uk education system essay

• 020 7340 1160
• [email protected]
• JOIN or COMMISSION EPI

Home / Publications & Research / Benchmarking English Education / Education: the fundamentals – Eleven facts about the education system in England

Education: the fundamentals – Eleven facts about the education system in England

A major new report on education in England is published today by UK 2040 Options, led by Nesta, and The Education Policy Institute.

The report combines data, analysis and insights from over 75 education experts on the education challenges facing the next government and possible solutions to improve outcomes.

The report shows that:

• All sectors of the education system are facing a workforce crisis. In schools, only 69% of those who qualified 5 years ago are still teaching, and 15% of that cohort left in their first year. 
• The pupil population in England is set to decline significantly due to low birth rates. The state school population currently stands at 7.93 million children, and this will fall by around 800,000 by 2032. 
• The number of pupils with  an education, health and care plan for more complex  special educational needs and disabilities has increased by around 50% in just five years – but funding has not caught up with the level of need and is based (in part) on historic data.
• Only 5% of primary schools reached the Government’s target of 90% of pupils reaching the expected standard in key stage 2 reading, writing and mathematics in 2019.
• Pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds experience an attainment gap (relative to their more affluent peers) equivalent to 19 months of learning by the time they sit their GCSEs. Two fifths of this gap has appeared by the age of 5. 
• Absence from education is now one of the most pressing issues facing England’s education system – persistent absence (missing more than 10% of sessions) has increased from 13% to 24%.
• Closing the gap between skill supply and employer demand could increase national productivity by 5% – 42% of vacancies in manufacturing and 52% in construction are due to skill shortages.

The report, which follows UK 2040 Options publications on  inequality and wealth ,  economic growth ,  health  and  tax , also includes evidence of progress. England recently came fourth in the world for primary school reading proficiency and well above average in maths and science in Years 5 and 9.

But the report also reveals a system that is struggling. Thousands of children start school each year without basic skills, the disadvantage gap is growing, and education at every level is experiencing a chronic recruitment and retention challenge.

Over 75 subject experts from across a range of sectors took part in the project. There was wide agreement about the need to grapple seriously with the workforce crisis across all parts of the system, and the group put forward suggestions for how this could be achieved while continuing to improve the quality of education provision. 

More broadly the group proposed policies to:

• Support the growing number of children  with special education needs and disabilities and rebuild parents’ trust in the system;
• Address challenges inside and outside the school gates to improve educational outcomes, including lifting families out of poverty and increasing targeted funding for disadvantaged pupils;
• Make the skills system more equitable, higher quality and tailored to the needs of the economy. 

Alex Burns, Director of UK 2040 Options, said:   “Education has been less prominent than other areas in recent policy debate – we feel a long way away from “education, education, education”. But if we are to be serious about improving people’s lives and boosting the economy we will need to make sure that the education system is thriving. Whilst there are clear areas of progress, this report demonstrates the scale of the challenge for the future in areas like workforce, the disadvantage gap and support for children with special educational needs.” 

Jon Andrews, Head of Analysis at the Education Policy Institute, said:  “ Whatever the outcome of the next election, it is clear there is much to do to get education back on track following a hugely disruptive pandemic and a decade dominated by funding cuts. A focus on the early years, greater funding that is targeted at the areas in need of it the most, and a plan to ease the recruitment and retention challenges facing schools must form cornerstones of any new government’s education strategy.”

You can read the report in full here.

About UK 2040 Options

UK 2040 Options is a policy project led by Nesta that seeks to address the defining issues facing the country, from tax and economic growth to health and education. It draws on a range of experts to assess the policy landscape, explore some of the most fertile areas in more depth, test and interrogate ideas and bring fresh angles and insights to the choices that policymakers will need to confront, make and implement.

About Nesta

We are Nesta . The UK’s innovation agency for social good. We design, test and scale new solutions to society’s biggest problems, changing millions of lives for the better.  This report was produced in partnership with Nesta, as part of UK 2040 Options.

Jon Andrews

• Why Study In The UK?
• Plan Your Studies
• Living in the UK
• News and Statistics

• Why Study in UK?
• UK Education System
• Undergraduate Degree In The UK
• United Kingdom Graduate Schools
• Most Popular Degrees In The UK
• Costs of Attending College in UK
• Top Universities in UK
• Best Business Schools in the UK
• Best Medical Schools in UK
• Best Law Schools In UK
• Best MBA in UK
• UK Tuition Fees
• UK Scholarships
• International Student Statistics in UK 2023

Learn English in the UK: A Practical Guide

• Costs of Living in UK
• Student Housing in London
• Working in UK While Studying
• Student Life in the UK
• Best Things To Do In UK
• British Culture and Social Norms
• The Cheapest Places to Live in the UK for Students
• Transport in UK
• How to Apply for College in UK
• UK Student Visa Requirements
• Studying in UK Packing List

UK Education System Guide

The UK education system is reputed worldwide for its high quality and standards. Britons enter the education system at the age of three, and up to 16 are obliged to attend school (compulsory education), while afterward is upon their choice.

Generally, the British higher education system has five stages of education: 

• Early Years
• Primary Years
• Secondary Education
• Further Education (FE)
• Higher Education (HE) 

Besides sharing many similarities, the UK education system at different levels at each zone of administration (England, Scotland, and Wales) differs a bit. Generally speaking, these differences could be more meaningful if we discuss UK higher education as one.

In the UK, everybody over five and under 16 is obliged to attend school. This aging time frame contains two sections of the education system in the UK: Primary and Secondary Schools.

The Compulsory Education in the UK 

Compulsory education in the UK is divided into four key stages, distinguished by a student’s age. The first stage includes 5 to 7-year-olds, and the fourth and final stage lasts from the age of 14 to age 16. 

Here are the four stages of mandatory education in the UK and the curricula for each key stage:

First Key Stage 

The first key stage in compulsory education in England includes children from 5 to 7 years old, otherwise known as a primary school, comprising the first two years. 

Here are some of the main subjects that this stage of mandatory education includes:

• English Language 
• Mathematics
• Physical Education

During the first year of this stage, the curriculum structure contains the Phonic screening, a short assessment of kids’ ability to decode and understand phonics properly. Typically, the teacher will ask the students to repeat a list of around 40 words out loud. At the end of this stage (the same in all stages), these pupils will sit for an examination to measure their English, Maths, and Science knowledge development.

Second Key Stage

Between 7 to 11 years, pupils will be in the second key stage of compulsory education. The second key stage includes years 3 to 6. At this level, the curriculum is designed to give students a more advanced understanding of the previously gained knowledge on the core subjects. 

At the end of this stage, the school will test students in the following subjects:

• English reading.
• English grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
• Mathematics.

In English and Mathematics, the testing will be done through national assessment tests, while the teacher will independently assess the level of improvement of each student in Science.

Third Key Stage

Pupils aged 11 to 14 belong to the third stage of compulsory education, or years 7 to 9. This education level is essential to a certain degree because only a few years later, they will sit for the GCSE national qualification. 

The curriculum during this stage of education will also contain new subjects at which students are supposed to get some basic knowledge before moving any further in the upcoming stages of education.

The subjects learned in Key Stage 3 are:

• Art and Design
• Physical Education 
• Modern Foreign Languages 
• Design and Technology and Computing

At the end of the third Key Stage, some students may take their GCSE or other national qualifications. 

Fourth Key Stage

The final stage of compulsory education, key stage 4, lasts from 14 to 16 and includes years 10 to 12. The fourth key stage is the most common period for students to undertake the national assessment tests that will lead them to take a GCSE or other national qualifications.

The compulsory national curriculum at this stage contains the “core” and “foundation” subjects.

Here are the “core” subjects taught at the fourth key stage:

And here are the “foundation” subjects taught at the key stage 4:

• Citizenship

Additionally, schools in the UK are obliged to offer one of the following subjects during this stage of education.

• Design and Technology
• Modern Foreign Languages

The Higher Education System in the United Kingdom 

In particular, UK higher education is valued worldwide for its renowned standards and quality. Its higher education’s prestige also emanates from its graduates’ work afterward. Many eminent people in many different areas whose work reached global recognition came from British universities. 

Some universities and other higher education providers are ranked top among universities worldwide. The UK capital city, London, not by accident, is considered to be the world’s capital city of higher education. With its four universities ranked in the world’s top ten, London has the highest number of worldwide-ranked universities per city.

By definition, UK higher education is the level of education that follows secondary school at the hierarchy of the educational system in the UK. When high school is over, Britons have to sit in a standard examination, making them eligible not to continue their education at a higher level.

What is the Difference Between Colleges and Universities?

In the UK education system, in contrast to the US higher education, there is a difference between college and university. While in the US, there is no distinction between college and university, with most people referring to a higher education provider as a college, in the UK, this is not the case. 

In the UK, a college is a further education institution that prepares students to earn a degree. At the same time, a university is a licensed HE institution that awards students with a degree at the end of their studies. 

Studying in the UK as an International Student 

If you’re an international student , you must know that not all higher education providers in the UK are referred to as a university. This issue is regulated by law. 

As this official regulation states, a higher education institution can be labeled as a university under these circumstances:

• If it gets approved by the Privy Council under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
• If it gets approval under the provisions of the Companies Act 2006.

International students from countries other than the European Economic Area (EEA) or Switzerland must apply for a student visa to study in the UK.

The UK Higher Education Degree Levels and Programs

Based on the actual education regulations in the UK education system, Higher Education comprises the following levels of courses. 

1. Undergraduate Courses

Undergraduate courses in the UK include a wide range of first degrees which are listed below.

• Bachelor’s Degree 
• Honors and Ordinary Degrees 
• Qualified Teacher Status 
• Enhanced First Degrees 
• Intercalated Degrees (medical schools or other specific study fields allow students to take a year off between the second and third years to study a different area which can be a BA, BSc, or master’s degree program).

Here are other undergraduate courses: 

• Foundation degrees 
• Higher National Diploma HND (or equivalent) 
• NHC (or equivalent), etc.

An undergraduate course usually takes three years; however, Scotland is an exception, where undergraduate courses take four years to complete. The higher education system in the UK has many universities that offer 4-year undergraduate courses, also known as “ sandwich courses .” This program includes a one-year work experience —usually carried out in the third year.

Keep in mind: Some British universities offer fast-track programs where you can obtain a Master’s degree at the undergraduate level. Unlike traditional undergraduate courses, fast-track programs allow students to attend an additional year of studying instead of taking a Bachelor’s degree which leads to a Master’s program. 

Besides, it costs much less than the typical 3-year undergraduate courses; however, it usually is much more intense with shortened holiday breaks and a heavy schedule.

2. Postgraduate Courses 

The postgraduate degree programs are only obtainable if you have a bachelor’s degree at an accredited university (not necessarily one in England).

The postgraduate level includes the following degrees:

• Master’s Degree (Taught or Research). Master’s degrees usually last one year or longer if they are research-based.
• Doctorate. The typical doctoral degree takes three years to complete. 
• Postgraduate Diplomas.
• Postgraduate Certificates of Education (PGCE).
• Professional Degrees.

Note: To enter this level, it is usually required to have a first degree (Bachelor’s).

The Higher Education Curriculum and Admission Process 

In the UK’s education system, most syllabi are set by the universities offering them and are not controlled by the government or certain British educational institutions. The only exception to this is teacher education programs, which the government has a lot of say over. 

The British government has established the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) to maintain those standards. Most countries have specific regulations for their teachers, so this isn’t any different than studying teaching in your home country. Because of its strict rules and high standards for teacher education programs, the UK is considered to have some of the best teacher education programs in the world.

Even though universities set the syllabi, the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) in the British school system has a lot of say in the admission procedures of each university. This office was created so everyone who wishes to attend university in the UK can do so. They also promote fair access to higher education, even for those attending university as international students. Appropriate access also includes those of different cultures, different races, different nationalities, and those who have disabilities.

