Is The Education System Built for Everyone ?

By Imogen Kate Ainsworth

There are many education systems throughout the world, but how does each one tackle the issue of equality? What are the factors which influence a student’s ability to thrive and perform beyond expectation? This lies in how students are challenged, evaluated and expected to perform by the education systems.

How are student’s capabilities suitably challenged?

As no students are built with the same needs, many schools implement a ‘streaming’ ; where students are separated based on individual skills in maths, science and foreign languages. The point of this method is designed so that students who are more highly performing will be suitably challenged, whereas the students facing difficulties will have more support to reach their potential within this subject.

Indeed, some countries implement extreme streaming, as seen in Austria, Germany ,and especially Singapore. In Austria and Germany, students are put forward to different secondary schools based on general grades and teacher comments, in Singapore there is a much more standardised system. At the end of Primary school, 12 year old students will sit the PSLE exam, a high stakes exam in which only the top 50% of students will be able to reach the more academic schools which allow them to reach ‘elite jobs’; this leaves the other 50% studying vocational courses such as hospitality and construction, which whilst being necessary, are often shunned by society as jobs for the mentally challenged. The excessive pressure placed on the top percentile can lead to poor mental health and a disrupted relationship with education and learning, so is there an alternative?

In Finnish schools, students of different abilities are mixed across all subjects, in the belief that this leads to higher socialisation between children, less competitiveness, and

moreover that the higher capability students can reinforce their learning via helping students who are struggling, as backed up by the EEF 2025 guidance report, which states’ that “Wider evidence from the EEF Teaching and Learning Toolkit also shows that, on average, streaming has a negative impact for low attaining pupils”.

By contrast, Singapore’s comparatively extreme system highlights the different skills necessary within society, and there are government schemes to reduce the stigma of these vocational pathways. Overall, whilst the streaming system matches students to more specialist subjects, it could be criticised for putting too high of a pressure on students which in turn can reduce mental health due to student’s futures resting on their performance within these tests. This isn’t to say that the Finnish system is perfect, as Singapore scored higher on the 2012 PISA tests, which assess education systems across the world in order to provide comparisons, furthermore, Finnish students could struggle with finding their place in society, partially due to this more ‘laid back’ approach.

How do we compare students and schools?

In order for students to move onto the next stage of education, there is often some form of standardised testing, within the UK this is GCSEs and A-levels, and usually taken at 16 and 18 and each in turn influences which sixth forms and universities students can get into.

GCSEs and A-levels are standardised by specific exam boards, meaning that most students across the country sit the exam concurrently - this is meant to be the most unbiased system to test aptitude for writing skills and critical thinking, but mostly subject knowledge. These exams have very similar issues to the PSLE in Singapore, as they can lead to extreme stress and poor student and teacher mental health, as the higher the number of passing or students meeting their EXS or GDS (predicted grades from key stage one performance, are either expected- EXS- or greater-GDS) will reflect on the school as a whole and on individual teachers.

These standardised tests not only impact students as they take them, but their entire learning experience up until this point, as learning is based around ‘exam style questions’; it has been found that many students struggle to transfer these skills to real life situations post graduation, in a form of maladaptive perfectionism, as there is no grade (or incentive) to achieve in real life scenarios. Furthermore, these evaluations of students do not take heed to the fact that students are heterogeneous, with varied backgrounds which can affect exam performance, such as at-home abuse issues or neurological differences.

Whilst these needs may be discussed, and students given specialist arrangements such as scribes or separate rooms, many still perform below their expected level due to the assessment style not suiting them. In 2015, the NEET project, which helps adolescents not in education, employment or training due to reasons such as homelessness or abuse, led a reward session in which students' maths and critical reasoning skills were tested in an ‘escape room’ environment, under a 60 minute time constraint. It was found that these students, who struggled within exam settings which would test the same skills, excelled when tested on skills they found to be “exciting and relevant” within this alternative assessment.

