‘The Smartest Kids in the World: And How They Got That Way’ by Amanda Ripley (Simon and Schuster; August 13, 2013)
Table of Contents:
i. Introduction/Synopsis
PART I: PISA SCORES AND AMERICA’S EDUCATION WOES
1. Comparing High School Students from Around the World: The PISA Test
a. The PISA Test
b. Why the PISA Test Matters: PISA Scores = Economic Success
2. What’s Wrong With America’s Education System?
PART II: EDUCATION IN SOUTH KOREA
3. The Korean School Day: From 8 O’clock in the Morning to 11 O’clock in the Evening (And Beyond)
a. The Korean School Day
b. When Korean Students Sleep
4. 1 Key to Korean Success: Private Hagwons
5. Korean Parents Vs. American Parents: The Coaching Approach vs. The Cheerleading Approach
a. Korean Parents: The Coaching Approach
b. American Parents: The Cheerleading Approach
c. When Coaching and Pushing Are Taken Too Far
6. Why South Korea Is So Obsessed With Education: The University Entrance Exam
PART III: EDUCATION IN FINLAND
7. Finnish Teachers’ Colleges Vs. American Teachers’ Colleges
a. Entrance Requirements
b. Teacher Training
c. The Impact on Outcomes, and Efforts at Reform in America
PART IV: EDUCATION IN POLAND
8. Poland’s Education Reforms
9. Raising Curriculum Standards
10. Standardized Testing and Added Professional Development for Teachers
a. Standardized Testing
i. Standardized Graduation Exams
ii. Standardized Testing at Lower Grades
b. Added Professional Development for Teachers
11. Delaying the Tracking of Students
12. Conclusion
i. Introduction/Synopsis
In the recent past the K-12 public education system in the United States has been lackluster at best (some might say deplorable). Not that the various levels of government have not put in a great deal of effort (and money) to try and fix the problem; indeed, numerous attempts at education reform have been tried over the past 20 years or so, and the US currently spends more on public education per student than any other nation. Still, all of these good intentions (and boatloads of money) have achieved relatively little in terms of results. When compared with other developed nations, for example, American high school students currently rank 12th in reading, 17th in science, and a paltry 26th in math. These numbers would be concerning even at the best of times, but with the nation currently struggling through a seemingly endless economic slow-down, and with the global economy becoming increasingly competitive (and modern jobs requiring more and more advanced cognitive skills all the time), these numbers are very troubling indeed.
All is not lost, though. Other nations have shown that they are able to achieve far better academic results using far less money, and thus we may deem it high time that we investigate just what the leading nations are doing different that has allowed them to be so successful. It is this very project that journalist Amanda Ripley sets for herself in her new book The Smartest Kids in the World: And How They Got That Way.
Ripley focuses her attention on the education systems of 3 countries in particular: South Korea, Finland and Poland. South Korea and Finland are chosen due to their being on top of the world when it comes to academic results, while Poland is chosen since it has recently been able to improve academic outcomes greatly despite the fact that the country faces many of the same challenges as the US—including especially a high rate of child poverty.
When it comes to the author’s approach in the book, it is very much that of the investigative journalist: Ripley relies heavily on interviews with specific players in the education systems of the various countries at play (including students, teachers, principals, and politicians); and her main sources are 3 American exchange students (Eric, Kim and Tom) who spend a year immersed in the education systems of the respective countries (both Kim and Tom blogged their experiences [though Tim has since erased his blog]. Kim’s blog is here: http://kimsafsjourney.blogspot.ca/).
When it comes to South Korea, we find that this country’s edge in education has to do mainly with the very intense motivation and hard work on the part of the students. This is a culture where it is no exaggeration to say that most students spend every waking minute on school work: students spend all day at school, eat dinner at school, and then proceed from there to private tutoring schools (called hagwons), where they study right up until bed-time (and often beyond it). The reason for this intense focus on education is that there is very fierce competition to be accepted into one of the few best universities in the country, and only those who score in the top 2% on a single test at the end of high school are allowed in (a set of circumstances that most Koreans actually resent, but which they nonetheless feel compelled to play along with).
In Finland we find that academic outcomes are on par with those in South Korea, but that the students here have achieved these results without the same level of acute devotion displayed in South Korea. Indeed, Finland’s edge in education appears to derive not so much from excessive studying, but from its very high quality of teachers—which begins with Finland’s exceptional teachers’ colleges. Specifically, the country’s few accredited teachers’ colleges are very selective in terms of who they accept, and the teacher education programs in Finland are themselves very lengthy and rigorous.
In Poland we find that the country’s improvements in academic outcomes as of late may be attributed to a host of recent reforms. These include the ratcheting up of the country’s education curriculum and standards; the awarding of more funds to vocational schools and schools that under-perform in terms of academic outcomes; and the delaying of the streaming of students (i.e., separating students into academic and vocational classes.
Beyond their peculiarities, we find that there is one thing that all 3 countries have in common (which is also shared by all nations that perform well when it comes to academics); and that is that they all maintain very high educational expectations and standards, and these standards are consistently tested in a way that holds real consequences for the students and their future prospects.