UK Tuition Fees and Costs

The reputation of British higher education goes hand in hand with its costs. Tuition fees may vary from university to university, as well as from one location to another.

So it’s always advisable to check the university’s website before making further study plans. Indeed, to attend a British university, you need a lot of money packed in —whether you’re a native or not— but since there are many scholarship schemes , you can always apply for one.

The tuition fees of UK universities also vary depending on the degree level and study program. The average tuition fees for international students range from ~£17,109 (USD 20,876) to  ~£22,200 (USD 27,000). 

• Undergraduate tuition fees: International students pay around £11,400 – £38,000 (USD 13,900 – USD 46,355).
• Postgraduate tuition fees: International students pay around £9,000 – £30,000 (USD 10,980 – USD 36,570)

International students are a substantial part of the student population in British universities. The UK is the second most popular study destination for international students, following the US at the top. If you decide to be one of more than a million international students in the US, you’re one step away from a guaranteed brighter future.

Academics and employers value the UK education system and its higher education degrees worldwide. The UK has a rich history of quality higher education, and each university has excellent options for any student.

Subscribe Today

Join 22,141 other students interested in studying in the UK and get regular emails, articles, and scholarships sent to your inbox.

2 Million +

Students helped annually

Guides about studying in the UK

Must-Read Guides

Top music universities in the uk, uk student loans guide 2024, best architecture universities in uk, chevening scholarship application guide, more article, the transport in uk guide 2024.

Studying-in-UK.org is one of the largest information portals about studying in The United Kingdom for international students.

We publish information about the United Kingdom higher education and latest news that concern international students in the UK, as well as a large number of helpful informational content and exclusive research about international students in the UK.

To learn more about us click here.

Quick links

UK Education System List of Colleges in UK Top UK Universities UK Student Visa Requirements Costs of Attending College In UK How To Apply For College in UK Most Popular Degrees in UK Why Study in The UK UK Grad Schools Cheapest Universities in UK UK University Map UK University Entry Requirements UK Facts

© 2013 - 2023 - Studying in UK - All Rights Reserved.

• Privacy Policy
• Editorial Policy

Get special offers that you won't ever find on our blog·

• Essay Samples
• College Essay
• Writing Tools
• Writing guide

↑ Return to College Essay

Education system in UK – Cause & Effect

Introduction Education in the UK is devolved with each of the smaller countries within the UK. This means there are governments in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland that deal with education their own way. There are five stages of education in the UK, which include early years teaching, primary school, secondary school, Further Education (FE) and Higher Education (HE). In my cause and effect essay, I show the effect of school rules and rankings and graduation rates in the UK. Cause The UK is traditionally one of the highest ranked countries when it comes to education, but over recent years, their ranking against the world has stagnated a little, especially when it comes to PISA tests (Program for International Student Assessment).

Effect The UK education system is still good and ranked highly, but it has caused more people to consider teaching their children at home. There are a growing number of parents that are teaching their children at home in the UK. The numbers are still small in comparison to the number of children that attend school. Part of the reason that there are more children being taught at home is because there are now free and easy-to-use tools on the Internet that parents can use to teach their child a little easier than before. Cause It is compulsory for children to attend school from the age of four in Northern Ireland and five in the rest of the UK, and children are not allowed to leave school until the age of 16. The only way to avoid going to school is via home schooling, but a child must still complete a curriculum that is overseen by a tutor upon occasion. Effect It has become more difficult for students to miss school, and many have to attend school no matter what. However, thanks to the Internet, students are discovering that if they behave badly then they can be expelled. If they are not accepted into other schools, then their parents are forced to teach them from home. Cause The University and college system in the UK is truly top class, with many of the Universities and colleges having notoriety and esteem around the world. Graduation rates within UK colleges and Universities are very high, and any student in the UK can find funding in order to attend University apart from in special circumstances. Effect The UK stands in second place across Europe and in sixth place worldwide when higher education from Universities and colleges is counted in with the figures whilst ranking. There are so many students attending college and so many graduating that the UK world ranking and European ranking is very high. If graduation rates from colleges and Universities were not counted, then the UK is no longer second place in Europe when it comes to education rankings.

Conclusion The UK education system is clearly very good and of a very high standard, though some of their high rankings on the world stage are backed up by their very strong college system and even stronger University system, with the college system giving A-level qualifications and Universities giving degrees.

Follow Us on Social Media

Get more free essays

Send via email

Most useful resources for students:.

• Free Essays Download
• Writing Tools List
• Proofreading Services
• Universities Rating

Contributors Bio

Find more useful services for students

Free plagiarism check, professional editing, online tutoring, free grammar check.

Educational equity in England: the shortcomings of the UK Government’s COVID-19 response

Sean Kippin Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

This article is included in the Education, Equity and Equality collection.

The UK Government sought to respond to lockdowns and lost learning during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in multiple ways, including replacing cancelled examinations and compensating for lost learning through a National Tutoring Programme. In the case of the former, the system failed to realise the demands of equity by privileging wealthier students and beating a path back to a flawed ‘normality.’ In the case of the latter, while the idea of providing targeted, high quality small group and one on one tutoring to the most in-need students was well-conceived, implementation was a failure - particularly following its contracting out to a large outsourcing company. These two cases demonstrate that English education policy is adherent to a neoliberal conception of education equity, and that attempts to address inequalities are constrained, backfire, or both.

UK education policy, education equity, inequalities, national tutoring programme, exams

Revised Amendments from Version 1

I thank the reviewers for their kind, engaged, and positive comments. The initial version was approved, and received in the main very supportive comments. As such, no major changes are made to the approach, structure, or core arguments of this case study. The reviewers each also noted minor issues, related to style, sense, references, consistency, and flow. These are dealt with in this version, specifically:  ·  On page 4, the reference 'Kippin and Cairney, 2022' has been clarified to include a page range. Additionally, the word 'reference', intended as a placeholder, but which found its way into the final text, has been removed.  ·  On page 7, the phrase 'own smarts and diligence' has been replaced with the more wieldy 'intelligence and motivation levels'.  ·  On page 10, the use of 'ibid', has been removed, with specific page references to the linked to online resource added  ·  On page 12, the text has been clarified, changing 'did on' to 'did so using'  ·  On page 13, the text is clarified, now reading: 'This is characterised in an excoriating article by Samantha Booth for the UK education sector magazine Schools Weekly as a progressive ‘watering down’ of the programme under Randstad’s stewardship' ·  On page 15, a nonsensical formulation featuring the phrase 'a high' has been removed and replacedf  ·  On pages 15-16, an unwieldy formulation has been replaced ·  Other small tweaks have been made which were missed in the previous version, which either correct typographical errors, tidy up referencing, or improve flow.  In summary, these changes improve the article, and I again thank the reviewers for their diligence and efforts in identifying means of improving the piece.

See the author's detailed response to the review by Anna Xavier and Sally Baker See the author's detailed response to the review by Stephen Newman

Introduction

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic caused unprecedented disruption to national education systems worldwide and posed significant challenges to policymakers in developing responses that sought to strike an appropriate balance between the protection of public health and the provision of a basic level of education to school age young people ( Zancajo et al. , 2022 ). The impact of measures such as school closures, the shift to home-schooling, and the requirement that young people receive qualifications were felt highly unequally by different segments of the population. The experience of the UK provides a useful illustration of the kinds of policy responses that were required and were developed in response to these developments. Focusing on England, the government's response to the pandemic's impact on education was marked by an inconsistent and partial consideration of equity concerns. This paper analyses two key interventions in UK education policy response to COVID-19 in both (i) the immediate mitigation of the pandemic, and (ii) measures to respond to the cumulative impact of lost learning.

The first intervention was the initial approach to learner assessment, triggered as a result of the cancellation of the ‘high stakes’ examinations (by which the English education system has historically set great store - Ozga et al. , 2023 ; Wolf, 2002 ). This approach aimed to avoid inequitable outcomes associated with teacher assessment of grades by introducing a 'standardizing' quality assurance mechanism or algorithm. This approach would be demonstrated to be unviable owing to concerns about the differential treatment of wealthier and poorer students. Alongside the other three nations of the UK (each with their own education system), a policy reversal or ‘U-Turn’ was made to rely on the self-same solution which policymakers had initially rejected ( Kippin & Cairney, 2022 ; Kippin & Cairney, 2023 ). Policymakers then embarked upon a hurried ‘return to normality’ (set against the backdrop of a receding but still very much present COVID-19 threat to public health) followed by a faithful reestablishment of the pre-COVID assessment system.

The second important policy consideration discussed herein is the creation of a National Tutoring Programme, launched in Summer 2020 , which sought to deliver one-on-one and small group tuition to economically disadvantaged students. Again, considerations about equity were central here, with policymakers seeking to compensate those young people disproportionately affected by emergency measures of the pandemic with a highly effective mode of learning deployed to assist students in ‘catching up’ on lost learning as part of a wider ‘catch up’ scheme" with "with policymakers seeking to compensate those young people who were disproportionately affected by the pandemic with an effective mode of learning which was deployed to assist students in ‘catching up’ on time in the classroom. Despite the high hopes and accompanying rhetoric, the scheme has been no ‘silver bullet’. Rather, it has been beset by problems of not only policy design (related to a mismatch of the demand for tutorship and the supply of available tutors) but also implementation (whereby a large outsourcing firm was engaged to deliver the programme but failed to do so in a timely and effective manner). The two case studies are dealt with below in turn, before a final section explores the interaction of the UK education systems with the competing ideas of equity.

Educational inequalities in the UK

The scale and extent of educational inequality in the UK is alarming, multi-faceted, and well-documented. Indicatively and non-exhaustively:

Children from poorer backgrounds do worse at school . For instance , ‘only 40% of disadvantaged children who achieved the expected level at age 11 went on to earn good GCSEs in English and maths (compared with 60% of their non-disadvantaged peers)’.

Children in poorer areas achieve worse educational outcomes: In 2019, the percentage of students achieving a Grade 7 or above (considered a ‘good’ grade) was 25.7% in London, and 16.4% in the poorest English region, the North East .

The funding gap between England's private schools and the per-head funding for state schools is wide and has increased . In 2009–10 the gap was 39%, but this has increased to 92%.

While outcomes differ substantially by group, ' Black pupils have the lowest pass rate for GCSE English and maths combined'.

‘At Key Stage 2 level, only 14% of children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities reached the expected level for reading, writing and maths’ ( Singal et al. , 2017 )

Children with English as an additional language perform worse than native speakers before the age of 16 (though this gap narrows significantly by GCSE).

'Nearly 2 in 3 (64%) transgender young people report being bullied' and 52% report that related bullying has had a negative effect on their plans for future education.

There has been a 9% attainment gap between girls and boys since at least 2005 (with girls performing better than boys).

Out of school factors. We can relate these noted inequalities to ‘out of school factors’ or ‘social determinants’ which sharply influence the experience and attainment of young people in school ( Cairney & Kippin, 2022 : 19). An exploration of the circumstances of children from poorer backgrounds helps to illustrate this point. They may not have access to relevant resources such as computers and books. They are less likely to have access to nourishing diets, may have less sleep, may be relied upon to perform caring duties at home, or more generally may be subject to stress and anxiety. At school, they may experience stigma related to their socioeconomic status, or exhibit characteristics related to the experience of trauma or other adverse experiences. Further, factors such as poorer quality housing , access to clean water, experience of racism, and environmental factors such as clean air can also play a role ( Cole, 2022 ; Gaitan, 2018 ; Pelletier & Manna; 2017 ; Savageau, 2023 ). Children who are preoccupied with meeting their basic needs are more likely to experience cognitive overload, which deprives them of the capacity to expand their knowledge and engage fully in processes of learning (including in the classroom) ( Mani et al. , 2013 ). Additionally, they are far less likely to have access to the resources of their more advantaged peers, such as tutorship or parents who can assist with homework or advocating for their children within the school. Responsibility for these relevant policy areas goes far beyond the UK Department for Education; for instance, poverty is heavily influenced by ( and influences ) labour market forces and welfare policy and is a key determinant of educational attainment ( Cairney et al. , 2022 ).

