Standards of education in UK

"No doubt there are children in the school whose housing, clothing and nutrition fall below standards considered minimal for a decent life in modern society. But, so the argument runs, these children come from homes in communities where there is life of such cultural richness and energy that it is probably culturally equal or superior to life amongst the middle class. On this view, the economically deprived can only be put at a cultural disadvantage by neglect of their culture in the schools which are essentially middle-class institutions." : Class, Culture and Education: Harold Entwistle

Language is power and words influence our thinking and actions. For instance, in evaluating school's performance, a serious account is taken of the terms like FSM (pupils eligible for free school meals), EAL (pupils with English as an additional language) and SEN (pupils with special educational needs) simply to justify any underachievement by pupils.

Free school meals may have some correlation with pupils' achievement, but are the socio-cultural experiences of FSM pupils living in inner-city tower blocks same as of those living in leafy suburbs. In other words, is the impact of FSM on pupils' education universal?

The ‘free school meals' implications appear to be different in different communities. In shire counties low performance of ‘FSM' pupils is usually associated with their disaffection or their families' lack of appreciation for education. In ethnic minority communities which include Asians, refugee and recent arrivals, the ‘FSM' situation is because of high unemployment amongst these communities; otherwise these pupils are from stable family units, well motivated, have good attitudes to learning and want to do well. This emphasis is missing from the key education publications that are used to evaluate education standards in the UK schools.

It was not long ago that the term ESN (Educationally Sub Normal) was used for children of African and Caribbean origin, and ESL (English as Second Language) for children of Asian background – both terms created specific structures that had little educational validity.

A bulk of the so called EAL children is now second/third generation born in UK. They have English as the spoken language at home and they generally do better in learning languages than others. Their educational needs are no different than others but of course they are of non-UK background. Is the EAL a heritage tag to keep immigrants always an immigrant? Or is it very difficult not to be influenced by the 1960s' political response to the perceived 'problem'.

There are some non-UK background children who, for one reason or the other, might be at an early stage of acquiring English language though quite sufficient in comprehension and expression if appropriate media is used. They need support both in terms of accessing the curriculum and English language development. Should their specific needs put everyone else with similar background in the EAL category? What is the educational significance of EAL category, anyway?

It is sad to see that these children are defined in terms of the language that their parents speak or their ancestors spoke, and that they are implicitly included within the unfavourable characteristics of a school. Whilst the politicians and some education agencies suggest (for obvious reasons) a focus on the underachievement by EM pupils, the education services tend to justify rather than address the underachievement.

SEN : This includes pupils with emotional and behaviour difficulties, mild/serious learning difficulties, physical difficulties and so on. Do all these groups of pupils put equal demands on school's services?

NB: A noticeable presence of visible immigrant minorities in the UK in 1960s and their alienation from main British institutions opened up all the contradiction within 'class' and 'gender' and hence the formation of several equal opportunities legislations, covering race, gender, disability etc. The 'race' dimension, however, has remained obscured because the scope of equal opportunities has been too widened. Likewise, the 'inclusion' is too wide: in addition to racial groups, there are at least 19 other groups of pupils who come within the scope of educational inclusion, with a much higher focus on pupils with the special educational needs and disability (under the provisions of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001).

Can the education system and its agencies really practise the principle of 'different but equal'?