Here is a trailer for the book:
*To check out the book at Amazon.com, or purchase it, please click here: The Smartest Kids in the World: And How They Got That Way. The book is also available as an audio file from Audible.com here: Audio Book.
What follows is a full executive summary of The Smartest Kids in the World: And How They Got That Way by Amanda Ripley.
PART I: PISA SCORES AND AMERICA’S EDUCATION WOES
1. Comparing High School Students from Around the World: The PISA Test
a. The PISA Test
When it comes to comparing the education levels of high school students from different countries, the test that is currently used is known as the PISA (for Programme for International Student Assessment). It was developed by the OECD in the late 1990s, and was first administered in the year 2000 (in 43 participating countries) (loc. 235). Since that time, the PISA has been administered every 3 years (in 2003, 2006, 2009 and 2012)—to a sample of students in each of the participating countries (loc. 259).
Like the tests that came before it (of which there were many), the PISA evaluates students in 3 areas: reading, science and math. However, there is one important respect in which the PISA differs from its predecessors. And that is that instead of evaluating rote knowledge, the PISA is designed to test students’ ability to think critically. As Ripley explains, “other international tests had come before PISA, each with their own forgettable acronym, but they tended to assess what kids had memorized, or what their teachers had drilled into their heads in the classroom. Those tests usually quantified students’ preparedness for more schooling, not their preparedness for life. None measured teenagers’ ability to think critically and solve new problems in math, reading, and science. The promise of PISA was that it would reveal which countries were teaching kids to think for themselves” (loc. 246).
When it comes to the kinds of questions found on the PISA (and how they differ from the questions on tests that came before it), Ripley puts it this way: “instead of a typical test question, which might ask which combination of coins you needed to buy something, PISA asked you to design your own coins, right there in the test booklet” (loc. 238). More concretely, here is an actual example of a question on a past PISA test:
“A TV reporter showed this graph and said: ‘The graph shows that there is a huge increase in the number of robberies from 1998 to 1999.’
Do you consider the reporter’s statement to be a reasonable interpretation of the graph? Give an explanation to support your answer” (loc. 335).
b. Why the PISA Test Matters: PISA Scores = Economic Success
The PISA was designed to test critical thinking skills on the idea that these are the very skills that are needed to thrive in today’s modern work environment and economy (loc. 242). And judging from the economic data, this idea appears to be spot on. For, as Ripley explains, “economists ha[ve] found an almost one-to-one match between PISA scores and a nation’s long-term economic growth” (loc. 345). In other words, what appears to be going on here is that critical thinking skills are translating directly to increased productivity—which redounds to the benefit of individuals, businesses and whole nations.
And it is not just that workers with advanced critical thinking skills help boost the productivity of home-grown businesses. The fact is that more and more businesses from around the world need a work force that is adept at thinking critically. And thus the more qualified a populace is in this regard, the better it is able to entice businesses from around the world to set up shop within that country’s borders (loc. 132-42, 2604-14). In other words, advanced critical thinking skills not only boost productivity, but in today’s hyper-competitive, global economy, they also lead to more business opportunities. Conversely, poorer critical thinking skills lead to lowered productivity, and lost business opportunities.
2. What’s Wrong With America’s Education System?
It is for these reasons that America’s poor scores on the PISA test are so concerning. As mentioned in the introduction, the latest PISA results (from 2009) showed that “U.S. teenagers ranked twenty-sixth on the PISA math test, seventeenth in science, and twelfth in reading” (loc. 342). (The results of the most recent PISA test [which was administered in 2012] are expected to be published on December 3, 2013. Here is the PISA website: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/).
Now, it is true that in the United States there is a wide gap between the PISA scores of students from wealthier families and those of students from poorer families (and thus the average does not necessarily reflect how well the best students are faring) (loc. 244). Unfortunately, though, things don’t improve any when we compare America’s wealthiest students with the wealthiest students from other countries. As Ripley explains, “our most privileged teenagers had highly educated parents and attended the richest schools in the world, yet they ranked eighteenth in math compared to their privileged peers around the world, scoring well below affluent kids in New Zealand, Belgium, France, and Korea, among other places. The typical child in Beverly Hills performed below average, compared to all kids in Canada (not some other distant land, Canada!). A great education by the standards of suburban America looked, from afar, exceedingly average” (loc. 110).
This then brings us to the question of just what’s wrong with education in America; and, even more importantly, how the education system might be improved to help American students catch up. Of course, it is not as though these questions have not been asked before. Indeed, American students have performed poorly on the PISA test since it was first administered in the year 2000. And the same questions that are being asked now were also being asked then.
Now, at the time, the answer to these questions found form in the educational reform act known as ‘No Child Left Behind’, implemented by the administration of George W. Bush in 2001 (loc. 249). Sadly, though, this proved to be the wrong answer, as the policy turned out to be a dud (loc. 248, 1965). Perhaps, then, it is time that America looked elsewhere for its answers. And where better to look than the very nations that have managed to perform exceptionally well on the PISA: South Korea and Finland, for example. Let us begin with South Korea—a country that has ranked at or near the top on PISA scores since the very start.