Social justice and neoliberal conceptions of education equity. A focus on ‘out of school factors’ forms a key part of international ‘social justice’ perspectives to education equity ( Cairney & Kippin, 2022: 15–17 ). As Table 1 shows, these approaches emphasise education as an intrinsic and emancipatory good rather than an instrumental one, advocate for the substantive ‘vertical’ redistribution of education resources, and the public provision of education by appropriately paid public servants. It conceives of equity as a 'response to individual needs and characteristics' such as socio-economic status, gender, race, immigrant or refugee status, or geographic area ( Edgar, 2022 : 12). This is contrasted with ‘neoliberal’ approaches, which emphasise quasi-market solutions (including the involvement of private providers and charitable trusts), the creation of a ‘level playing field’ between students, the ‘tracking’ or ‘setting’ of students by ability, and a reliance on student and school rankings to encourage competition. ‘Bright’ or ‘talented’ students can prosper, ‘regardless of background.’ In the UK, as in many comparable contexts the assembled forces of ‘neoliberalism’ have been ascendent in recent years. Beginning in the 1980s, successive governments and UK Education Secretaries have pursued reforms which have sought to encourage choice and competition, to infuse education provision with market-style mechanisms (and latterly involve private sector organisations) and to make heavy use of inspections and league tables to communicate school quality to the public ( Chitty, 2013 ; Ozga et al. , 2023 ). Despite a number of reforms being pursued with equity as a key consideration, little progress towards addressing the inequalities described above can be identified. Neoliberalism has arguably become a dominant ‘policy paradigm’ in the governance of English education ( Hall, 1993 ).

Table 1. Neoliberal and social justice equity approaches in the UK.

(Table sources: Cairney & Kippin, 2022 ; Field et al., 2007 ; Gilead, 2019 ; Klees & Quarga, 2014 ; Kretchmar et al., 2016 )

The two schools of thought also emphasise the efficacy of different modes of assessment. Neoliberal conceptions support high-stakes examinations as a means to hold schools and education providers accountable, to provide clarity and objectivity as to student achievement, and to create incentives for student learning and teacher performance. Meanwhile, social justice exponents argue that such assessment practices exacerbate inequalities by placing undue stresses and pressures on students, provide only a snapshot of their abilities, prioritise certain kinds of learning over others, and benefit more affluent students who have access to test preparation resources (such as tutorship, computer resources, and familial support) ( Au, 2016 ; Gipps, 1994 ). The English education system makes great use of high stakes testing, placing a high amount of emphasis on GCSE, AS, and A-Level exams (as well as SAT tests) ( Ozga et al. , 2023 ). There has been a modest shift towards a greater diversity of assessment, including oral exams, coursework, and teacher assessment. Such shifts reflect longstanding concerns about the appropriateness of high stakes examinations, which reflect a broader ‘social justice’ equity perspective.

COVID-19 and educational inequalities. From January 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic triggered substantial policy change in all countries, with a large portion of the apparatus of the state reoriented towards the purpose of protecting public health and mitigating the impacts of the pandemic. While generally not a top priority in the initial weeks, there was an education component to the radical policy change, with countries shutting down schools in order to slow the airborne transmission of a virus which could be passed from children (who generally do not suffer to a great extent with the virus) to more vulnerable adult contacts ( Zancajo et al. , 2022 ). Despite reluctance, English schools were closed to most pupils for long periods of time, with parents and guardians encouraged to carry out home-schooling (with schools, the UK government, state broadcaster, and local authorities providing resources to assist in this ). Ultimately, there were considerable discrepancies between the degree to which young people received education during the pandemic, as well as the extent of the harms they faced. Indicatively:

Between March 2020 and April 2021, school pupils in England missed 110 days , compared to a normal school year of 190 classroom days.

A National Foundation for Educational Research survey published in June 2020 found that 98% of teachers thought that their students were behind compared to where they would expect them to be at the end of academic year 2019/2020 ( National Audit Office, 2023 ).

A May 2020 poll found that middle class parents were more likely to receive home school support (such as advice and resources) from their child's school ( YouGov, 2020 ). Middle class homes were also more than twice as likely to report participation in remote school lessons ( Montacute & Cullinane, 2021 ).

Likewise, pupils in the most disadvantaged schools were less likely to be involved with remote learning (4 in 10).

A study by the LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance found that ‘during the first lockdown, children from the top 20% of income earners lost 50% of normal teaching time compared with 62% for those from the bottom 20%, and further stated : “A quarter of pupils – around 2 million children - received no schooling”’.

‘By the summer term 2021, the gap between disadvantaged pupils and their more affluent peers in reading was around ‘0.4 months for primary aged pupils and around 1.6 months for secondary pupils’.

Pupils at private schools reported spending more time on schoolwork, more time spent in regular contact with a teacher, and more experience of remote lessons during lockdowns than their state educated counterparts ( Anders et al. , 2020 ).

In England, as with other countries , the pandemic took existing educational inequalities, and both revealed and enhanced them ( Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020 ; Zancajo et al. , 2022 ). An awareness of such issues and advocacy from various organisations including education unions, researchers, and campaign groups (and resultant news coverage) undoubtedly played a role in shaping both the form and communication approaches of UK Government policy responses. Since 2010, the UK Conservative Party has governed England (other political parties led devolved governments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) and pursued a relatively consistent policy in schooling. Under the Education Secretary Michael Gove and his successors, the Government pursued reform across a range of areas, including hugely increasing the number of ‘Academy’ and ‘Free’ schools, reforming the curriculum to emphasise ‘traditional’ subjects, and placing greater emphasis on high stakes GCSE exams ( Finn, 2015 ). These reforms were often made in the teeth of considerable professional and trade union opposition.

These changes all sit comfortably within the category of neoliberal approaches to equity described above and were accompanied by political rhetoric which justified them as creating an environment in which the best and brightest young people, regardless of their background, could perform well. They took place against a backdrop of fiscal austerity, punitive welfare reforms, a ‘hostile environment’ for ‘illegal’ migrants, and the aftereffects of a severe economic recession (see Chapter 9 of Cairney & Kippin, 2023 ). As such, Government policy had exacerbated socio-economic inequalities, while pursuing a set of education policy measures which - though justified as doing the opposite - inflamed them further ( Greany & Higham, 2018 ). These details provide crucial context in understanding why the government’s approach to the mitigation of the pandemic (in terms of assessment) and approach to compensating for lost learning were both so important, and so unsuccessful. These two case studies are chosen as they provide an opportunity to evaluate the extent to which the UK Government problematizes, understands, and responds to inequity.

The UK’s examination replacement systems

The 2020 systems.

In common with all governments faced with the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK faced difficult choices as to how it would allocate qualifications to learners in high stakes examinations ( Kippin & Cairney, 2023 ; Ozga et al. , 2023 ). The most pressing were GCSEs, which were taken by 15- to 17-year-olds and represented the final compulsory assessment covering 10 or so subjects including (most consequentially) maths, science, and English. Also affected were A Levels and AS levels, taken by 17–19-year-olds. These qualifications are taken by young people who stay on, either in school (at ‘sixth form’) or a Further Education college, and dictate entry into university (and are also valued by employers, for those students who opt not to progress further) and represent a ‘defining feature’ of the English education system. The UK Government needed to find a system for allocating these grades and qualifications, which was efficient, fair, and could be implemented outside the strictures of government health guidance (which in 2020 prohibited mass gatherings) and which took account of the fact that schools had been closed since March, meaning students had been deprived of crucial preparation time and resources. Significantly, there appears to have been a disagreement as to the way forward between the Department for Education and Ofqual, with the former preferring to avoid exams and the latter seeking to hold them in a ‘socially distanced’ manner.

Nonetheless, the initial plan largely mirrored preparations in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland ( Kippin & Cairney, 2023 ). In short, education ‘centres’ (mainly schools and colleges) would submit to the UK’s qualifications regulator Ofqual predicted grades for their pupils and a ‘ranking’ of students in each subject area. These would then be ‘standardised’ by Ofqual , with a formula applied which sought to replicate the previous year’s distribution of grades, both across the country but also within centres ( Kelly, 2021 ). This was reportedly at the insistence of the Secretary of State. There were several justifications for the inclusion of a moderating element. Firstly, teacher allocated grades have previously been shown to be inaccurate and at times discriminatory. Secondly, they were considered to run a high risk of generating ‘grade inflation’ (the attenuation of which had been an important part of Conservative Party policy over a number of years) ( Torrance, 2011 ). Thirdly, it was seen as important for ensuring ‘credibility’ in the eyes of universities and employers, who would recruit from these cohorts. A final consideration was the separate policy decisions made by the other three UK executives. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland had all made similar choices (with Scotland’s results being released first owing to the particularities of that country’s education system). With students from across the UK competing for places at the same universities, a degree of coordination (as part of a broader ‘four nations’ approach to pandemic management) was seen as desirable .

While equity or ‘fairness’ was seen as an important element of the rationale for the UK Government’s approach, the results were seen as being anything but fair ( Kelly, 2021 ). The design of the system pinned performance to previous years’ cohorts and caused anomalous effects which disproportionately saw higher achieving students from less well performing schools have their grades adjusted downwards. Such students are seen as the heroes of British education: those bright young students who overcome hardship and disadvantage due to their intelligence and motivation levels - and their treatment was viewed by an angry public as a betrayal . Further, the calcification of inequality (through placing artificial barriers on student attainment) was seen as particularly objectionable. This can be contrasted with the improved prospects of better off students, and particularly those who attended a private school (with the size of classes a key determinant of the number of downgrades. Such better resourced and selective establishments tend to achieve higher grades, anyway. In other words, the replacement system seemed to disproportionately disadvantage poorer students, and advantage wealthier students. Such simplicity masks a more nuanced picture (for example, the poorest students did better as cohorts than their 2019 equivalents). Ultimately, however, the combination of Scotland’s U-Turn and the mounting public pressure by young people, the Opposition Labour Party, trade unions, and a broader public revulsion led to the Government to fall back on ‘Centre Allocated Grades’ or CAGs (via an aborted attempt at enhancing the existing appeals process) ( Kippin & Cairney, 2022 ).

CAGs were a key element of the original replacement system. To generate these grades , teachers drew on evidence such as coursework, mock and preparatory exams, classwork, and their general professional judgement of the student's ability ( Kippin & Cairney, 2023 ). There were also processes internal to centres to regulate and determine teacher grades, as well as guidance from Ofqual and the UK Government. However, these grades were not intended to be the final word on student achievement at GCSE or A-Level. Indeed, such grades were generated in the full knowledge that they would be adjusted (most likely downwards - though in some cases upwards) and as such there was little incentive to recommend ‘tough’ or ‘harsh’ grades (particularly when teachers - who knew students well, in most cases no doubt wished them well). Governments had avoided “pure” teacher grading because of issues such as the high potential for gaps between and within centres, based on matters such as expectation and teacher discretion. The education researcher Gill Wyness analysed CAGs and found ‘only 16% of [English] students received accurate predictions for all three [A-level grades], with 75% overpredicted and just 8% underpredicted’. Significantly for our purposes here, she also finds benefits accrue disproportionately to more privileged students and a Department for Education evidence review ‘suggested that predicted grades often lead to (albeit small) differences between teacher assessment and exam assessment results in relation to gender, special educational needs, ethnicity and age'. Nonetheless, ‘pure’ CAGs would become the entire basis for GCSE and A-Levels awarded in 2020, appearing as a lifeline for Ministers operating in a political crisis ( Kippin & Cairney, 2023 ).

