutions away, nor did it always take them over. In typically British fashion, it sometimes incorporated them into the overall system and sometimes left them alone. Most importantly, the government left alone the small group of schools which were used to educate the sons of the upper and upper-middle classes. At these ‘public’ schools (The public school system), the emphasis was on ‘character building’ and the development of ‘team spirit’ rather than on academic achievement. This involves the use of distinctive customs attitudes, clothes, and items of vocabulary. They were all ‘boarding schools’ (that is, the pupils lived there), so they had a deep and lasting influence on their pupils. Their aim was to prepare young men to take profession, the civil service, the church, and politics.

When the pupils from these schools finished their education, they formed the ruling elite, retaining the distinctive habits and vocabulary which they had learnt at school. They formed a closed group, to a great extent separate from the rest of society, entry into which was difficult for anybody who had had a different education. When, in the twentieth century, education and its possibilities for social advancement came within everybody’s reach, new schools tended to copy the features of the public schools. After all, they were the only model of a successful school that the country had.

Modern times: the education debates

Before the election which brought the Labour party to power in 1997, its leader, Tony Blair, declared that his three main priorities were ‘Education, Education, and Education’. This emphasis testified to a general feeling in Britain that there was something very wrong with its system of education. It was not a new feeling. Perhaps because of its rather slow start, the British have long felt a little inadequate about their public educational provision. Education is the area of public life about which British people and governments feel the most uncertain. No other area has been subject to so many changes in the last quarter of a century.

Debates about education in Britain centre around three matters. One of these is quality. For decades, there has been a widespread feeling that British schoolchildren do not get taught properly and do not learn enough, and that they are less literate and less numerate than their European counterparts. Whether or not this is or was ever true is a matter of opinion. But these days it is common for employers and universities to complain that their new recruits do not have the necessary basic knowledge or skills (the three Rs) and there is much talk about ‘grade inflation’ with respect to exam results (i.e. the standard of a top ‘A’ grade is lower than it used to be).

Moreover, there is no doubt that Britain suffers from a chronic shortage of teachers (Help from abroad). Although many young people embark on teacher-training courses, only about half of them remain in the profession for longer than three years, so that schools often have an unsettled atmosphere due to rapid turnover of staff and class sizes are large.2 (In 2003, British primary schools had more children per teacher than any country in Europe except Turkey.)

The other response of British governments to the perceived deficiencies in quality of education has been to revise (sometimes, it seems, almost constantly) the national curriculum. This is the body of documents which specifies what children in state schools are supposed to learn at each stage of their school careers.

But the interesting thing about education debates in Britain is that they are not only or even mainly about quality. Another aspect that is the subject of constant worry is social justice. Perhaps because of the elitist history of schooling in Britain and its social effects (see previous section), or perhaps just because of the importance they attach to fairness, the British are forever worrying about equal opportunities in education. British governments and educational institutions are obsessed with the knowledge that the majority of children who do well in education are from middle-class, comparatively wealthy background.

It was for this reason that during the 1970s, most areas of the country scrapped the system in which children were separated at the age of 11 into those who went either to a grammar school, where they were taught academic subjects to prepare them for university, the profession or managerial jobs, or to a secondary modern school, where the lessons have a more practical and technical bias. It was noticed that the children who were sent to grammar schools were almost all from middle-class families; those who went to secondary moderns tended to be seen as ‘failures’, so the system seemed to reinforce class distinctions. Instead, from this time, most eleven-year-olds have all gone on to the same local school. These schools are known as comprehensive schools.

However, the fact remains that most of the teenagers who get the best exam results, and who therefore progress to university, are those from relatively advantaged backgrounds and vice versa. In recent decades, a university education has become much more important than it used to be. At the same time, the gap between high earners and low earners has become wider than it used to be (see chapter 15). For both these reasons, equality of educational opportunity is more important than it used to be. Various schemes are being tried to correct this imbalance. Most notably, universities are now encouraged to accept students with relatively poor exam results if they come from a disadvantaged background. In some poorer areas, children are even offered, with government approval, cash incentives to pass their exams.

However, it is almost impossible to provide real equality. Inevitably, the children of parents who care about education the most, especially if they have money, tend to get what they want for them. In some cases, this means moving house to make sure they can get their child into a school which gets good exam results (since children must attend a school in local area).4 In other cases, if they feel that pupils from good schools are being discriminated against, it even means making sure your child gets into a school with bad exam results- and then hiring private tuition for them!