But before we do, here is Amanda Ripley giving a talk on the issues discussed in the present section (with a bit of a preview as to what will follow):
PART II: EDUCATION IN SOUTH KOREA
3. The Korean School Day: From 8 O’clock in the Morning to 11 O’clock in the Evening (And Beyond)
a. The Korean School Day
Looking at the education system in South Korea, it doesn’t take long to notice that things are very different here from how they are in America. And the biggest difference, as mentioned in the introduction, has to do with how much time Korean students spend on their education.
In America (as in most developed countries), school normally ends around 3 o’clock or so. In South Korea, regular classes only extend about an hour beyond this, but this is really just the beginning of the school day. For example, consider the school that Eric attended (the American exchange student that Ripley followed for a year). Eric attended a high school called Namsan, in the city of Busan. The school day at this institution was highly representative of how it is everywhere in the country, and it went like this: “Classes ended at ten after four… After classes, the kids cleaned the school, mopping the floors, wiping the chalkboards, and emptying the garbage. The kids who had received demerits—for misbehaving or letting their hair grow too long—had to wear red pinnies and clean the bathrooms… At four thirty, everyone settled back in their seats for test-prep classes, in anticipation of the college entrance exam. They then ate dinner in the school cafeteria. After dinner came yaja, a two hour period of study loosely supervised by teachers. Most kids reviewed their notes from the day or watched online test-prep lectures, as the teachers roamed the hallways and confiscated the occasional illicit iPod. Around nine in the evening, [the students] finally left [school]. But the school day wasn’t over. At that point, most kids went to private tutoring academies known as hagwons. They took more classes there until eleven, the city’s hagwon curfew. Then—finally—they went home to sleep for a few hours before reporting back to school at eight the next morning” (loc. 810).
As we can see, the school day for students who attend Namsan typically runs all day long, from 8 o’clock in the morning to 11 o’clock in the evening—when the study curfew sets in. Study curfew? Yes, the government in Korea has felt it necessary to legally restrict how late hagwons can operate; since, before the law was passed, hagwons would often stay open until the wee hours of the morning—a situation that was recognized to be very unhealthy for the students themselves (loc. 2506).
Even now, since the law has been passed, many hagwons do their best to skirt the restriction. In response, the police have begun deploying late-night study raids to catch offending hagwons, handing out fines, and even closing down repeat offenders (loc. 2521-32). In order to help the police in their efforts, citizens are offered rewards for giving tips that lead to the discovery of lucubrating hagwons (loc. 2532) (to this date, over $3 million in citizen rewards have been doled out—not surprisingly, new hagwons have opened up offering courses on how best to identify illegal hagwons [loc. 2532-34]).
Still, even if police were successful in shutting down all hagwons before midnight, there is nothing to stop students from heading home and continuing to study on their own until well into the morning. Indeed, many Korean parents—notorious for pushing their children very hard in matters educational—may even approve of this practice (more on this below).
b. When Korean Students Sleep
In any event, that Korean students are in fact continuing to burn themselves out from excessive studying–despite the new restrictions on hagwons—is clear from one phenomenon in particular. And that is that large numbers of Korean students sleep through many of their regular school classes. Indeed, this is one thing that struck Eric the most about his new environment. On his first day at Korean school, for example, a few minutes into his first class, “[Eric] glanced backwards at the rows of students behind him. Then he looked again, eyes wide. A third of the class was asleep. Not nodding off, but flat-out, no-apology sleeping, with their heads down on the desks. One girl actually had her head on a special pillow that slipped over her forearm. This was pre-meditated napping… The teacher lectured on, unfazed. At the end of class, the kids woke up… Next was science class. Once again, at least a third of the class went to sleep. It was almost farcical. How did Korean kids get those record-setting test scores if they spent so much of their time asleep in class?” (loc. 763).
4. 1 Key to Korean Success: Private Hagwons
Clearly, while Korean students typically spend all day at school, not all of this time is as productive as it might be. And—in accordance with what we have just seen—what Ripley found is that the time spent at hagwons is regarded as far more productive and important than the time spent in regular school classes. Indeed, to begin with, many of the students that Ripley spoke with felt that they did the bulk of their learning not during the school day, in their regular classes, but in the evening in their hagwons (loc. 810, 2475).
Why? The impression was that this was mainly because the quality of teaching was better in the hagwons than in the public schools (loc. 810, 2475). And this sentiment was echoed in nation-wide surveys as well. As Ripley explains, “in a survey of 6,600 students at 116 high schools, Korean students gave their hagwon teachers higher scores across the board: hagwon teachers were better prepared, more devoted to teaching, and more respectful of students’ opinions, they said” (loc. 2481).
What might account for the difference in quality of teaching between the students’ regular teachers and their hagwon teachers? Well, the major difference between the two is that the former are public employees, whereas the latter are private. What this means is that hagwon teachers are subject to market forces, whereas regular teachers in South Korea are not. So, for one thing, rather than receiving a base salary regardless of how effective they are (loc. 2458), hagwon teachers are paid according to how highly their services are valued; and some of these hagwon teachers’ services are very highly valued indeed (the best-paid hagwon teacher in Korea, for example—a man named Andrew Kim—earns an incredible $4 million per year [loc. 2423]—though most hagwon teachers earn even less than regular school teachers [loc. 2465]).