There is some evidence that the revised grades 2020 system was not equitable. Firstly, while there was grade inflation across the piece, private school pupils (at least on some metrics) achieved a greater increase than their state school counterparts when compared with 2019 (when exams ran normally). There was also a 10.2% increase in A/A* equivalent grades at GCSE for private school pupils between 2019 and 2020 vs a 9% increase for state school pupils. Pupils with graduate parents were '17 percentage points more likely to report that their CAGs were higher than their Ofqual calculated grades'. While not large gaps, it is worth placing this in the context of the pandemic, where private school pupils both had access to appropriate resources at home, high levels of attention from school, and parents with the time and resources to engage effectively with home-schooling. Lower down the income scale, we see stretched schools without the ability to provide high quality learning materials at home, parents who may have been key workers (for example in hospitality) or less able to provide home-schooling ( Hoskins & Wainwright, 2023 ). Ultimately, private school students lost less (or in many cases no) learning time, but received a greater or equivalent hand up . An equitable system, based on the vertical principle (that those in greatest need of help should receive a greater allocation of resources) would have taken such considerations into account in allocating grades, rather than assuming parity between the different sets of students in an unequal society and education system. Nonetheless, there was no U-Turn, as the grades apportioned by schools were seen as legitimate despite their evident shortcomings ( Kippin & Cairney, 2023 ). As such, a policy solution rejected as inequitable and unfair initially, became a lifeline for policymakers seeking a ‘way out’ of a crisis of their own making.

2021 system

The following year’s system also generated unfair grades. Policymakers proactively sought to avoid a retreat of 2020’s immediate policy failure, and thus designed a system which sought to balance the competing demands of political feasibility and public legitimacy ( Kippin & Cairney, 2023 ; Marsh & McConnell, 2010 ). However, it did not have equity at its heart. The system was known as Teacher Allocated Grades (or ‘TAGS’ - emphasising the judgement of educators rather than faceless ‘centres’ in the name) and rested on a combination of completed coursework, mock exams, and (a crucial difference from previous years) in-class assessments provided by Ofqual and administered by teachers. These became known as ‘exams in all but name’ or ‘mini exams’ due to their replication of elements of the high stakes exams that were still, for public health reasons, off the table. Assurances were provided that the grades would be closer to those received in 2020 than in 2019, and quality assurance would be provided within and between centres, with a strong link promised between student work and the grades they received - but assessment materials were provided by Ofqual to schools who might wish to do so. As with the previous year, the potential for grade inflation was high, with the Chair of the Education Select Committee in the House of Commons referring to an “all must have prizes” approach (quoted in Kippin & Cairney, 2022 ).

Ultimately, prizes would be distributed liberally but unequally. For example, there was a 17-percentage point gap identified between free school meal eligible and ineligible students in receiving grades 7 and above (up 2.27 percentage points since 2019). Further, there was a 26.1 percentage point increase in independent school pupils gaining an A/A* at A-Level when compared to 2019, while the number for state school pupils was 17.2. Ultimately, less well-off students would benefit from grade inflation, but to a lesser degree than the most privileged students. Again, this masks the higher differentiated experience of young people. While in 2020, there were large inequalities in how much learning had been lost, this was concentrated over a short period. In 2021, education had been disrupted for over a year, with schools closed for months at a time. Preparations for the in-class assessments were accessed and experienced differently. Additionally, private schools which were made responsible for assessment (rather than required to interface with an external state body to provide quality assurance) had little incentive to offer anything other than high grades to their students, given that the students represented paying customers (and could be prevailed upon by ‘sharp elbowed’ affluent parents).

Ultimately, the two years of exam preparation would see a gradual reversion to dependency on high stakes examinations in providing assessment grades to young people in England, with the pandemic representing a blip on the path to an ever-great exam-centricity ( Ozga et al. , 2023 ). An opportunity for the embrace of more equitable practices was thus missed ( Cairns, 2021 ; Kippin & Cairney, 2023 ). The 2022 examination round was broadly in line with pre-pandemic procedures, with a more ‘generous’ marking system introduced to account for the year’s status as a ‘transitional’ year. However, much had changed in the meantime: young people had missed out on large chunks of learning throughout the two years, interrupting their development in ways which would prove consequential even where they fell prior to exam preparation. Those that experienced the 2020 ‘exams’ round were firstly treated to a demonstration of the way inequity perpetuates in having lower educational performance in less well-off areas formally held against them, and secondly saw their private school counterparts treated more generously despite their highly differential experiences. The following year, they again saw discretion used to disproportionately advantage better off students. Their advantage is multi-faceted, but this discussion now turns to one in particular: access to one-on-one and small group tutoring, and specifically a UK Government initiative to replicate this usually private arrangement in state schools via a National Tutoring Programme.

The National Tutoring Programme

During the same period as they were considering how to apportion grades and replace examinations, the UK Government was also considering solutions as to how to address the broader issue of lost learning due to the pandemic. This programme would come to incorporate a number of measures, including 'recovery' and 'catch up' premiums, funding for teacher training, summer schools, and accelerator fund for numeracy and literacy ( National Audit Office, 2023 : 6). As mentioned above, children from more deprived socioeconomic groups lost out on learning to a much greater degree than did their wealthier (and particularly privately educated) counterparts. For instance, during the first (Spring 2020) lockdown, nearly 75% of privately educated pupils were in receipt of a full school day’s worth of teaching, while the figure for state educated students was 38% . There is a considerable weight of evidence for the proposition that time out of school can have serious consequences for student attainment and future economic prospects ( Psacharopoulos & Patrinos, 2018 ). One of the factors that accentuates educational inequalities in the UK is the availability of one-on-one and small group tutoring, which places a ‘glass floor’ on the ability of more affluent young people who may access such resources should they be struggling in advance of high stakes exams, but is not available to less affluent groups. Research carried out by the Sutton Trust shows that while some measures show comparable levels of out-of-class support for learners, there are 'big gaps between socio-economic and achievement groups in England in time spent on additional instruction', with 'well off pupils' receiving 2.5 hours 'more additional instruction' than their less affluent counterparts. The difference is particularly notable for children in danger of low achievement. 'High-achieving Year 11s from poorer backgrounds spend, on average, just 7 hours per week on additional lessons outside of school, compared to 15 hours for low-achieving pupils from the most advantaged backgrounds' (page 3).

Education Endowment Foundation research suggested that a year's worth of small group tuition is worth, on average, four additional months progress over the course of a year, and the NTP sought to bring these known benefits of one on one and small group tuition to less well-off pupils, and particularly those who had lost out to a greater extent on learning during the pandemic. Launching the scheme in June 2020, a Department for Education press release pointed to the £350m scheme providing 'access to high-quality tuition for the most disadvantaged young people' over the coming academic year. Gavin Williamson, the Secretary of State for Education, set expectations high for the scheme by stating that it would 'make sure that every young person, no matter their age or where they live, gets the education, opportunities and outcomes they deserve, by spending it on measures proven to be effective, particularly for those who are most disadvantaged’. Involved in the process from the outset was a group of educational charities and research organisations, including the Sutton Trust, NESTA, Teach First, Impetus, and the Endowment Education Foundation (see Table 2 for a description of their roles). The latter organisation was central to developments and played a dual role as both an advocate for the expansion of state provision of tutoring, and an organisation which would, at least initially, lead on its implementation.

Table 2. Key organisations involved in the National Tutoring Programme (NTP).

The NTP initially had two ‘strands’ (a third, ‘school led tutoring’ would later be added). The first, was 'tuition partners' which allowed schools to access tuition from a list of providers. The Government would provide a subsidy, and also a framework for ensuring quality control. The EEF carried out this quality control process using a number of criteria, including safeguarding, quality, and evaluation. This led to 33 tuition partners being approved and providing face-to-face and online provision in the year of the scheme's operation . The second was called 'Academic Mentors', who are graduates employed by schools to provide catch up support to pupils. In the first year of the programme, these were provided by the education charity Teach First. Schools were able to benefit from either scheme based on their own circumstances. Schools would also be responsible for the identification of the pupils who would benefit most from the additional support, and no targets were set for reaching either pupils in receipt of Free School Meals, or the related ‘Pupil Premium’ (the way that the UK education system tends to categorise wealth and income related disadvantage). In sum, the aim of the NTP was to provide high quality tutoring to students to help ‘catch up’ those disadvantaged young people most negatively impacted in their education by school closures and associated disruption.

The first year of the Programme was administered by a partnership of the EEF and Teach First, overseen by the UK Department of Education. It initially struggled to achieve ambitious targets which focused on overall numbers, rather than the profile of those students. One successfully met objective was the enrolment of 250,000 pupils by the end of the year (though not all of these would have actually received tutoring). The programme struggled to overcome issues such as disparities in the availability of tutors in different parts of the country (with shortages for instance in poorer and more rural areas). As such, while the NTP achieved its objectives in certain areas (for example in the South West and South East), it fared far worse in areas such as Yorkshire and the Humber and the North West. The EEF asked the National Foundation for Educational Research to carry out an evaluation of the two strands of the programme . Both the Tuition Partners and Academic Mentors elements of the scheme encountered challenges in identifying students eligible for the Pupil Premium, as over half of the tutored students did not meet the criteria.

In short, the first year of the scheme saw the programme struggle to identify and target resources on the students who were either most deprived or had lost the greater amount of learning time (or both). While it hit some key targets, it missed others . his was partially a consequence of the decision to allow schools to identify the students most in need, but also of existing regional variations, the difficulties of getting a large scale programme up and running so quickly, information gaps, and the imposition of local and thereafter a long national lockdown in December 2020. This both exacerbated the scale of the problem (in terms of adding considerably to the amount of learning lost by young people, and particularly in hard-hit areas) and also created restrictions on face-to-face tutoring. While online tutoring was an option (and was embraced by the NTP and its providers as the only viable option) it rested on a less robust evidence base in terms of its effectiveness. At the end of the scheme’s first year, the Department for Education tendered out the contract for running the NTP. The favourite to win the bid was an offshoot of the EEF, set up expressly for the purpose, named the National Tutoring Foundation. However, the eventual victor was a large Netherlands-based multinational human resources consulting firm.

This marked a distinctive new phase in the evolution of the NTP, and saw the initial coalition of education charities which had set up the scheme relinquish leadership. Randstad’s bid was ranked lower on quality than EEF and Teach First’s, but was much cheaper (their contact was worth £24m, compared to the £62m offered by the Government. The Department for Education asked the company to radically scale up their tutoring offer, which they duly did, promising the delivery of 2 million tutoring courses (up from the 250,000 target of the previous year). At this point, a third strand was added to the NTP, which allowed schools to identify and hire locally available tutors (rather than be limited to Tution Partners provision). In all, this marked a shift away from the previous focus on quality assurance, reliability, and need, and towards increasing the overall scale and reach. This is characterised in an excoriating article by Samantha Booth for the UK education sector magazine Schools Weekly as a progressive ‘watering down’ of the programme under Randstad’s stewardship. Generally, their approach can be described as representing a prioritisation of quantity over quality . Perhaps related to this expansion, little data was available as to the nature of the tutoring. Some typical criticisms of the Randstad period of the NTP were:

Writing in February 2022 , the Chair of the Education Select Committee noted that 'over 524,000 children were supposed to start tutoring this year but only eight per cent have actually begun'.

A secondary school teacher, quoted in the Guardian , said: “I have one word for our experience of the programme: disastrous. No-shows, lack of subject specialist knowledge, punctuality issues. One of the tutors withdrew her services entirely on the day the students were expecting her”.

The training provided by Randstad to develop "high quality tutors" was perfunctory, estimated by the Department for Education to only take around 11 hours to complete and incorporated few quality assurance safeguards.

Having failed to hit the initial target to reach 65% of ‘disadvantaged’ pupils, the target was then scrapped , and was criticised by several tuition providers on the grounds that the new criteria would ‘widen the attainment gap’.

The web platform that schools would use to access tutoring was " bureaucratic and too difficult to use ".

14% of schools in England accessed tutoring via the Randstad platform in academic year 2021/22 (compared with 53% of schools who arranged their tuition through existing NTP routes).

