Splendid Contributions and Flawed Conclusions

This book has a lot going for it. Having identified five school systems in other countries that generate consistently high scores in comparative studies of reading, mathematics, and science achievement, it uncovers key structural features of those systems and argues that the (less impressive) achievements of American schools would be improved if they adopted those features. This refreshing thesis is well argued and is backed by detailed discussions of education in the five non-American systems, and for these reasons alone this book should be read by all persons concerned with improving American education.

On the other hand, this book concludes that by identifying school systems that lead in three specific types of achievement, these systems are (therefore) among “the best in the world,” and by adopting their features the U.S. would (of course) join their ranks. This shaky conclusion ignores important aspects of American education that have not yet been assessed in comparative studies, among them unique and valued tasks and curricula that have long characterized education in the United States. As well, this book concludes that if American education were only to adopt the features of these “leading nations,” the achievements of American schools would thereafter match if not “surpass” those found in such nations. This even shakier conclusion ignores extensive research concerned with serious societal problems that are known to debilitate school achievement in the United States, crucially America’s huge rate of youth poverty, highest in the advanced world. Thus, Americans who truly want to understand and improve their education system should be suspicious of this book’s overly ambitious conclusions.

As a rule, Americans are remarkably insular, and most persons who promote specific “reforms” for American education seem to be unaware that they might learn anything from other countries. In sharp contrast, this book makes a strong case for learning from the features of successful, non-American education systems. Five such systems are targeted, those of: Finland, Japan, Singapore, Ontario (within Canada), and Shanghai (within China). As this work shows, schools within each of these venues generate consistently high scores in comparative studies of reading, mathematics, and science achievement, and it carefully teases out features of education in each venue presumably responsible for such high scores. Some of these features appear in several venues (but not the United States). In particular, two features seem to be crucial for “success of the countries with the best education record . . . [a] quality teaching force . . . [and] coherence in the design of the overall education system itself” (p. 205). In detail, by comparison, teacher quality in the United States is said to falter because:

low standards persist for entry into American teaching;

much of teacher education takes place in second- and third-tier institutions;

too often, teachers are not required to have mastery of the subjects they teach;

salaries for teachers are lower than those for comparable professions;

teachers are often not given salary “loadings” for work in disadvantaged settings; and

the teaching profession lacks secure career ladders.

And, by comparison, the American education system is said to lack:

clear goals agreed to by both the public and the profession;

clear gateways and world-class standards for student advancement in education;

logically ordered curricula for the basic education sequence; and

curricula for all subjects that are tied to gateway exams and standards.

These and related conclusions suggest agenda for needed “reforms” of education in the United States and pose a major challenge to conventional American thinking about the topic. ¹

But does this mean that all of these conclusions truly apply in the American case? From their beginnings, public schools in the United States were asked not only to provide instruction in “The Three Rs,” but also to prepare students for thoughtful participation in a democracy. To my knowledge, no comparative study has yet examined achievement for this latter topic (and one wonders how the schools of Shanghai, for example, would fare if assessed for it). Over the years, American schools have also expanded their core curricula to include many different subjects (literature and history, civics or American government, hygiene and psychology, foreign languages, music, theater, and the arts, for example), and American high schools now offer instruction in a host of career-relevant subjects (ranging from typing and auto mechanics to computer programming, ballet dancing, and flower arranging). In other advanced countries, subjects such as these are usually taught in nonacademic secondary schools whose students have failed to pass gateway exams, but Americans are committed to “comprehensive” high schools in which a broad range of subjects is offered and students can sample various interests and career lines. Needless to say, most of these many subjects have not been examined in comparative studies either, nor have such studies assessed the breadth of student interests or knowledge. And because institutions providing support for youths are largely missing in American communities, American schools typically provide additional, nonacademic services for students (such as athletic programs that provide entry into professional sports, driving instruction, free meals for students from low-income homes, nursing services, and community outreach programs). Such services are also broadly approved in America, but the goals they represent have again not been examined in comparative studies. Given these many nonassessed strengths of American education, to conclude that other nations with narrower, more focused education systems are “superior” just because they score more highly on these three tests of achievement embraces a view of education more in line with the self-serving, conservative values of corporate leaders than the broader vision for education held by most Americans. (Note, however, that this argument raises fewer concerns about this book’s challenging conclusions concerned with teacher quality.) ²

This book also concludes that the achievements of American education would surely match or exceed those of other “world’s leading systems” if only it adopted the practices of those systems, but this conclusion is directly challenged by extensive research showing that serious societal problems also debilitate school achievement in the United States. Of these problems, the most devastating is America’s uniquely huge rate of youth poverty. In brief, roughly one quarter of all American youths are now impoverished, and for perhaps half that number, impoverishment is a “deep” or “long-lasting” experience. Such youth poverty rates far exceed those for the impoverishment of adults and the elderly in the United States as well as those for youth poverty in all other advanced countries—where rates range from half of those for America to 5% or less in Scandinavian countries (such as Finland). Nor is youth poverty an “innocent” experience; impoverished youths in the United States suffer far higher rates of illness, physical and mental impairments, lexical problems, disrupted lives, early deaths, and—crucially—failure in education.

Why should the latter occur? Because, in America, impoverished youths encounter five major types of problems—some outside of and some within schools but all studied extensively—that generate serious burdens for youths:

They live in impoverished homes (not tolerated in other advanced nations) where overcrowding, stressed-out parents, and poisons (such as lead paint) are often present, and adequate nutrition, reading materials, decent clothing, and “enrichment” experiences are in short supply.

They often reside in impoverished neighborhood ghettos (also not tolerated elsewhere) where good transportation, job opportunities, positive role models, and other resources are missing, and filth, violence, illegal drugs, and youth gangs abound.

(Because of America’s uniquely huge rate of youth poverty and America’s toleration for poverty ghettos) they often attend neighborhood schools where many other students are also impoverished (and may also be stigmatized for membership in minority groups)—conditions that too often generate a climate dominated by serious student problems, low staff morale, and abysmal standards for academic achievement.

(Because America draws uniquely on local resources to fund education, and impoverished students often live in cash-starved communities) they attend schools where per-student funding is one third (or less) of that provided for schools in nearby affluent suburbs, thus creating an environment where key curricular resources, staff salaries, enrichment programs, and even basic maintenance of buildings are miserably funded.

They are very likely to attend schools where they become victims of (uniquely American) prejudices and selection processes tracking them into “remedial” programs, low-demand courses, and low-status career options that suggest inherent lack of educability.

Taken together, these problems pose serious burdens for impoverished youths in America; those burdens strongly interfere with those youths’ academic success, and no evidence has yet appeared suggesting that their effects can be overcome by adopting either the nostrums now being touted for American educational “reform” or the educational practices of other “successful” nations. ³ As well, these problems create sharply different levels of aggregate achievement that have long appeared among America’s schools. In America, schools with many impoverished students are also likely to receive poor funding, and this means that their achievement levels should be miserable—whereas other (largely suburban) schools face neither problem, and their achievements should already be “world class”—and this effect has also been confirmed by data from well-constructed comparative studies! ⁴ Unfortunately, this book reveals little awareness of these five problems, their effects, and the crucial role played by youth poverty in American education, and this raises serious questions about its overarching claims.

To summarize then, because of its stance urging greater awareness of educational practices elsewhere, the data it provides, and its challenging claims (particularly those focused on improving teacher quality), this book should be read by all persons concerned with improving American education. But readers should also bear in mind that key features of American education are not discussed in this book—its many strengths, as well as how massive youth poverty generates many of its failures—and those readers should be prepared to discount this book’s overly ambitious conclusions.