

Why are liberals so impressed by China and Singapore’s school systems?  - pagal
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/75973/the-ugly-models

======
iamdave
This article is an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

 _China, needless to say, does not foster creative thinking or critical
analysis when it comes to the political system._

Editorials that put a party slant on an issue like education, when a political
leader favors learning techniques focused on problem solving versus repetition
of cookie-cutter teaching techniques don't foster critical analysis when it
comes to the political system any further.

Conflating the education system with the political system in an environment
where the political system is-admittedly-worthy of a very specific degree of
scrutiny is ugly in-and-of itself.

 _Rejecting “repetitious exercises and worksheets,” the reformed curriculum
conceives of teachers as “co-learners with their students, instead of
providers of solutions.” It emphasizes both analytical ability and “aesthetics
and creative expression, environmental awareness … and self and social
awareness.”_

I'm a bit taken back by the idea that any editor, Liberal or Conservative
needs to play the name game and think a system where education is a more open
and flexible system that enables students to learn how to think, and not
memorize what the answers are to pass standardized tests is some sort of a bad
thing.

~~~
briandon
You may be missing the point of the article. For example, in the second quote
you've included in your comment, the author of the linked article is saying
that Singapore's authoritarian government has recognized that it needs to
change some aspects of its educational system. Those changes would bring it
closer in some ways to the educational systems of liberal democracies. The
author is not criticizing (or lauding) the SG govt for this realization --
merely reporting on it.

Also, with regards to your remark on conflating political and educational
systems, politics and education are intertwined in every country, from the
local right on up to the national level. This is even more true in
authoritarian regimes as educational institutions, with the long, unbroken
periods of access to the vulnerable minds of children and young adults that
they offer, end up being a core venue for indoctrination.

------
mikeryan
Strange article.

It seems to be pro the stated goals of the Chinese and Singapore systems (less
rote learning - "teaching to the test ") but against the current system (rote
- and test focused).

Then somehow seems to try to tie it to liberals without stating which of the
two views liberals seem to be endorsing. (The intended method or the actual).

Actually if you read the linked articles of liberals supporting the chinese
and singapore systems. Kristoff believes the Chinese are doing better in
school not because of the systems but because of better sociological and
environmental pressures. And Obama just mentions that singapore's students
outperform ours 3 to 1[1]

No where does the author support his underlying assumption that liberals
believe China or Singapore have better educational systems.

1\. "And yet, despite resources that are unmatched anywhere in the world,
we've let our grades slip, our schools crumble, our teacher quality fall
short, and other nations outpace us. Let me give you a few statistics. In 8th
grade math, we've fallen to 9th place. Singapore's middle-schoolers outperform
ours three to one. "

------
msluyter
I think it's a little disingenuous to generalize from two examples (Obama and
Kristof) to "liberals." And it seems that, at least in the second referenced
editorial, Kristof seems mostly impressed by the _relative_ advances in
Chinese education over the past 50 years or so. And though he does advocate
that we should "take a page from the Chinese book and respond by boosting
education," it's unclear to me that he's advocating directly modelling their
system so much as their cultural attitudes towards education.