Tutors based in Sri Lanka and who were as young as 17 were being paid less than £2 an hour to deliver tutoring to primary school students.

Some of these criticisms must be seen in the context of a rapidly changing context and an obvious need for schools to enjoy a degree of flexibility over the tutoring offer, indeed the Department for Education’s Permanent Secretary Susan Acland-Hood told the Public Accounts Committee that there wasn’t a precise overlap between the most disadvantaged students and those that had lost out most during the pandemic ( Public Accounts Committee, 2022: Q60 ). Despite this, the Department for Education would exercise its break clause in Randstad’s contract. The Education Secretary Nadim Zahawi refused to criticise Randstad , but justified the decision on the grounds that doing so would help to 'simplify' the programme. The newly announced system in March 2022 saw schools instead directly receiving the funding in line with the number of Pupil Premium eligible students. The Department put out three separate tenders for training tutors, quality assurance, and the recruitment and deployment of academic mentors ( the contracts were won by the Education Development Trust, Tribal Group PLC, and Cognition Education respectively). A further important development relates to funding, with the Department reducing this from a 75% subsidy for tuition in 2020–2022 to a 25% subsidy in 2023/23. This ‘tapering’ was part of the design of the programme and had been supported by the initial partner organisations in order to ' support schools to embed tutoring long-term ') and to create a system funded by the Pupil Premium.

Equity in the UK Government’s COVID-19 education response

Neoliberal approaches are dominant.

This chapter has examined two elements of the UK government’s COVID-19 pandemic response to explore the way that policymakers understand, operationalise, and respond to educational inequalities. The UK’s ‘neoliberal turn’ from the 1980s onwards saw successive governments embrace policy solutions which sought to reorient the provision of education along market-oriented lines, encompassing a ‘top down’ shift to ‘quasi-markets’ in compulsory schooling, the marginalisation of local authorities, the introduction of a National Curriculum and school rankings, new mandatory testing from age 7, and the involvement of private sector bodies in the delivery of education ( Chitty, 2013 ; Exley & Ball, 2013 : 7). These reforms were accelerated under the New Labour government which held office between 1997 and 2010, and combined increased funding and an overt focus on disadvantage with accelerated neoliberal reforms and further system fragmentation. The Conservative-led governments of 2010 onwards oversaw a further expansion of the academies programme, a ‘traditionalisation’ of assessment policy , and sharp fiscal cuts as part of their ‘austerity’ programme (though the Government did introduce the ‘pupil premium’ policy mentioned above). These reforms both stem from, and perpetuate, the reorientation of the sector towards neoliberal logic, including the ‘narrow and instrumental’ definition of equity ( Kippin & Cairney, 2023 : 166). A key objective of these reforms has been to realise the goal of ensuring access to high quality schools whereby ‘bright’ students of whatever background can realise their potential ( Chitty, 2013 ). A consequence of this was that policymakers considered existing arrangements as essentially fair and equitable, or at least underestimated the gap between current arrangements and this goal.

The problem was defined in a limited way

A consequence of this was that policymakers understood the problem in a way which led them to prioritise reversion to an unfair mean. In assessment, this meant preserving ‘credibility’ and preventing ‘grade inflation’ (as well as more prosaic concerns about the need for grades to be allocated). In tutoring, this meant helping students to ‘catch up’ on the learning they had lost, rather than recognising that existing inequalities were worthy of attention , too. Ultimately, this complacency shaped the responses to both, and revealed that UK policymakers struggle to recognise the extent to which education systems reflect rather than shape the nature of societal inequalities through those out of school factors discussed above. As a result, their understanding of the problem in each case rested on flawed assumptions about the efficacy of current arrangements. This led to them resisting the recognition that the English assessment system habitually produces unfair outcomes, and that this unfairness is contingent upon wider societal inequalities. They also missed that helping poorer students to 'catch up' would require more than chasing an unequal pre-pandemic baseline, despite lofty claims of a 'decade of progress' leading up to the pandemic.

‘Neoliberal’ implementation failed - again

The solution of expanding access to tutoring is consistent with social justice approach to neoliberalism, provided it concentrated resources on those most in need (in this case defined as those who had lost the most learning) and rested upon a firm evidence base as to its effectiveness. However, the means used to implement it were straight out of the neoliberal playbook. While this was adopted as a ‘catch up’ measure, its advocates sought to mainstream tutoring provision within English education and transform it into a central and permanent element of teaching provision. However, these admirable intentions too are undermined by a problem definition which misjudges the scale of the issue and its extra-educational causes, and the recurrent problems encountered by the UK state in its post-neoliberal guise. Such limitations were noted by the Education Recovery Commissioner Sir Kevan Collins who considered the full package to be insufficient to achieve even the more modest goal of ‘catching up’ disadvantaged students ( National Audit Office, 2023 : 16). Rather than entrust the nascently promising scheme to its founder organisations (or indeed simply deliver the programme in-house) the Department for Education’s decision to involve a large private contractor had foreseen consequences (particularly when taking into account the particularities of the bid). In short, even where policymakers alight upon potential solutions for the attenuation of educational inequalities, they rely on discredited means to deliver them, with entirely predictable results. This dynamic is resonant of recent research on the public policy response to inequalities, in which we can identify a wide gap between policymaker aspirations and the disappointing reality of what occurs on the ground ( Cairney et al. , 2022 ).

Conclusions

UK policymakers sought to address new educational inequalities caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. They did so through designing an exam replacement system which took account of the degree of lost learning, but ended up creating three systems, all of which in different ways systematically advantaged better-off students. They also sought to ‘catch up’ students who had missed out on lost learning (statistically those from less well-off backgrounds) through a National Tutoring Programme. This was beset by problems, initially through failing to effectively target resources at the most in need young people, and secondly through the predictable failure of a controversial decision to outsource the delivery of the agenda to an international human resources firm. This failure encompassed a decline in the quality of the tutoring offered, set against a huge increase in the number of courses being offered (but continued issues with targeting).

These failures reflect the longstanding dominance of the neoliberal paradigm in UK education policy which influences who is involved in policymaking, which perspectives prevail and, crucially here, how the problem was defined. In each case, a narrow view which seemed to accept the efficacy of pre-pandemic circumstances prevailed, leading to solutions being geared towards ‘catching up’ students, rather than seeking to address the longstanding inequalities which shape contemporary education both within and outside education policymaking. Such issues are further compounded by using discredited means of implementing policy solutions such as through commissioning large for-profit companies, who here continued a pattern of skimping on quality and failing to meet the stated objectives. In sum, at least in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, attempts in the UK to address inequalities are hampered by a dominant neoliberal paradigm, a resultant narrow problem definition, and recourse to discredited means of implementation.

Data availability

No data are associated with this article.

•   Anders J, Green F, Henderson M, et al. : Determinants of private school participation: All about the money? Br Educ Res J. 2020; 46 (5): 967–992. Publisher Full Text
•   Au W: Meritocracy 2.0: High-Stakes, Standardized Testing as a Racial Project of Neoliberal Multiculturalism. Educ Policy. 2016; 30 (1): 39–62. Publisher Full Text
•   Bozkurt A, Sharma RC: Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education. 2020; 15 (1): i–vi. Publisher Full Text
•   Cairney P, Keating M, Kippin S, et al. : Public Policy to Reduce Inequalities across Europe: Hope versus Reality. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2022. Publisher Full Text
•   Cairney P, Kippin S: The future of education equity policy in a COVID-19 world: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from education policymaking [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. Open Res Eur. 2022; 1 (78): 1–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
•   Cairney P, Kippin S: Policy and Policymaking in the UK. (Bristol: Bristol University Press), 2023; forthcoming.
•   Cairns R: Exams tested by Covid-19: An opportunity to rethink standardized senior secondary examinations. Prospects (Paris). 2021; 51 (1–3): 331–345. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
•   Chitty C: New Labour and Secondary Education, 1994-2010. (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 2013. Publisher Full Text
•   Cole M: Education, Equality and Human Rights: Issues of Gender, 'Race', Sexuality, Disability and Social Class. (London: Routledge), 2022. Publisher Full Text
•   Edgar S: The Tricky Concept of ‘Educational Equity’ - In Search of Conceptual Clarity. Scott Edu Rev. 2022; 54 : 3–25. Publisher Full Text
•   Exley S, Ball SJ: Neo-liberalism and English Education. In: Turner, D. and Yolcu, H. (eds). Neo-liberal Educational Reforms. (New York: Routledge), 2013.
•   Field S, Kuczera M, Pont B: No More Failures: Ten Steps to Equity in Education . (Paris: OECD), 2007. Publisher Full Text
•   Finn M: Introduction: The Gove Ascendancy — Michael Gove as Secretary of State for Education. In: Finn, M. (ed) The Gove Legacy: Education in Britain after the Coalition. (London: SpringerLink), 2015; 1–13. Publisher Full Text
•   Gilead T: Promoting Distributive Justice in Education and the Challenge of Unpredictability. Stud Philos Educ. 2019; 38 : 439–451. Publisher Full Text
•   Gipps C: What do we mean by equity in relation to assessment. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA, 1994.
•   Greany T, Higham R: Hierarchy, Markets and Networks: analysing the 'self-improving school-led system' agenda in England and the implications for schools. UCL Institute of Education Press: London, UK, 2018. Reference Source
•   Hall PA: Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comp Politics. 1993; 25 (3): 275–296. Publisher Full Text
•   Hoskins K, Wainwright E: ‘I am not a teacher!’ The challenges of enacting home schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic among low-income families of primary-aged children. Educ 3–13. 2023. Publisher Full Text
•   Kelly A: A tale of two algorithms: The appeal and repeal of calculated grades systems in England and Ireland in 2020. Br Educ Res J. 2021; 47 (3): 725–741. Publisher Full Text
•   Kippin S, Cairney P: The COVID-19 exams fiasco across the UK: four nations and two windows of opportunity. Br Politics. 2022; 17 : 1–23. Publisher Full Text
•   Kippin S, Cairney P: COVID-19 and the second exams fiasco across the UK: four nations trying to avoid immediate policy failure. Br Politics. 2023; 18 (2): 151–172. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
•   Klees SJ, Qargha O: Equity in education: The case of UNICEF and the need for participative debate. Prospects. 2014; 44 : 321–33. Publisher Full Text
•   Kretchmar K, Sondel B, Ferrare JJ: The Power of the Network: Teach For America's Impact on the Deregulation of Teacher Education. Educ Policy. 2016; 32 (3): 423–453. Publisher Full Text
•   Mani A, Mullainathan S, Shafir E, et al. : Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science. 2013; 341 (6149): 976–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
•   Marsh D, McConnell A: Towards a framework for establishing policy success. Public Administration. 2010; 88 (2): 564–583. Publisher Full Text
•   Ozga J, Baird JA, Saville L, et al. : Knowledge, expertise and policy in the examinations crisis in England. Oxf Rev Educ. 2023; 49 (6): 713–731. Publisher Full Text
•   Pelletier E, Manna P: Learning in Harm’s Way: Neighborhood Violence, Inequality, and American Schools. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2017; 674 (1): 217–239. Publisher Full Text
•   Psacharopoulos G, Patrinos HA: Returns to investment in education: a decennial review of the global literature. Education Economics. 2018; 26 (5): 445–458. Publisher Full Text
•   Public Accounts Committee: Oral evidence: DfE Recall—SEND Review, HC 26. 2022; (A: 16.06.23). Reference Source
•   Savageau A: How Housing and Education Drive Inequality. Michigan Journal of Economics. 2023; (A: 15.06.23). Reference Source
•   Torrance H: Using Assessment to Drive the Reform of Schooling: Time to Stop Pursuing the Chimera? British Journal of Educational Studies. 2011; 59 (4): 459–485. Publisher Full Text
•   Wolf A: Qualifications and Assessment. In: Alrich, R. A Century of Education. (London: Routledge), 2002.
•   Zancajo A, Verger A, Bolea P: Digitalization and beyond: the effects of Covid-19 on post-pandemic educational policy and delivery in Europe. Policy Soc. 2022; 41 (1): 111–128. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open peer review.

