Ask any suburban-dwelling parent about their child’s school and
they’ll likely do one of two things: feign indifference or boast.
Sure, they’ll admit, their school could offer a larger variety of
programs or certain teachers could do better about keeping in touch
with parents. But overall, they’re happy with their school. In
fact, many have intentionally forgone urban life, believing
suburban schools to be better.
The Bush Institute recently released an updated version of its
Global Report Card, a one-of-a-kind tool that offers the ability to
stack any school district against the rest of the world. The
results, which show even some suburban schools rate poorly, should
put a whole new spin on education reform.
Education reform has gone through cyclical phases, from the
1980s to George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind.” But one
underlying theme has remained more or less constant. As a 2011
piece in the New
York Times put it: “The policies and rhetoric
changed, often dramatically, but the underlying assumption remained
the same: Our nation’s schools are in dire need of systemic
reform.”
Last year, Harvard University’s study,
“Globally Challenged: Are U.S. Students Ready to Compete?” cited
statistics that found that American students rank 32nd in the world
in math. Still, most parents and policy-hawking wonks assume its
urban-area schools dragging the rest of the country’s down, and
that kids aren’t as dumb as they score.
The Bush Institute’s Global Report Card helps smash those
assumptions to pieces. The tool is at once simple and devastating.
With a simple
search, you can pinpoint any specific public school district
and see how it rates among schools in the rest of the country, or
even the world (results are based on 2009 standardized testing
data).
For example, while the Minneapolis school district most of my
childhood neighborhood friends attended ranks low
(22 percent in math), this is no surprise given its urban
location. I now live in a county nestled among three of the 10
wealthiest in the country. Schools in Fairfax County (the Orange
County of the East Coast) just to my north tested at
51 percent in math, compared to the rest of the world.
Even these schools still don’t stand a chance against those in
countries like Finland, which, according to the 2009 PISA scores,
came in second in science, third in reading, and sixth in math
among nearly half a million students worldwide. (Other statistics
show Finland leading in literacy and math.) Considering the wealth
permeating the Northern Virginia area, students here should be
doing significantly better.
According to an infographic posted
last year on the University of Southern California’s Rossier School
of Education’s blog, the United States spends more money per
student than Finland — nearly $8,000, compared to $5,600. Or, as
they put it, “the U.S. is the clear leader in total annual
spending, but ranks 9th in Science performance and 10th in Math”
among 11 countries.
The Bush Institute itself shies away from making any specific,
aggressive recommendations for education reform. Instead, the goal
is to provide a razor-sharp look into what’s really going on in
education at a micro level. It is up to the rest of us — parents,
teachers and policymakers alike — to take responsibility and
propose legitimate, effective reform once and for all.
Among the most obvious inferences one can make from the tool is
that more money doesn’t necessarily equal better education. But if
money doesn’t improve education, what does?
Smithsonian Magazine’s
excellent report last
year, “Why Are Finland’s Schools Successful?” examined that issue.
There appear to be many contributing factors; some the United
States cannot or likely will not replicate, such as Finland’s
state-provided maternity leave, subsidized day care to parents,
subsidies for parents, and free student health care.
But three important factors stick out — things the U.S. should
examine and replicate if possible. First, size. In one of the
tougher neighborhoods of Finland, there are seven students to every
one teacher or aide. U.S. schools have, on average, one teacher for
every 15 students. Obviously Finland’s tiny population — 5.4
million compared to more than 300 million in the U.S. — plays a
role. Second, teacher education. In Finland, teachers are required
to “earn a fifth-year master’s degree in theory and practice at one
of eight state universities — at state expense,” the
Smithsonian article states. The occupation is paid
the same respect as the fields of medicine and law. Finally,
there’s a dynamic I’ll call creative teaching. Rather than follow a
rigid curriculum that may bore children and prevent real-life
learning:
Teachers in Finland spend fewer hours at school each day and
spend less time in classrooms than American teachers. Teachers use
the extra time to build curriculums and assess their students.
Children spend far more time playing outside, even in the depths of
winter. Homework is minimal. Compulsory schooling does not begin
until age 7. “We have no hurry,” said Louhivuori. “Children learn
better when they are ready. Why stress them out?
Of course, these ideas are easier to discuss than to implement.
But we’ve been debating with no real results for several decades.
It’s time we took action and joined the rest of the world at the
top of the educational food chain.