Conversely, hagwon teachers are much more likely to be fired for ineffective teaching than their public-school counterparts. For example, at one hagwon that Ripley visited, the owner, a woman named Lee Chae-yun, approached her teachers this way: “once teachers got hired, Lee tracked their performance. If student test scores or enrollment figures dropped for a particular teacher, she put that teacher on probation. If the numbers remained low after six months, she let the teacher go. Each year, she fired about 10 percent of her instructors” (loc. 2469).
Given the incentives and penalties that hagwon teachers are subject to, it’s no wonder that their students found them to be better prepared and more devoted to teaching than their public-school teachers. This is a sentiment that Lee echoed. As Ripley explains, “in Lee’s opinion, this flexibility made all the difference. She could undo hiring mistakes and motivate the rest of her teachers to work hard. Normal public-school teachers, by contrast, lacked such incentives, she said, which made them less effective and drove parental demand for hagwons. “Without hagwons, Korea would nosedive on PISA.’” (loc. 2471).
Given that it seems unquestionable that market forces are helping drive better teaching in South Korea, we may be tempted to think that it would be best if we simply gave our education systems over to the private sector. However, we should be reminded that there is one very big issue with private education, and that is that it inevitably leads to a situation where education outcomes are driven by the comparative wealth of a students’ parents—a situation that has in fact begun to rear its head in Korea.
Now, most agree that this is a very unfair scenario that is highly undesirable. Even Andrew Kim, South Korea’s millionaire private-teacher, was troubled by the inequality of the South Korean system. As Ripley explains, “th[e] inequity nagged at Andrew Kim. Even though this system had made him a millionaire, he didn’t see it as a model for anyone. ‘I don’t think this is the ideal way,’ he said. ‘This leads to a vicious cycle of poor families passing on poverty to their children.’” (loc. 2494).
Thankfully, it appears there may be a better, more equitable way to drive quality teaching, and it is one that the nation of Finland has hit upon. Before we turn our attention to Finland, though, there is one more aspect of South Korean education that we must address.
5. Korean Parents Vs. American Parents: The Coaching Approach vs. The Cheerleading Approach
a. Korean Parents: The Coaching Approach
It was mentioned above that Korean parents are notorious for driving their children very hard when it comes to academics. Specifically, one of the ways that this finds form is that Korean parents are wont to take the role of coaches in their children’s education. Thus Korean parents will often incorporate educational lessons into their interactions with their kids—both informally, and in more structured ways. As Ripley explains, “Korean parents… [are] coaches. Coach parents cared deeply about their children… Yet they spent… more time training their children at home: reading to them, quizzing them on their multiplication tables while they were cooking dinner, and pushing them to try harder. They saw education as one of their jobs. This kind of parenting was typical in much of Asia—and among Asian immigrant parents living in the United States” (loc. 1577). Elsewhere, the author adds that “Asian parents taught their children to add before they could read. They did it systematically and directly, say, from six-thirty to seven each night, with a workbook—not organically, the way many American parents preferred their children to learn math” (loc. 1581).
When it comes to this approach, what Ripley found is that while coaching and prodding could certainly be taken too far, when it was managed prudently it was both healthy and beneficial (and not something that the children themselves resented [loc. 1577]). And the studies agree. To begin with, research indicates that parents who spend time coaching their young children consistently raise kids that do better in school, and are more respectful of education generally. As Ripley explains, “the coach parent did not necessarily have to earn a lot of money or be highly educated. Nor did a coach parent have to be Asian, needless to say. The research showed that European-American parents who acted more like coaches tended to raise smarter kids, too” (loc. 1587). For example, the author continues, “parents who read to their children weekly or daily when they were young raised children who scored twenty-five points higher on PISA by the time they were fifteen years old. That was almost a full year of learning. More affluent parents were more likely to read to their children almost everywhere, but even among families within the same socioeconomic group, parents who read to their children tended to raise kids who scored fourteen points higher on PISA. By contrast, parents who regularly played with alphabet toys with their young children saw no such benefit” (loc. 1587).
When it came to older children, it was found that one of the best things parents could do to help their school performance was simply to discuss current events, movies, books and social issues with them. As Ripley explains, “as kids got older, the parental involvement that seemed to matter most was different but related. All over the world, parents who discussed movies, books, and current affairs with their kids had teenagers who performed better in reading… In fact, fifteen-year-olds whose parents talked about complicated social issues with them not only scored better on PISA but reported enjoying reading more overall” (loc. 1558).
b. American Parents: The Cheerleading Approach
Now, as mentioned above, both European and American parents that act as coaches to their children end up reaping the rewards just as much as their Korean counterparts. However, what Ripley found is that American parents are less likely to assume this role as are the parents in Korea. Instead, American parents tend to act more like cheerleaders than coaches of their children.
