
Jumping the gap between a US and UK high school education - ColinWright
http://2020science.org/2012/07/29/jumping-the-gap-between-a-us-and-uk-high-school-education/
======
roel_v
For some reason I end up in a lot of debates on relative school quality
between countries across the world (presumably because I live in another
country than I was born in, and because I work with academics a lot...) Many
have an opinion on country X's school system being better than country Y's.
Most of the time, this opinion isn't based on results, it seems (from my off-
the-cuff analysis) that school are generally considered 'better' if they are
'stricter' (i.e., place more emphasis on discipline and respect, for example
school who let people eat in class must be horrible), and the amount of hard
science they teach everyone from a young age on (e.g., teaching everyone hard
science more than the basics is better than just teaching those with an
affinity for it, and teaching it starting at 6 is better than teaching at 12).

However, people can seldom back that up with evidence. For example, using
artificial metrics such as scores in the various Olympiads (math, physics) or
more 'utilitarian' metrics such as GDP (because people _do_ use the prosperity
of a country, for which GDP is a rough proxy, to justify their preferences, or
rather they use it as a driving factor in the optimization function that use
to determine which country's school system is 'best').

I get into a bitter argument with my mother, of all people, over this, with
her unmovable stance being that in my home country, education is better
because schools are strict, pupils address teachers with an honorific, etc;
while in the country that I live in, that is much less important. (I'm not
Asian and this is not an East vs West debate :) ) Yet in my current country,
GDP is higher than in my home country, with many other things being similar;
while I have no hard proof that the school system is the only or even a major
driver of this difference, wouldn't it make sense that I'd send my daughter to
a school in a system that has proven its real-world effectiveness, even if
aspects of it go against the common wisdom or 'cultural intuitions' that I was
brought up in, and that many in my old country still adhere to? While I guess
it would be hard for many to admit that they've believed in things that turned
out to be wrong for decades (I personally had that problem less because I
never quite identified with the ethos of my old country that much), I'd say
rationally that it's more likely that that part of the culture is wrong,
rather than there being some extreme coincidence in which, despite having a
substandard schooling system, many of the effects of that schooling system in
my new country turned out better than those of the old country.

Sorry that this turned into such a long post - I just find it frustrating
that, in this debate just like in so many others ;), it's common for people to
ignore any evidence-based analysis of this question, or restrict themselves to
that evidence that is favorable to their standpoint; and I do think that
general prosperity is a direct consequence of a well-performing educational
system.

~~~
r00fus
Is GDP a realistic comparison - wouldn't a normalized measure like per-capita-
GDP be more useful?

I really question whether any of the evidence you mention (strictness, GDP,
etc) are anything of a real measure of the educational systems. Would you say
GDP is a measure of the medical health of the country?

~~~
roel_v
Yes, sorry, I meant per capita gdp, otherwise big countries would win out
easily by sheer numbers.

I'm not definitively saying any of these are measures of that - the study of
the effectiveness of education is a whole field of academic study on its own.
What I meant was, many people use subjective measures that are grounded in
cultural traditions as a metric for it, but I think that more objective
measures of 'success' (such as prosperity, both individual and of the country
as a whole, and for which I use per capita gdp as a proxy, with the caveat
that said per capita GDP should probably be distributed roughly normally and
have a not too large standard deviation - although I'm not prepared to
quantify that, that's a whole other discussion...) are better criteria.

The reason I propose GDP, and this also answers your second question, is the
assumption that people get educations to better their lives, at least in part
in the material sense. So, the measure of the success of the educational
system is in to what extent people actually better their lives in that aspect
- to put it bluntly, how much (more) money they make. Of course making money
isn't the only driving factor for many people when choosing what to study, but
then again, for a majority of students it's a matter of weighing three
factors: what do I like, what am I capable of, and what kind of a lifestyle
will it provide me with. Since the first two are more or less fixed, the
financial prospects of an education become a substantive decisive factor when
it comes to study of choice.