Is the background of the case’s history and progression described in sufficient detail?

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No source data required

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Is the case presented with sufficient detail to be useful for the teaching or other practitioners?

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Educational policy and philosophy.

• Author Response 08 Dec 2023 Sean Kippin , Division of History, Heritage and Politics, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK 08 Dec 2023 Author Response Dear Dr. Newman,  Thank you for taking the time to review this article. I am of course delighted with the outcome and I really appreciate the thoroughness and thoughtfulness ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Newman,  Thank you for taking the time to review this article. I am of course delighted with the outcome and I really appreciate the thoroughness and thoughtfulness with which you've approached this task.  I have just submitted a second version which essentially adopts all of your specific recommendations, most of which were oversights on my part, and I'm really pleased you have caught them.  Many thanks again, and all the best,  Sean Kippin Dear Dr. Newman,  Thank you for taking the time to review this article. I am of course delighted with the outcome and I really appreciate the thoroughness and thoughtfulness with which you've approached this task.  I have just submitted a second version which essentially adopts all of your specific recommendations, most of which were oversights on my part, and I'm really pleased you have caught them.  Many thanks again, and all the best,  Sean Kippin Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Reply -->
• Respond or Comment
• COMMENT ON THIS REPORT
• Cairney P, Keating M, Kippin S, et al.: Public Policy to Reduce Inequalities: across Europe: Hope versus Reality. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2022.  
• Cairney P, Kippin S: Policy and Policymaking in the UK. (Bristol: Bristol University Press), 2023; forthcoming.

Reviewer Expertise: Sociology of higher education; equity and education; educational precarity; forced migration

• Author Response 08 Dec 2023 Sean Kippin , Division of History, Heritage and Politics, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK 08 Dec 2023 Author Response Dear both,  Thank you for taking the time to review this article, and for the throughness and thoughtfulness with which you've gone about the task. I am delighted at ... Continue reading Dear both,  Thank you for taking the time to review this article, and for the throughness and thoughtfulness with which you've gone about the task. I am delighted at the outcome, and really happy that the case study worked worked well for a non-UK audience.  On the specific changes, these mostly relate to small oversights or typos, and I am happy to have made changes along these lines in each case, in a new version which has just been submitted.  Many thanks again, and all the best,  Sean Kippin Dear both,  Thank you for taking the time to review this article, and for the throughness and thoughtfulness with which you've gone about the task. I am delighted at the outcome, and really happy that the case study worked worked well for a non-UK audience.  On the specific changes, these mostly relate to small oversights or typos, and I am happy to have made changes along these lines in each case, in a new version which has just been submitted.  Many thanks again, and all the best,  Sean Kippin Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Reply -->

Reviewer Status

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Reviewer Reports

• Anna Xavier , University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia Sally Baker , University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
• Stephen Newman , Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK

Comments on this article

All Comments (0)

Competing Interests Policy

Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:

• Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper.
• You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors.
• You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student).
• You work at the same institute as any of the authors.
• You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission.
• You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published.
• You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements.
• You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors.
• You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on.

Stay Updated

Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles

Register with Routledge Open Research

Already registered? Sign in

Not now, thanks

Stay Informed

Sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from Routledge Open Research.

We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to Routledge Open Research

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Change your cookie settings at any time.

British education system

an introduction to the British education system

The education system in the UK is divided into four main parts, primary education, secondary education, further education and higher education.

The education system in the UK is also split into "key stages" which breaks down as follows:

• Key Stage 1:  5 to 7 years old
• Key Stage 2:  7 to 11 years old
• Key Stage 3:  11 to 14 years old
• Key Stage 4:  14 to 16 years old

UK primary education

Primary school education begins in the UK at age 5 and continues until age 11, comprising key stages one and two under the UK educational system.

Some primary schools are split up into Infant and Junior levels. These are usually separate schools on the same site. The infant age range (Key Stage 1) is from age 5 to 7. The Junior age range (Key Stage 2) is from age 7 to 11. The year groups at primary School level are:

Year R (Reception) (age 4 – 5) Year 1 (age 5 - 6) Year 2 (age 6 - 7) The year when SATs testing takes place for Key Stage 1 Year 3 (age 7 - 8) Year 4 (age 8 - 9) Year 5 (age 9 - 10) Year 6 (age 10 - 11) The year when SATs testing takes place for Key Stage 2

secondary school - years 7 and 8

Years 7 and 8 are the first two years of secondary school education in the UK. In some independent schools they are included in the Junior School, in others, they are part of the Senior School. 

Under the UK school system, all students study English, Maths, Sciences, a Humanity and a Modern Language. Besides these subjects, each school has a list with optional subjects (Art, Music, Drama, Latin, Sport Science, Design Technology, Computer Science),  and  students may choose a few subjects that interest them. 

In some schools, students sit the Common Entrance Exam in year 7. There are 3 examination sessions, in November, January and May/June. The transition from Junior to Senior School (from year 8 to year 9) may be conditioned upon the Common Entrance Exam results in those schools.

secondary school - year 9

Year 9 is a very important year in the British school system, as most of the students make the transition from Junior School to Senior School. It is also a very good foundation for the GCSE programme and it is an entry point to all schools. 

Students study English, Maths, Sciences, Humanity and Languages. In addition, students choose a few subjects from the optional subject list offered by each school. 

secondary education - years 10 and 11

GCSE programme

In the last two years of secondary education, which are called Year 10 and Year 11, starting at age 14, students prepare for GCSE exams that are taken after two years (General Certificate of Secondary Education).

In the UK school system, during the GCSE programme, students study between 9 and 12 subjects. Some of them are compulsory (English, Math, 2/3 Sciences, History/Geography, a Modern Language etc.), some are chosen by each student according to their abilities and preferences. At the end of the 2 year GCSE programme, following the examinations on each studied subject, students receive their GCSE Certificates.

The chosen subjects and the GCSE results are very important for their Further Studies (A-Level or IB) and for their University admission.

Intensive 1 year GCSE

Some schools offer a 1 Year GCSE programme in Year 11 for international students seeking a school education in the UK. These intensive, one year courses, are available for students aged 15 plus, with the appropriate academic level from their own country. Fewer subjects are studied (maximum 6).

The IGCSE programme ( International  General Certificate of Secondary Education) prepare international students for A-Level and/or IB.

Students study between 5 and 7 subjects, English, Maths and Science being included. Each school has a list of available subjects for IGCSE students. At the end of Year 11, students take exams in each studied subject and receive IGCSE Certificates.

university preparation - years 12 and 13

A level study

In the UK school system, once a student reaches the age of 16, they can start a 2 year programme which leads to A (Advanced) level examinations. Students specialise in 3 or 4 subjects, that are usually relevant to the degree subject they wish to follow at university. A levels are state examinations and are recognised by all UK universities and by institutions worldwide.

At the end of Year 13, following the examinations in each subject, the students receive A level Certificates.

International Baccalaureate (IB)

Those who would like to study more than 3-4 subjects, may continue their studies in a broader number of subjects with the International Baccaularete Diploma Programme, offered by some independent schools.

During the IB, students study 6 subjects, 3 at higher level (HL) and 3 at standard level (SL). Each school offers different subjects at different study levels (HL/SL). The IB programme also includes a compulsory Core programme consisting of Theory of Knowledge (TOK), Extended Essay (EE) and Creativity, Activity, Service (CAS).

Students take written examinations on each subject at the end of their courses.

further education - vocational courses

International students can either choose a state sixth form college or a college of further education as an alternative to private education. Both offer GCSE and A level courses for students from the age of 16. Colleges of further education also offer foundation and diploma courses. All colleges can prepare students for entry to a  UK university or any university in the world. Bright World works with a number of state colleges in the UK which provide a multitude of vocational and academic courses. These courses can enable students to pursue their chosen career or to gain a place at a university of their choice.

The British school system also extends to BTEC courses which are designed for students who would like to develop practical knowledge and skills in a specific subject (Business, Psychology, Engineering, Sport, Art & Design) and find traditional exams challenging. Focussing on practical, skills-based learning, the BTEC students are assessed during the course. After each unit students are assessed through assignments, tasks or tests, and not at the end of the programme as it happens with GCSE or A-Level students.

university - foundation courses

From age 17, international students can opt to study one year foundation programmes, instead of A levels or IB. These courses lead to private examinations that are an alternative to A levels. Foundation courses at colleges are recognised by universities with whom they have partnerships.

Some universities also offer foundation courses that lead onto their own degree programmes.

Bright World has partnerships with a number of colleges and Pathway providers and can help place students into Foundation and Diploma courses in London and across the UK.

university - undergraduate study

In the UK, a British bachelors degree normally takes three years to complete and most are awarded at honours level. Examples of first degrees are: BA (Bachelor of Arts), BEng (Bachelor of Engineering), and BSc (Bachelor of Science).

State colleges offer some 2 year vocational diplomas that grant exemption from the first and sometimes second year of a degree programme. Some private tutorial colleges offer a one year diploma programme which is equivalent to year 1 of university. Students taking 1 year diplomas are awarded second year entry at some universities.

university - postgraduate study

Postgraduate courses in the UK education system are very intensive. This means that the courses are usually much shorter than in other countries. A master's degree typically takes 12 months to complete, for example an MA - Master of Arts and an MEng - Master of Engineering. An MBA (Master of Business Administration) is a high profile Masters course which can take 2 years. Applicants will usually be high achieving with at least 2 years managerial experience. A PhD research degree in the UK can take between 2 and 7 years.

boarding schools

Bright World works almost exclusively with privately funded schools and colleges. A boarding school is a residential school where pupils live and study during the school year. There are approximately 500 boarding schools across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

UK boarding schools offer pupils an outstanding education, helping them to develop their skills and progress to university. All UK boarding schools have to meet strict government standards on the quality of their teaching, facilities and student care.

Many UK boarding schools combine beautiful, centuries-old buildings with a mix of modern classrooms and traditional architecture. The excellent facilities help make living and learning a great experience and pupils will will improve their  English skills while they study.

tutorial colleges

Tutorial Colleges start at age 15 and have a more flexible programme range, focussing on fast access to UK university.

Many of the independent private sixth form colleges in Oxford, Cambridge and London work on a 'tutorial system' and are often referred to as 'tutorial colleges'. The tutorial system originates from Oxford and Cambridge Universities and is a very highly regarded and much tested system. It it is still used today and is the cornerstone of an 'Oxbridge' education. A tutorial is a small class of only a few students, in which the tutor (a lecturer or other academic faculty member) gives individual attention to the students.

state boarding schools

A state boarding school is one where you pay for boarding and the education is free. The government pays for the education as it would at any other state school in England.

Admission to state boarding schools in the UK is limited to children who are nationals of the UK and are eligible to hold a full UK passport, or those who are nationals of other European Union countries or those who have the right of residence in the UK. Please note that the holding of a BN(O) passport does not make the child eligible for a state boarding school in the UK.

F E Colleges

An FE college is an institution that provides education for those above school age (age 16). There are many types of FE colleges including, sixth form colleges, specialist colleges and adult education institutes. FE Colleges are state run and as such those members of the EU joining can benefit from free education. There is also a competitive fee structure available for non-EU international students.

pathway courses at university

If you need to improve your English language or study skills before attending a UK university, pathway providers offer unique foundation courses which often lead to direct degree-level entry upon completion. There are several private companies who operate Foundation and Diploma programmes on the campuses of UK universities. Often these courses offer accelerated access to undergraduate degrees.

universities

The UK is one of the world's most popular destination for students from overseas. In fact, more than 400,000 international students enrol each year.International students considering an education in the UK have a choice of over 140 universities and higher education institutions, each offering a great range of tertiary qualifications that will be recognised the world over. Students join a 3 year undergraduate programme or a 1 year postgraduate course.