Specifically, American parents are more likely to eschew structured learning in favor of ‘organic’ learning; and they are also more likely to praise their children’s every little success than encourage them to try and do better. As Ripley explains, “many American parents worried about robbing their children of the joys of childhood through structured learning. They suspected that children learned best through undirected free play—and that a child’s psyche was sensitive and fragile. During the 1980s and 1990s, American parents and teachers had been bombarded by claims that children’s self-esteem needed to be protected from competition (and reality) in order for them to succeed. Despite a lack of evidence, the self-esteem movement took hold in the United States in a way that it did not in most of the world. So, it was understandable that… they doled out praise and trophies at a rate unmatched in other countries. They were their kids’ boosters, their number one fans” (loc. 1571).
There is just one problem with this approach: the evidence indicates that it is counterproductive. For one thing, as mentioned above, engaging children in structured learning (in addition to the more organic variety) has been shown to bring positive results; and therefore, American parents are doing no favors for their kids by neglecting to set up these more structured learning opportunities.
Second, heaping praise on children has been shown to do more to make them complacent than to fortify them with the self-confidence needed to try new things and put their best foot forward no matter what they do. As Ripley explains, “in one Columbia University study, 85 percent of American parents surveyed said that they thought they needed to praise their children’s intelligence in order to assure them they were smart. However, the actual research on praise suggested the opposite was true. Praise that was vague, insincere, ore excessive tended to discourage kids from working hard and trying new things. It had a toxic effect, the opposite of what parents intended. To work, praise had to be specific, authentic, and rare” (loc. 1601).
To put it simply, the evidence indicates that the coaching approach to parenting is superior to the cheerleading approach. So, this is one area where American parents could learn a thing or two from their Korean counterparts.
c. When Coaching and Pushing Are Taken Too Far
However, it should be noted that many Korean parents did not stop with coaching and ever-encouraging their children to do better. Rather, many pushed their children well beyond this—to the point of demanding perfection from them. And this approach could backfire, and even lead to devastating results. Literally. While Ripley was stationed in Korea, for example, a Korean boy named Ji murdered his mother after she had pushed him to the brink (loc. 883). As the author explains, “according to his test scores, Ji ranked in the top 1 percent of all high school students in the country, but, in absolute terms, he still placed four thousandth nationwide. His mother had insisted he must be number one at all costs, Ji said. When his scores had disappointed her in the past, he said, she’d beaten him and withheld food” (loc. 892).
Though this may sound like an extreme and isolated case, many Koreans felt that it was emblematic of a larger and very troubling phenomenon in their country. As Ripley explains, “this ghastly story captivated the country, as might be expected, but for specific and revealing reasons. Ji’s crime was not, in the mind of many Koreans, an isolated tragedy; it was a reflection of a study-crazed culture that was driving children mad” (loc. 889).
6. Why South Korea Is So Obsessed With Education: The University Entrance Exam
Indeed, most people in Korea are not in fact happy with the education obsession that holds sway in their country (loc. 844, 889, 2501). And even those who help drive this obsession—children and parents alike—do so only resentfully. Why? The fact is that they feel this is the only way for them (or their children) to achieve success.
You see, in South Korea virtually every major prestigious and well-paying position is filled with graduates from 1 of the country’s top 3 universities (loc. 786, 861, 2512). Thus getting into 1 of these top universities is virtually the only ticket to success—and the only way to get into 1 of them is to score in the top 2% on a single test at the end of high school. As Ripley explains, “the highest score guaranteed acceptance into one of Korea’s three most prestigious universities and, with that, you were destined for a good job, a nice house, and a lifetime of ease. Everyone would respect you. You were chosen by God, as [one] student put it, only half joking. But there was a problem: only 2 percent of seniors got into these top three schools. So, the exam was a checkpoint for the ambitions of millions of kids and their parents” (loc. 786).
As we can see, then, it is the intense competition in Korea that drives students to study as hard as they do—and parents to drive their children as hard as they do. It is a situation that Koreans begrudge, but which they nevertheless feel powerless to change (loc. 844, 865, 881, 2493, 2501, 2565). (In fact, the government in Korea has recently tried to reform the system; but they have, until now, been fairly unsuccessful [loc. 841, 897-902]).
Still, it must be granted that the system itself is not all bad. After all, since it was imposed in 1962, following the Korean War, the country’s economy has skyrocketed. As Ripley explains, “without this education obsession, South Korea could not have become the economic powerhouse that it was in 2011. (Since 1962, the nation’s GDP had risen about 40,000 percent, making it the world’s thirteenth largest economy.) Education acted like an antipoverty vaccine in Korea” (loc. 865).
The question, then, is how to achieve the same kind of academic results as are being achieved in Korea, without the very harmful drawbacks.
Part of the answer, it would seem, has been uncovered in Finland, which is where we shall turn to next.
Before we do so, though, here is a short video that features Eric–Ripley’s main source in South Korea.
PART III: EDUCATION IN FINLAND
7. Finnish Teachers’ Colleges Vs. American Teachers’ Colleges
As mentioned in the introduction, Finland is another country that has achieved very impressive scores on the PISA since its inception in the year 2000. However, Finland has managed to achieve these results without the same kind of obsessive studying that is seen in Korea. Just how has Finland managed this? The key appears to reside with Finland’s teachers.