The only way in which such inequalities could be significantly reduced would be to ban all independent education and introduce lotteries for allocating places in secondary schools. In fact, this second possibility has already been tried (in modified form) in some areas. However, such measures conflict with another principle which is highly valued in Britain, and is the third subject around which there is debate. This is freedom of choice. It is this principle, plus a belief that it would improve the quality of education in schools generally that has led to the publication of ‘league tables’ of school exam results.5 This has had the unfortunate effect of making it clear to ambitious parents which are the more desirable schools. (To some extent it has even led to the unofficial re-establishment of the two-tier system which was abandoned in the 1970s. Comprehensive schools are supposed to be all equal, but some are better than others. )

But the belief in freedom of choice involves much more than which school a child goes to. It also implies a limit to what central government can impose generally. The British dislike of uniformity is one reason why Britain’s schools got a national curriculum so much later than other European countries. It was not until the end of the nineteenth century that it was fully operative. And since then, complaints that it was too rigid and dictatorial have resulted in modifications which have reduced the number of its compulsory elements ((Languages anyone?).

Moreover, it should be noted that the national curriculum has never specified exactly what must be taught on a day-to-day basis or prescribed particular teaching materials. A school can work towards the objectives of the national curriculum in any way it likes. Nor does central government dictate the exact hours of the school day or the exact dates of holidays. It does not manage a school’s finances either- it just decides how much money to give it. It does not set or supervise the marking of the exams which older teenagers do (see ‘public exams’ below). In general, as many details as possible are left up to the individual institution or the Local Education Authority (LEA- a branch of local government). (This was true even of the decision to scrap the pre-1970s system mentioned above. Indeed, a very few areas still have grammar schools.)

One of the reasons for this ‘grass-roots’ pattern is that the system has been influenced by the public-school tradition that a school is its own community. Most schools develop, to some degree at least, a sense of distinctiveness. Many, for example, have their own uniforms for pupils. Many have associations of former pupils, especially those outside the state system. It is considered desirable (even necessary) for every pupil, for daily assemblies and other occasional ceremonies. Universities, although partly financed by the government, have even more autonomy.

Style

Traditionally, education in Britain gave learning for its own sake, rather than for any particular practical purpose, a comparatively high value. In comparison with most other countries, a relatively high proportion of the emphasis was on the quality of person that education produced (as opposed to the quality of abilities that it produced). 6 Concerns about the practical utility of education have resulted in the virtual disappearance of this attitude in the last 50 years. However, some significant reflexes remain. For example, much of the public debate about educational policy still focuses on how schools can help their charges become good members of society. The national curriculum includes provision for the teaching of ‘citizenship’ and of various other personal matters such as ‘sex and relationships education’. (Learning for its own sake)

It also prescribes ‘physical education’. Indeed, British schools and universities have tended to give a high priority to sport. The idea is that it helps to develop the ‘complete’ person. The notion of the school as a ‘community’ can strengthen this emphasis. Sporting success enhances the reputation of an institution. Until the last quarter of the twentieth century, certain sports at some universities (especially Oxford and Cambridge) and medical schools were played to an international standard and people with poor academic records were sometimes accepted as students because of their sporting prowess (although, unlike in the USA, this practice was always unofficial).

Another reflex is that the approach to study tends to give priority to developing understanding and sophistication of approach over the accumulation of factual knowledge. This is why British young people do not appear to have to work so hard as their fellows in other European countries. Primary schoolchildren do not normally have formal homework to do and university students have fewer hours of programmed attendance than students in mainland Europe do, although on the other hand, they receive greater personal guidance with their work.

School life

Britain has been comparatively slow to organize nursery (i.e. pre-primary) education. But at the time of writing all children are guaranteed a free, part-time early education place (up to 12.5 hours per week) for up to two years before reaching compulsory school age, which is the age of 5, and the government has plans for all primary schools to be open from 8 a.m. till 6 p.m., throughout the year, even for children as young as two months. (The idea is not to keep them in the classroom all this time. Rather, it is that schools become the hub of local communities, offering not only conventional education but also breakfast provision, childminding facilities, activity clubs and even health service for parents. )

Even at present, the total number of hours in a year which children spend at school is longer than in other European countries. It is not that the typical school day is especially long. It starts around 9 a.m. and finishes between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m., or a bit later for older children. It includes a lunch break which usually lasts about an hour and a quarter, where nearly half of all children have lunch provided by the school. (Parents pay for this, except for those who are rated poor enough for it to be free. Other children either go home for lunch or bring sandwiches.) On the other hand, it is a full five-day week (there is no half day) and holiday periods are short (The school year). Almost all schools are either primary or secondary only, the latter being generally larger. Methods of teaching vary, but there is most common a balance between formal lessons with the teacher at the front of the classroom, and activities in which children work in small groups round a table with the teacher supervising. In primary schools, the children are mostly taught by a class teacher who teaches all subjects, often with the help of a teaching assistant. At the ages of seven and eleven, children have to take national tests in English, mathematics and science. In secondary education, pupils get different teachers for different subject and regular homework.