UK university placement

For expert advice on UK and US university entry, Bright World has teamed up with Education Advisers Ltd, whose experienced consultants offer a full range of Higher Education services for international students. These range from complimentary advice on the best University Foundation courses, to bespoke Oxbridge and Medical School coaching and mentorship programmes. You can visit their websites at www.universityadvice.co.uk or www.best-schools.co.uk or call +44 1622 813870 for further information.

guardianship and school placement advice

Boarding school guardianship.

If your child is attending a boarding school you will need to nominate a UK guardian. Bright World can help you with this service.

university guardianship

If you are under 18 when you start university you will need to nominate a UK-based adult or guardian. Bright World has a programme especially for you.

boarding school placement

If you are looking for a place at a UK boarding school Bright World can help you.

enquire today

Bright world uk schools placement service.

Enquire today and receive our free Guide to British Education

read our online brochures

Bright world guardianship programme.

Bright World boarding school placements

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• Research for Development Outputs

Applying Systems Thinking to Education: The RISE Systems Framework

This essay presents the Framework as a useful approach for characterising the actors and interactions in the education system

This essay presents the RISE Education System Framework as a useful approach for characterising the key actors and interactions in the education system, thinking through how these interactions produce systems outcomes, and identifying ways to intervene that can shift the system towards better outcomes.

This research is part of the Research on Improving Systems of Education programme.

Spivack, M. 2021. Applying Systems Thinking to Education: The RISE Systems Framework. https://doi.org/10.35489/BSG-RISE-RI_2021/028

Is this page useful?

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. We’ll send you a link to a feedback form. It will take only 2 minutes to fill in. Don’t worry we won’t send you spam or share your email address with anyone.

Education policies in the UK since 1944 Essay

Introduction, origin of education policies, education policies post 1944, evaluation of the 1944 education act, the tripartite system, evaluation of tripartite system, the callaghan ruskin college speech, evaluation of callaghan’s speech, reference list.

Education policies have developed from the sixth century and it is still evolving up to the current day. The paper will look at a brief history of the evolution of education policies to the time period of the 1940’s decade and then focus on the major development of education policies from 1944 to the end of the 20 th Century.

Education policies have seen a major change from the Balfour act, the tripartite system, the 10/65 and had major professionals in the political and education systems try to change the way that education policies are formulated like Ellen Williamson, Winston Churchill and Callaghan among others.

Most of the education policies that were established in 1944 have remained the same especially in terms of administering bodies and duties of officials like the ministry of education and the local education authorities. The issue of funding for education has remained a contentious issue and it keeps on changing with the changes in the views and voting powers of the politicians in office.

Education was introduced in Britain by Romans in the sixth Century. The Romans introduced the learning of Latin and Christianity in Britain with the arrival of St. Augustine.

The schools were originally known as grammar schools and song schools whereby, individuals were prepared for performance and entry to other professions like civil service, teaching and many other careers. The grammar schools gave provision of general education services needed by individuals who wanted to enter into careers like law, medicine, astronomy and theology (ATL 2011, p.3).

In the late 19 th Century, the British government had established school boards that had been issued with the mandate of ensuring that elementary education was provided to locals in various areas where the schools were located.

Ainley and Allen (2010 p. 138) wrote that, “Using education to promote economic reconstruction and democracy would empower people to take an active part in a broader democratic discussion about the best policies for sustainability, economy and employment. Such an approach would represent an inversion of the master servant relationship of education to the economy.” The two authors try to imply that evolution of education policies are meant to change the society positively.

In current day, independent schools have been criticized for only considering elite cases which was not the original intention of education policies. Most grammar schools are not spared of criticism either due to their nature of being too selective when it comes to admitting students.

They also ask for a given amount of school fees for boarding facilities which prove restricting to parents. Most of the comprehensive schools in the country are also located in neighbourhoods where only rich individuals can be able to live, which further prove to be restrictive to many individuals. Public schools have not been spared either as most of their entry requirements are quite restrictive.

The entry requirements to most public schools are directed towards pupils who have attended private preparatory schools or have been privately tutored both of which are expensive options.

To try and bridge the gap created by the schools system being selective of students that can afford the expensive fees, the Thatcher government came up with Assisted Places Scheme in 1980 to assist able students whose parents or guardians could not be able to pay for the expensive fees required of public and independent schools. This policy was helpful to the society as it enabled children from lower income families to access education.

The change in the policies included the change in ages whereby, some schools established evening schools for adults and the established separate classes for students that were seen to show promise in class through their dedication and commitment to their studies. This led to outrage from other schools that were following the laid down school policies and also from the churches that felt that their followers were being taken away from them especially through the evening classes.

Other schools felt that their students would be tempted to leave their current schools and go to the schools that were not following established rules which the schools predicted would lead to depletion of their funds. In the early 20 th Century, the Balfour Education Act was established with the development of elementary schools that had been established by the government which also funded the schools.

The Balfour Act was established through the support of Arthur Balfour who had been elected to the Conservative government and he presented his education bill to the House of Commons. Balfour thought that England was not doing enough to stay ahead in the education front in terms of enrolment, curriculum and public support.

The Balfour Act made for a provision which gave room for two education systems with educational and social functions for individuals (Osler & Starkey 2005, p.33). This is an indication of the positive intentions of policy change to the members of the community.

Britain had been at war for about eight months with the Germans in the 1940’s. The then President of the Board of Education, Herwald Ramsbotham was able to lead the senior officers of the education board to form what would later be known as the 1944 Education Act.

The act, which had the support of the Prime minister, had the original intention of ensuring that students all over England got similar privileges and opportunities in education. The proposals that were made by the education board were documented in the ‘Education after the war- Green book’ (Ward & Eden 2009 p.666).

The book made the proposal that the differentiation that existed between elementary and secondary education should be removed and that education should be comprised of primary, secondary and higher education.

The proposals also set out that the role of ensuring that education is provided for the public who need it and that it should be made available by the local education authorities. The post war education system bill was passed by parliament under the persuasion of Butler and therefore, the 1944 education act is commonly known as the Butler Act (Ainley & Allen 2010, p.20).

The act served to set the guidelines for the ministry of education on which the Minister for education and the Central Advisory Councils for Education would get the guidelines for running education systems in England.

The statutory system of education was also provided for in the 1944 education act where guidelines were laid down with consideration of factors such as local education authorities, school management, transition arrangements, special education treatment, compulsory school age, provision for further education, secular instruction, appointment and dismissal of teachers, special education treatment, compulsory school age to be adhered to, higher education provision, prohibition of child labour and provision of services like feeding and medical services in specific schools (Crick 1998, p.333).

The education act of 1944 played a pivotal role in transforming the lives of British citizens. It ensured provision of education to all and advancement in science in science and technology.

The central administration act made reasonable appropriate demands on the minister of education who would have the duty of making an annual report to parliament on the progress of education in the various counties and county boroughs in England and Wales. The duties of the minister for education were set to be properly executed with the provision of offering of advisory services from Councils of education in England and in Wales.

Part II of the statutory system of education was organized into primary, secondary and further education levels. The intention of the education for all the levels was aimed at mental, physical, moral and spiritual growth and development of students. The local authorities of the areas around the schools had the duty of ensuring that the schools run smoothly as was expected.

The local authorities of the areas around the schools were also mandated with the duty of ensuring that children under the age of five attended nursery school so as to get a good base for their education. Children who had disabilities were also catered for in the education policies where appropriate facilities were made available to children who had disabilities (Tomlison 2010 p.6).

The local authorities also made it necessary to have religious studies available to schools so as to positively nourish the spirituality and morality of students that attended schools. Religious education was also expected to provide a good base for students who wanted to pursue careers that were religion specific for example clergy men.

In terms of religion, the local authority was issued with the necessary power to agree with local, regional and international religious leaders on the necessary religious instruction material to be used for students The local authority was also issued with a mandate for determining the best instructional material for the students and the best teaching methods to be used by teachers for effective learning. Religious education helped in shaping moral development of the British citizens.

Special schools were given a provision in the education act proposal whereby, the local authority was mandated with the duty of seeking medical attention on behalf of children that were suspected of having disabilities so that classification into different classes could be made and assistance to the children given accordingly.

If medical personnel recommended that a child needed special attention in school or more medical attention, it would be appropriate for the local authority to involve the parent in alternative forms of education for that particular child. A section in the education act also provided for a mandatory school going age for children between the ages of five and fifteen. Parents of children of this age were obligated to ensure that their children get the necessary education (Ward & Eden 2005 p.111).

The 1944 act might be criticized that it was made hurriedly with the intention of fast establishment of education policies to cater for the post war needs of Britain. It is however worthy to note that the education policies that were made were made with the intention of providing a good basis for the establishment and development of good education structure.

A good example of the positive effects of the establishment of proper education policies is the inclusion of both young and older children into the creation and cultivation of an education culture of trying to involve the children to actively and continuously make a positive change in their own lives and in the community.

Overall, the 1944 education act had a positive effect as it had the intention of providing medical and dental health, free milk and meals and free support services like transport and clothing grants to school going children. The 1944 education Act also had the provision which led to the development of the Central Advisory Councils of Education in both Wales and England. It is these two Central Advisory Councils that led to meaningful reports in the education sector (Osler & Starkey 2005 p.77).

The Central Advisory Councils for education came up with the 1959 Crowther Report which was about the education of 15 to 18 year olds, the 1963 Newsom Report which focused on educating children that were less capable in comparison to other children in schools and the 1967 Plowden Report that focused on children and their primary schools. The 1944 education act was amended in some sections by legislation in the year 1996 through the then Education Act.

Ellen Wilkinson had been the minister for education who had been elected to lead the ministry after the Second World War. Ellen Wilkinson was tasked with the mandate of seeing through the education act that had been established. Ellen liked the Act because she personally felt that the education Act gave the progress and fostered the growth and development of learners to become more creative and confident; both in the classroom and outside of the classroom (Tomlison 2000 p. 64).

Wilkinson had ambitions that included increasing the school going age of children to sixteen years old and to offer the meals to the school going children at no fee at all. The introduction of free milk was a success in schools but the introduction of free meals proved to be difficult which led to the depression and eventual death of the then education minister; Ellen Wilkinson. George Tomlison took over as the education minister in the beginning of the year 1947.

Tomlison hoped to publicize the comprehensive education system. In the comprehensive education system, all school going children were supposed to attend one common school instead of what was being witnessed at the time. The school going children were divided by the idea of making a choice between secondary, modern, grammar and specialist schools (Crick 1998, p.201).

Even politicians that supported the Labour party hoped that a new government would bring with it the introduction of an education system that would not favour any group of students but would instead offer equal opportunities for all school going children. This idea was however not achieved because of private schools and what was referred to as the direct grant schools did not change into the recommended universal schooling system where all the school going children were given equal opportunities.

Critics of the then government felt that not enough attempts were made to try and start up the universal education system. The Atlee government instead introduced the tripartite education system which had the grammar, technical and secondary modern schools ideas being implemented into workable systems.

The tripartite system had the goal of introducing three types of education systems that would be controlled and funded by the state. The modern schools that would be established had the aim of enrolling children who would be working class individuals and their future employment would not require them to have any specific knowledge or technical skill. Most of the politicians in the Labour party were against the proposal.

Once the education policy was discussed in parliament, the proposal was rejected on the basis that it offered no new insight into improvement of the existing education system (Tomlison 2000 p.88). In my opinion, this policy would have brought more harm than good to the intentions of education to the British citizens.

Critics argued that the tripartite system was similar to the system of education that needed to be abolished because it had only promoted conflict by stratifying individuals into different groups based on their wealth and social status.

The existing government however, worsened matters by making it difficult for some children to enter into the grammar schools, refusing some of the existing secondary schools to offer exams and declining to approve proposals that were presented by local authorities on issues concerning improvement of running of local schools.