This evaluation method relied less on ‘rote memorisation’ and indeed was a much more enjoyable experience for students, resulting in fewer of the issues seen in standardised testing, showcasing an innovative approach which could demonstrate more skills and knowledge than paper based exams, whilst allowing students to enjoy learning much more. Yet, these types of exams require more funding and could be prone to more teacher or student bias, leading to a separate alternative which is seen in schools today: the NEA(non examined assessment). These take place most commonly in practical subjects; nutrition, design technology and textiles. In the 20th century education system this was a different reality, as language coursework would consist of a singular written essay, or a collection, which used the trust in teacher assessment to assemble a comparable student grade. These assessments would hold less pressure, give more trust in both students and teachers whilst also teaching separate skills, such as time management. In the modern age, these kinds of assessments may be prone to AI misuse, however when done in a classroom environment with computer controls they could be a much more inclusive and accurate way of representing a student’s ability.

Are there different expectations of students based on factors outside of their control?

Students are humans, therefore innately rely on their environment, requiring nurture and care in order to excel in their studies, but when a student needs more care than another student to reach the same goal, do they receive it? Indeed, are their options reduced as a result?

The concept of equity is that each person should be given the resources they need to have equal opportunity so that everyone is starting on a level playing field, but in our current education systems, many children don’t receive this little bit of extra help to succeed, so they are left at a disadvantage. Actually, evidence shows that pupils with SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) often experience a lower quality and quantity of teaching,as seen in the Special Education Needs in Mainstream Schools guidance report “This situation could lead to pupils with SEND experiencing a lower quality of teaching, especially if provided by a less experienced or less-qualified member of staff”, even when they may need more of that support.

Another environmental factor students can’t control is their financial status. In the UK only 7% of children attend private education, yet students who attend these schools are more likely to achieve better grades and reach a higher status in society. For example 82% of the UK’s Prime Minister’s were privately educated, and more generally private school students are 5 times more likely to enter ‘elite’ jobs, not purely from the education, but also the contacts made in privileged schools. This suggests that universities and elite jobs can be biased towards richer students. An even starker comparison is between those in state schools who do or don’t receive free school meals (FMS): 1⁄3 of those who receive FMS achieve good GCSE results compared to 2⁄3 of those who don’t. These statistics could portray a limited student mindset based on the discussed environmental factors, or even a lack of role models with similar challenges. There are now movements across the world to reduce the financial educational gap, with programmes such as the IB (International Baccalaureate) providing scholarships for gifted students, and offering a wider curriculum for broader representation of different aspects of education such as vocational skills and critical thinking. Yet 75% of IB funding goes into private schools, whereas it can only be effective across the board if it becomes mainstream.

Whilst the financial education gap is the highest gap in education in the western world, gender is the next largest, especially when it comes to STEM subjects. This is seen across higher education, as only 24% of those entering A-level physics were female in the UK in 2025, possibly due to gender stereotypes that women are ‘less logical’, therefore may struggle more with these kinds of subjects, as shown with “girls tend not to identify with science, and this impacts their movement along science trajectories”-Brickhouse, Lowery & Schultz 2000. This is a societal concept which affects the subconscious choices of young people when specialising in subjects, with only 32% of 2023 French STEM graduates being women. Projects to increase women’s voices in STEM and financial incentives to study it for girls have increased, such as the Margaret Campbell Scott scholarship for astrophysics at Edinburgh University, a €573 grant for university living based on academic excellence, which counteracts the consistent dropping of girls entering science and engineering at each stage of the education system.

What can we take from this?

In conclusion, the education system is built equally, in the way that it is built for no one. It tends towards assuming each student has the same, middling skillset, and attempts to push each student into this box. How could education become more equal? Through the mainstreaming of programs such as the IB and using forms of the innovation which NEET so clearly displayed. This would aid the goal of equity within education, especially towards pupils with SEND or receiving FMS, whilst also preserving a student’s love for learning, but most importantly a student’s mental health.