The older children get, the more likely they are to be separated into groups according to their perceived abilities, sometimes for particular subjects only, sometimes across all subjects. But some schools do not practice such ‘streaming’ and instead teach all subjects to ‘mixed ability ’classes. The rights and wrongs of this practice in one of the matters about which there has been heated debate for several decades, as it relates to the social-justice and quality issues.

Public exams

At the end of their compulsory schooling, schoolchildren take exams. Although some of these involve knowledge and skills specified by the national curriculum, they are in principle separated from the school system. They are organized neither by schools nor by the government. That is why they are called ‘public’. (There is no unified school-leaving certificate.) There is nothing to stop a 65 year-old doing a few of them for fun. In practice, of course, the vast majority of people who do these exams are school pupils, but formally it is individual people who enter for these exams, not pupils in a particular year of school.

The exams are set and marked by largely independent examining boards. There are several of these. Each board publishes its own separate syllabus for each different subject (History? But which history). Some boards offer a vast range of subjects. Everywhere except Scotland (which has its own single board), each school or LEA decides which board’s exams its pupils take. Some schools even enter their pupils for the exams of one board in some subjects and another board in other subjects. In practice, nearly all pupils do exams in English language, maths and a science subject. Many take exams in several additional subjects, sometimes as many as seven more.

The assessment of each examinee’s performance in each subject is usually a combination of coursework assignments and formal, sit-down exams. Coursework has formed a large component of the total mark in many subjects in the last two decades. But the present trend is towards a return to more conventional exams (Trouble with the internet).

Education beyond sixteen

At the age of 16, people are free to leave school if they want to. With Britain’s modern enthusiasm for continuing education, far fewer 16-year-olds go straight out and look for a job than did previously.9 About a third of them still take this option, but even they take part in training schemes which involve on-the-job training, sometimes combined with part-time college courses. The rest remain in full-time education. About half of them leave their school, either because it does not have a sixth form (The sixth form) or because it does not teach the desired subjects, and go to a sixth-form college, or College of Further Education. An increasing number do vocational training courses for particular jobs and careers. Recent governments have been keen to increase availability of this type of course and its prestige (which used to be comparatively low). In the era of ‘lifelong learning’ even older adults over 25 in some kind of education or training is higher than the European average (exceeded only by the Nordic countries).

For those who stay in education and study conventional academic subjects, there is more specialization than there is in most other countries. Typically, a pupil spends a whole two years studying just three or four subjects, usually related ones, in preparation for taking A-level exams, though this is something else which might change in the near future (Academic exams and qualifications)

The independence of Britain’s educational institutions is most noticeable in universities. They make their own choices of who to accept for their courses. There is no right of entry to university for anybody. Universities normally select students on the basis of A-level results and a few conduct interviews. Students with better exam grades are more likely to be accepted. But in principle there is nothing to stop a university accepting a student who has no A-levels at all and conversely, a student with top grades in several A-levels is not guaranteed a place. The availability of higher education increased greatly in the last second half of the twentieth century (The growth of higher education), but finding a university place is still not easy. The numbers who can be accepted on each course are limited. (UCAS)

Because of this limitation, students at university get a relatively high degree of personal supervision. As a result, the vast majority of university students complete their studies- and in a very short time too.10 In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, only modern languages and certain vocational studies take more than three years.(In Scotland, four years is the norm for most subjects.) Indeed, it is years repeatedly. Traditionally, another reason for the low drop-out rate is that students typically live ‘in campus’, (or, in Oxford and Cambridge ‘in college’) or in rooms nearby, and are thus surrounded by a university atmosphere.

However, the expansion of higher education during the 1990s caused this characteristic, and other traditional features, to become far less typical. Until this expansion, ‘full time’ really meant full time. Many students got jobs in the holidays, but were forbidden to take any kind of employment during term-time. But that was in the days when students got a grant to cover their term-time expenses. Because of the expansion, the grant has long since disappeared for all but the poorest. And in top of that there are now (unlike before) tuition fees to pay. Despite the existence of a student loan scheme, the result is that universities can no longer insist their student don’t take term-time jobs and about half of the country’s students do so. Indeed, so important is the income from these jobs that their availability in the area is an important consideration for many prospective students in choosing a university.

There is evidence that students’ studies are suffering as a result of the imperative to earn money. There is an irony here. The main thrust of government policy is to open up higher education to the poorer classes. But it is, of course, the students from poorer backgrounds will suffer the most in this way. It is for the same reason – money -- that an increasing number of students now live at home.