The tripartite system increased competition of entry into grammar schools and promoted the concept among individuals that the working class children were of lower intelligence in comparison to other children. The development of primary education was therefore seen as taking a back seat as emphasis was now made on the teaching of students to pass exams so that they could gain entry into the present day competitive grammar schools, and not to gain knowledge that would be used in future.

In the years between 1951 and 1964, Britain saw the return of the Conservatism party which led to major reforms in the education sector. The conservatisms’ managed to come up with the 10/65 circular which had the goal of ending separation in the system of getting into schools by students.

The force with which members of the government who wanted to see change in the system of schools seemed to diminish with the existence of limitations in pursuance of elimination of division of the schools into different groups based on unfair systems. With the introduction of the Certificate of Secondary Education, there was even more pressures on schools to divide up the students to those that were performing and the non performers (Crick 1998 p.76).

The 1960s decade however saw the development of elementary school education to an education system that put a lot of emphasis on the development of individual personality of children rather than on formal education. This kind of education appreciated and valued that individuals are different and that education only might not be enough for an individual to succeed.

Callaghan made his speech in 1976 where he made it known that the curriculum did not put enough emphasis on skills that were needed by students such as basic reading, writing and arithmetic.

He felt that teachers, employers, parents and trade unions should be allowed to discuss the effects of education on the school going children and whether they benefited from the education that they get from the schools or whether it is just a formality. Callaghan felt that there was a deficit in the education that was being provided in schools especially when matched up to the economic needs needed by the country in order to remain competitive in the global market (Osler & Starskey 2005, p.55).

Callaghan’s speech was not fully welcomed as it was seen by many people as being an attack on the teachers who felt that they did the necessary things to ensure that students learn what is necessary. The speech however, inspired some changes in the education system with the establishment of Assessment of Performance Unit and the mass Testing of Local education Authorities. The education sector saw a minor restructuring with its integration into the social and economic sectors (Tomlison 2000 p.391).

The aim of the education policies by Margaret Thatcher was to change the system of public schools to become more profitable and to change their governance from local authorities to the central government. One of the primary motives for Thatcher was to try and equalize the opportunities made available to pupils when entering into schools regardless of their social or economic backgrounds.

The 1974 Act seemed to flop as most of the politicians were seen to prefer policies that would put up more secondary schools instead of increasing pressure on the already existing secondary schools to select from a wider range of pool of pupils especially the secondary schools.

Unfortunately, some of the education policies seem to have changed to the disadvantage for the majority of English citizens because most parents would like to take their children to good schools but they have restrictions based on academic capability of the students and the financial capability of their parents.

Most of the education policies that were made in 1944 have remained intact and have benefitted English citizens in terms of provision of free primary and secondary education. Higher education is made available to English citizens at reduced fees in comparison to international students.

Education is an important part of the society as it produces civilized individuals. Education cannot however compensate for society as they both need each other to survive. The society needs education in order to produce skilled and educated people who know how to behave in the society.

A society has rules and regulations and when most people are educated, they do not have to keep on being followed so that they can follow the rules. Education needs the society so that it can develop into a system that benefits the society and develops with time so as to help future generations (Osler & Starkey 2005 p. 58).

With the recent economic crisis, most of the educated young people do not have jobs and most of them feel that the education system has let them down for giving them training that does not offer them jobs. Education can therefore not compensate for society.

Ainley, P. & Allen, M., 2010. Lost Generation? New strategies for youth and education . London: Continuum.

ATL., 2011. The future of state education: how everything you value is disappearing , London: Association of Teachers and Lecturers.

Crick, B., 1998. Education for Citizenship and the teaching of Democracy Schools: Final Report of The advisory group on Citizenship . New Yolk, NY: Bradshaw Press.

Osler, A. & Starkey, H., 2005. Changing Citizenship, Democracy and Inclusion in Education , Buckingham: Open University Press.

Tomlinson, S., 2000. Education in a post welfare society, Second Edition. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Ward, S., & Eden, C., 2009. Key Issues in Education Policy . London: Sage.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 2). Education policies in the UK since 1944. https://ivypanda.com/essays/education-policies-in-the-uk-since-1944-essay/

"Education policies in the UK since 1944." IvyPanda , 2 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/education-policies-in-the-uk-since-1944-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Education policies in the UK since 1944'. 2 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Education policies in the UK since 1944." December 2, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/education-policies-in-the-uk-since-1944-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Education policies in the UK since 1944." December 2, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/education-policies-in-the-uk-since-1944-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Education policies in the UK since 1944." December 2, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/education-policies-in-the-uk-since-1944-essay/.

• Literature Studies: "Mellow Yellow" by Barry Callaghan
• Education Act (1944)
• The Balfour Declaration: Israel Creation and Palestinian Conflict
• Classical Music: Merriam’s Tripartite Model of Music
• The Balfour Declaration Centennial
• The Events and Importance of the Battle of Carentan
• The 19th or 20th Century
• The Tripartite Model and Nursing Educators
• IMF Conditionality Policy Causes and Effects
• Analysis of Two Anne Frank’s Entries
• Defining and Measuring Intelligence
• Defining Literacy Concept
• Standardized Tests
• Raising Young Genii: Learning Several Languages in the Early Years
• A Strategic Plan to Involve School-Family-Community Partnerships via Service Learning

Schoolshistory.org.uk

History resources, stories and news. Author: Dan Moorhouse

A Brief History of UK education Through the Ages

Education in the UK has changed a great deal over the centuries. In ancient times, teaching was mainly carried out by priests and prophets who generally only taught the children of rich people. They would show them how to become leaders and businessmen, to take over this role when their turn came. Eventually, the Roman Catholic Church took charge of teaching the children of nobles and some of their centers of learning still exist today, such as Cambridge University whose first college was St. Peters that was established in 1284.

However, before this, in Saxon times religious institutions had set up schools for children that were not of noble birth, although it was mainly a matter of choice who attended them. It was not until 1880 that education became compulsory for 5 to 10-year olds, and then gradually the leaving age was raised until it reached 18 in 2015.

The Evolution of Further Education

It was 1836 when the government gave permission for the first school of design to be created, and this was the start of further education in the UK. By 1856, the Science and Art Department of the Board of Trade has become responsible for giving grant-aid to schools of a technical or design nature. Progress in further education continued slowly until the end of the 19 th century by which time it had become available at day schools, night schools, various institutes, polytechnics, universities and working men’s clubs and colleges. It was 1902 before the responsibility for further education was passed to the Local Education Authorities, but it was after the second world war before commercials schools of further education were fully integrated into the UK education system.

The University Years

As the years have passed, the importance of further education has become much more apparent. For several years, anyone that wanted to qualify in a profession such as medicine or law would attend university to get their degree. This did restrict the number of students that studied because of the room that each university had to accommodate students, and the places were generally taken by younger people.

The Advent of Online Learning

Online courses have become so popular that there is some debate as to whether they will eventually mean the end of traditional colleges and universities. When you consider that Aston University, for instance, offers a business analytics masters online that has flexible study options, six different start dates and helps you to build connections with peers and future business leaders, it is clear this is a great option.

Studying online does away with the need to commute, means you can save cash by eating at home and fit the work in with your lifestyle whether you have a full-time job or are a stay-at-home parent. You are taught to the same standard as if you attended a class-based course and only get your certification if you pass the same exam. There are online tutorials and any help you need when you need it, and when you consider all these things it is easy to see why more people are opting to get their degrees online and university numbers are falling.

Education has continued to evolve in schools too, and no doubt technology has also played a large part in that too.

• ← Shining a light on Marsden: A history of a demolished Category D mining village.
• WITCH! →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• 37453 Share on Facebook
• 2360 Share on Twitter
• 6796 Share on Pinterest
• 2946 Share on LinkedIn
• 5399 Share on Email

Subscribe to our Free Newsletter, Complete with Exclusive History Content

Thanks, I’m not interested

• Teaching secondary
• Lesson plans
• Secondary lesson plans - Intermediate B1

UK educational system

This lesson looks at various aspects of the UK educational system, the concept of a 'gap-year' and school reunions.

Introduction

In this lesson, learners are introduced to the names of some main school stages and national exams and are given the chance to compare with their country's educational system. Then they practise note-taking and speaking skills with a jigsaw reading activity based on a text about gap years from the British Council's Trend UK department and plan their perfect gap year with a partner. Finally they think about different school rules, then they imagine it is the year 2040 and write a post for their school's reunion website, telling their old schoolmates about their lives in 2040.

If you haven't had first-hand experience of the UK educational system yourself, you can have a look at these links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_Kingdom https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum https://www.hmc.org.uk/about-hmc/projects/the-british-education-system/

There are differences in the educational systems in the different countries that make up the UK, so bear this in mind. 

• To learn vocabulary of schools and exams
• To compare educational systems
• To practise reading skills
• To practise writing skills

Young learners aged 12+ or adults

CEFR level B1

60–90 minutes

The lesson plan, worksheet and reading texts can be downloaded in PDF format below.

Research and insight

Browse fascinating case studies, research papers, publications and books by researchers and ELT experts from around the world.

See our publications, research and insight

UK Education System Essays

Us and uk education system, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

Are schools meritocratic?

Last Updated on January 15, 2019 by Karl Thompson

In this post I apply some sociological concepts to develop arguments for and against the view that schools are meritocratic.

This post is really designed to show students how they can apply concepts to this question from across the sociology of education topic within A-level sociology.

Arguments for the view that education is meritocratic 

Particularistic values

Functionalists argue that at in school students are judged by universalistic values, so it is more meritocratic than at home where children are judged by different particularistic values.

Cultural deprivation

Schools offer children equality of opportunity and so are fair, it’s the inferior values of working-class parents such as immediate gratification that stops them achieving.

School ethos

Nearly all schools today, especially academies have a high ethos of achievement.

Pupil Premium

Introduced under The Coalition government , this encourages schools to accept more students from poor backgrounds, helping to combat selection by mortgage, which is not meritocratic.

Other supporting concepts and evidence

Life-long learning, parity of esteem, expansion of modern apprenticeships, compensatory education.

Arguments and evidence against the view that education is meritocratic 

Correspondence principle

In state school children are taught to obey authority and accept hierarchy rather than to use their talents to achieve.

Cultural capital

Middle class parents have always been more able than working class parents to use their skills to get their kids into the best schools, thus there is not real equality of opportunity

Teacher labelling

Teachers are more likely to negatively label boys, working class and Black Caribbean children as problem students, meaning they are held back through being put in lower bands.

1988 Education Act

Unfairly benefitted middle class parents through selection by mortgage and the school-parent alliance.

Other criticising concepts and evidence

Banding and streaming, myth of meritocracy, hidden curriculum, ethnocentric curriculum.

Sociology Teaching Resources for Sale

If you’re a sociology teacher and you like this sort of thing, and you want to support my resource development work, then you might like these teaching resources for the sociology of education . They are specifically designed for A-level sociology students and consist of three documents:

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

• Free Samples
• Premium Essays
• Editing Services Editing Proofreading Rewriting
• Extra Tools Essay Topic Generator Thesis Generator Citation Generator GPA Calculator Study Guides Donate Paper
• Essay Writing Help
• About Us About Us Testimonials FAQ
• Studentshare
• The UK vs the USA Education System

The UK vs the USA Education System - Essay Example

• Subject: English
• Type: Essay
• Level: Undergraduate
• Pages: 4 (1000 words)
• Downloads: 2
• Author: vwilliamson

Extract of sample "The UK vs the USA Education System"

• Cited: 0 times
• Copy Citation Citation is copied Copy Citation Citation is copied Copy Citation Citation is copied

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF The UK vs the USA Education System

Management and delivery of uk higher education, education in the us prison system, compare education system differences between us and china, the reform in the us education system, ethnic minorities in usa and uk jail, critical analysis of the uk: hsbc bank, national healthcare system in the uk, african americans and the us education system.

• TERMS & CONDITIONS
• PRIVACY POLICY
• COOKIES POLICY