Now, we have already seen how market forces are helping drive better teaching in South Korea. However, Finland has been able to achieve a very high quality of teaching without these market forces. The secret has to do with how selective Finland’s teacher’s colleges are, and how long and rigorous are its teacher training programs—a set of conditions that puts Finland in stark contrast with America. This becomes clear when we compare the teacher training programs of the 2 countries, which we shall now do.
a. Entrance Requirements
To begin with, Finland has only 8 accredited teachers’ colleges (as stipulated by the government) (loc. 1193, 1257-60). And these 8 institutions are very picky in terms of who they let in (loc. 1194, 1258). To be specific, only 20% of applicants are accepted (loc. 1197), and all successful applicants do in fact score in the top third of their high school classes (loc. 1322).
In America, by contrast, there are far more accredited teachers colleges per capita than in Finland, and very few of them show the same level of selectivity as is displayed there. As Ripley explains, “just one out of every twenty education schools was located at a highly selective institution in the United States. Far more than that had no admission standards at all. In other words, to educate our children, we invited anyone—no matter how poorly educated they were to give it a try” (loc. 1201). Thus it is no surprise that while all of the teacher trainees in Finland score in the top third of their high school classes, only 20% of American teacher trainees do the same (loc. 1322).
To give just one example, take Northeastern State University, in Oklahoma. As the author explains, “the university prepares more teachers than any other institution in the state and has a good reputation. However, it also has a 75 percent acceptance rate, which means that it admits, on average, students with much weaker math, reading, and science skills than Finnish education schools. The university’s typical ACT score is lower than the national average for ACT-takers—a pattern that holds true for many teacher-training programs all over America” (loc. 1244).
b. Teacher Training
Now, once applicants are accepted into a Finnish teachers’ college, they are met with a very lengthy and rigorous teacher training program.
To begin with, all teacher trainees must complete 3 years of study in a particular academic discipline (loc. 1218). Thus by the time Finnish teachers graduate, every single one has received the equivalent of a degree in one of the subject areas that they hope to teach.
Once these 3 years of study are complete, Finnish teachers then spend a year immersed in a public school, wherein they are mentored by up to 3 professional teachers that work there (loc. 1223). Early on in the year, teacher trainees are restricted to observing their mentor teachers as they teach, and taking notes as they do so. Then, later on in the year, teacher trainees collaborate with each other in developing lesson plans, which they then teach to their own classes as they are observed by both their teacher mentors, and their fellow teacher trainees (loc. 1223-28). Following these lessons, teacher trainees receive feedback from their teacher mentors and peers, and this feedback can be very harsh, “much the way medical residents are critiqued in teaching hospitals” (loc. 1225).
After the practicum year of the program, teacher trainees are then required to complete a master’s degree—wherein they must do original research, and write a thesis summing up this research (loc. 1220). Altogether, then, the teacher training program lasts 6 years (loc. 1220).
Now compare this with teacher training in America. To begin with, the vast majority of states in America do not require teachers to have a degree in an academic field (much less in a field that they hope to teach) (loc. 1247). And over and above this, the teacher training programs in America are far shorter than they are in Finland, and not nearly as rigorous. As Ripley explains, “at most U.S. colleges, education was known as one of the easiest majors… Once students got there, they were rewarded with high grades and relatively easy work. Instead of taking the more rigorous mathematics classes offered to other students, for example, education majors tended to take special math classes designed for students who did not like math” (loc. 1238).
Worst of all, when it comes to student teaching—the most important part of a teacher’s training—most American colleges require but 12 to 15 weeks of it (compared with a full year in Finland). As the author explains, “there is no better way to prepare for teaching than to actually teach—and get meaningful feedback on how to improve… [Yet] nationwide, U.S. teacher-training colleges only require an average of twelve to fifteen weeks of student teaching, and the quality varies wildly depending on the place” (loc. 1348).
c. The Impact on Outcomes, and Efforts at Reform in America
All of this means that Finland is churning out far more qualified teachers than the United States. And, as we might expect, this is part of why Finland’s PISA scores are so much higher than America’s (loc. 1318, 1340-45). However, it is not just that more qualified teachers are better able to teach. The fact is that everyone in Finland knows how hard it is to become a teacher, and thus teachers are very highly respected (loc. 1206-08). In America, by contrast, everyone knows how easy it is to become a teacher, and thus teachers receive far less respect (loc. 1203-06). And this in itself impacts how seriously students take their schooling—which also goes on to impact academic outcomes (loc. 1203, 1318, 1363-71).
Now, raising standards for teachers may seem like a fairly obvious way to improve education (especially since the United States already churns out far more teachers than it needs—2 ½ times more, to be exact [loc. 1248]). However, this kind of reform tends to come up against a fair bit of opposition in the United States.
For one thing, education leaders often argue that higher standards for teachers will lead to fewer minority teachers (loc. 1297) (though the evidence indicates that this is not necessarily so, as we shall see in a moment). Also, this type of reform tends to find enemies in institutions that offer teacher training programs (ostensibly because the policy itself is elitist [loc. 1289, 1305], though the fact that these institutions stand to lose a great deal of revenue with fewer teacher trainees might also have something to do with it [loc. 1302]).
Nevertheless, at least one state (Rhode Island) has managed to raise standards at teachers’ colleges despite the opposition. As Ripley explains, “as the new education commissioner in Rhode Island, one of Deborah Gist’s first acts was to raise the minimum test scores for teachers-to-be in 2009. At the time, Rhode Island allowed lower scores than almost any state in the nation. She had the power to change this unilaterally, and she did, taking one small step in the direction of Finland by requiring new teachers to score significantly higher on the SAT, ACT, and the Praxis, a teacher certification test” (loc. 1289).
Of course, it is far too early to tell just what impact this act may have on the quality of education in Rhode Island. Importantly, though, it has been shown that the new, more stringent standards are not leading to fewer minority teacher trainees, as was feared (loc. 1313). Therefore, if Rhode Island does go on to markedly improve its education outcomes, other states may well feel compelled to follow in its footsteps.
PART IV: EDUCATION IN POLAND
Outside of South Korea and Finland, there is one other country that we may find it particularly useful to look to for educational alternatives. And that country is Poland.
What sets Poland apart is that it has recently undergone some very extensive education reforms, and these reforms have allowed the country to make drastic improvements in its PISA scores (loc. 1827). Also important here, is that Poland has managed to make these improvements despite facing some of the same challenges as the US—including especially a high rate of child poverty (loc. 355, 1824). So, just how has Poland managed this? Let’s find out.
8. Poland’s Education Reforms
To begin with, starting in 1998, Poland’s government rolled out a new national education curriculum that was designed to be more stringent and rigorous than the previous one. As Ripley explains, “a new core curriculum would replace the old, dumbed-down mandates that had forced teachers to cover too many topics too briefly. The new program would lay out fundamental goals, but leave the details to the schools” (loc. 1891).
This last part is important: while the new core curriculum and standards were centrally mandated, the government would allow schools, and ultimately teachers, to decide how the curriculum would be taught, and how the standards would be met. Specifically, “teachers would be free to choose their own textbooks and their own specific curriculum from over one hundred approved options” (loc. 1917).
Still, the increased autonomy granted to teachers did not come without certain provisos. To begin with, new standards for teachers were stipulated, such that up to ¼ of teachers had to go back to school themselves to update their credentials (loc. 1891). What’s more, to encourage all teachers to improve their skills, they were offered bonuses for any additional professional development that they underwent (loc. 1917).
Next, in order to track how well the new curriculum was being learned, Poland’s government administered a new set of standardized tests: “along with rigor came accountability. To make sure students were learning, they would start taking standardized tests at regular intervals throughout their schooling… at the end of elementary, junior high and high school. Those tests would be the same all over the country, for all of Poland’s several million children” (loc. 1899).
And the results of these tests would not sit idly be. Rather, they would carry real consequences—for both the students themselves, and the schools that they attended. As Ripley explains, “for younger kids, the tests would help identify which students—and teachers and schools—needed more help. For older students, the tests would also have consequences, determining which high schools and then universities they could attend. For the first time, all students would take the university entrance exam at the end of high school, and the exams would no longer be graded by local teachers. That way, universities and employers would be able to trust that the same results meant the same thing from place to place” (loc. 1899).
As a final measure, Poland’s government decided to delay the tracking of students for a full year—from age 15 to 16. As Ripley explains, “instead of getting streamed into either vocational or academic programs around age fifteen, a practice known as tracking, students would go to the same junior high schools, together, until age sixteen” (loc. 1909). This measure was designed to ensure a more rigorous education for those students who would eventually go on to study at the country’s vocational schools.
Now, as we have seen, Poland’s reforms led to major improvements in the country’s PISA scores. So, we might well ask in what ways America could afford to learn from Poland’s efforts.
9. Raising Curriculum Standards
Let’s begin with curriculum expectations and standards. What Ripley found is that curriculum expectations and standards in America could certainly stand some improvement. Let’s take math, for example. As the author explains, “compared to countries around the world, the typical eighth grade math class in the United States featured sixth or seventh grade content” (loc. 1119).
And it appears that curriculum expectations in America are lower across the board (comparatively speaking). For example, Ripley surveyed hundreds of exchange students (both international and American) and what she found is this: “of 202 foreign-exchange students, an overwhelming majority said their U.S. classes were easier than their classes abroad. (Of the international students who came to America, nine out of ten said classes were easier in the United States; of the American teenagers who went abroad, seven out of ten agreed.) School in America was many things, but it was not, generally speaking, hard” (loc. 1448).
Perhaps it is no surprise, then, that students who graduate from American high schools are not, in many cases, well-prepared for post-secondary education. Take Oklahoma, for example. As Ripley explains, “about half the kids who graduated from [an Oklahoman high school] enrolled in public colleges and universities in Oklahoma. Others went to out-of-state colleges or looked for jobs. What happened to these success stories after they left? Their colleges tested their basic skill and found them wanting. More than half these students were promptly placed into remedial classes at Oklahoma public colleges… These young men and women had been told their whole lives to get a high-school diploma and go to college; that was the dream. But when they got there, they were stalled in limbo, redoing algebra or English as if they’d never left high school. It wasn’t hard to understand why, as their debt mounted, many quit college altogether. One out of two Oklahoma university students failed to graduate within six years” (loc. 533).
Of course, the big fear on the part of those that resist raising curriculum standards is that American students are already finding the current standards too difficult, and that raising them would only lead to more failures (loc. 473, 512-25). However, the evidence indicates that neither of these things are true. For one thing, in a national survey of students it was found that the majority of them felt their classes were in fact too easy. As Ripley explains, “in a large, national survey, over half of American high schoolers… report[ed] that their history work was often or always too easy. Less than half said they felt like they were always or almost always learning in math class” (loc. 1445).
Also, there is evidence to show that those places in America that have raised their curriculum standards have improved their academic results, not compromised them. Take Minnesota, for example. In the late 1990s, Minnesota raised its math standards, and rather than producing more math failures, the state produced better students. As Ripley explains, “in 1995, Minnesota fourth graders placed below average for the United States on an international math test… When Eric started kindergarten two years later, however, the state had smarter and more focused math standards. When he was eleven, Minnesota updated those standards again, with an eye toward international benchmarks. By the time he went to high school, his peers were scoring well above average for the United States and much of the world. In 2007, Minnesota elementary students rocked a major international math test, performing at about the same level as kids in Japan” (loc. 1062; see also loc. 2662).
The message, in short, is this: it’s high time that America’s various states raised their curriculum standards. Fortunately, there has lately been a move in just this direction. As Ripley explains, “the year that Eric was in Korea, the rest of the United States was considering doing what Minnesota had done. In defiance of a long history of incoherent standards and irrational localism, forty-five states agreed to adopt new, more rigorous standards as to what kids should know in math and reading. Known as the Common Core, they were modeled after standards in the education superpowers” (loc. 1094).
Of course, it is one thing to set new standards, and quite another to meet them. In Poland, the government introduced 2 measures to try and ensure that students did in fact meet the new standards. The first measure was the introduction of standardized testing (with consequences), and the second measure was the promotion of more professional development for teachers. So, what evidence is there that these 2 measures do in fact help drive results?
10. Standardized Testing and Added Professional Development for Teachers
a. Standardized Testing
Let’s begin with standardized testing. Standardized tests have their fair share of critics (loc. 2220). However, the evidence indicates that they can, in fact, be helpful.
i. Standardized Graduation Exams
For one thing, it has been noted that all of the nations that do well on the PISA do in fact have a standardized graduation exam (loc. 468). And, all together, it was found that “teenagers from countries with these kinds of tests performed over sixteen points higher on PISA than those in countries without them” (loc. 2217).
Now, many states in America do, in fact, have a standardized graduation exam. The problem, though, is that in most cases this exam is very easy. As Ripley explains, “many states had some kind of graduation test, but kids didn’t need much sisu [hard work] to pass them. The New York State Regents exam was considered one of the most challenging. Yet the English portion lasted only a quarter as long as the Finnish portion of Finland’s test. It included just one essay and two short responses, each of which only had to be one paragraph long… Altogether, the Regents exam required one-third the time of Finland’s test” (loc. 2233).
Since the graduation tests in America are relatively easy (and you do not have to pass them in order to graduate, in many circumstances [loc. 2643-59]), students (and their teachers) don’t feel much pressure to prepare for them; and therefore, any benefit that they might contribute is largely lost (loc. 2227-35). Thus one way that America might improve its education results would be to increase the difficulty of its graduation exams—and also make them a requirement for graduating, or hang other meaningful consequences on them (loc. 2653-62).
ii. Standardized Testing at Lower Grades
When it comes to standardized tests for students at lower grades, America also has these; however, most states don’t make much use of them. You see, in other countries around the world, standardized tests at lower grades are often used to help identify which schools need more assistance (loc. 2019-32). And this assistance is then actually arranged for—often in the form of more money and resources. In America, by contrast, schools with inferior academic outcomes most often receive less funding than higher-achieving schools (loc. 2030).
And the American approach does not appear to be working. As Ripley explains, “in Finland and all the top countries, spending on education was tied to need, which was only logical. The worse off the students, the more money they got. In Pennsylvania, Tom’s home state, the opposite was true. The poorest school districts spent 20 percent less per student, around $9,000 compared to around $11,000 in the richest school districts. That backward math was one of the most obvious differences between the United States and other countries. In almost every other developed country, the schools with the poorest students had more teachers per student; the opposite was true in only four countries: the United States, Israel, Slovenia, and Turkey, where the poorest schools had fewer teachers per student” (loc. 2030).
In short, then, when it comes to standardized tests, America may be right to hang on to them, but it appears that some serious reforms are in order if they are to become truly valuable in enhancing academic results (as they have shown themselves to be in other places).
b. Added Professional Development for Teachers