So, in that line of reasoning, GDP is not a measure of the medical health of a
country; since medical health is a goal in itself, while education is
(partially, and in the aggregate, I'm not interested in nitpicking on the
absoluteness of my phrasing...) a means to an end, to bettering ones life (at
least partially) in the material sense, which is expressed by proxy in per
capita GDP.

------
JoeAltmaier
Sorry to hear about that daughter's experience.

My sons attended a well-funded high school with a splendid chemistry lab, did
many fine experiments and wrote lab reports. All chose science and engineering
in college.

I'm a little tired of some snooty British guy claiming their bad inner-city
experience is typically American, then holding up their Public School (which
in Britain means Private School here) experience as proof of the superiority
of something or other.

My British friend in Computer Science at Iowa got his degree, then went on to
study at Manchester (England) because nobody in England would respect his
American degree. Once he got there the profs shook their heads, poor guy got
an American degree, he'll have to repeat almost everything. They wrote a study
plan for him (without his being consulted at all).

Long story short, he didn't attend any class, do any homework, ever really
attend anything except his exams. He was top student that year, of course. Of
course he was! He'd already been well educated and had work experience.

So, there's my counter-story. And to avoid hypocrisy, I won't claim its
typical of anybody, except maybe good Iowa students going to study at
Manchester.

~~~
timthorn
The author explicitly calls out his school was a comprehensive (i.e. a state
run school) - no public school experience in sight. Why the flight to class
warfare when this is a discussion about the merits of approaches to education?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
So did I, so did my sons. State schools in America vary, sure. Maybe we were
lucky. But the author's conclusion is, British schools are all better than
American schools. I call BS.

~~~
timthorn
I don't think this is about the schools, but more the curriculum. The author's
argument is that children should be taught all the disciplines at once rather
than sequentially; the fact that he's sending his daughter abroad to achieve
that is tangential to the core point.

------
binarymax
I also wonder why I didn't start to learn physics until 12th grade (this was
back in 1995). I hate to post an xkcd but I think this is appropriate:
<http://xkcd.com/435/>

Starting them all at once is a great way to go about it too. But I wonder if
13 is too late? Why not start at 8 or 9, or even earlier? Do they still think
that young children wont get it?

Education is a success when students are engaged and want to learn. Let them
see how amazing this stuff is as early as possible and they will get hooked!

\--EDIT-- I came back to add that teaching mathematics in the context of
science as early as possible should help a great deal. Mathematics as an
isolated subject can be foreign to students. In the context of early science
it has applications. Want to apply Ohms law? Get moles in a solution?
Understand cellular division rates? etc.

~~~
peteretep
> Why not start at 8 or 9, or even earlier? Do they still think that young
> children wont get it?

My wife teaches kids around that age in a UK state school, and they teach some
kind of combined science in the curriculum - there was a whole sequence on
'forces', which to me sounds like physics...

I was at a private primary school, and did a qualification at 13 called Common
Entrance, which we prepared for from 9, which examined chemistry, biology, and
physics separately (although we were taught chemistry and physics in the same
classes).

So in answer to your question: I think (in the UK at least), they start
combined sciences early

~~~
corin_
Private schools in the UK get a fair bit of flexibility in what they do, some
(I believe) will even start doing separate physics/chemistry/biology before
CE.

But state schools... well I've honestly no idea, the last time I was attending
one was when I was 7. But I would never presume to guess what they do based on
my experience of what private schools do - they're far too different.

------
tworats
I went to public school in Iran until the age of 12, private school in the UK
from 12 to 15, and spent my final year in public school in the US.

Observations:

Math: what I was learning as a junior or senior in the UK/US was what I'd
already covered as an 11-12 year old in Iran. The only new subject we covered
was calculus. That really sucks and is a big concern for me since my kids go
to public school in the US.

Science: was very hands-on in the UK (lots of experiments and labs). Much
better for learning than the text book approach in Iran. I only had 1 year in
the US, but it was much less hands on as well.

------
archon
The writer seems to be generalizing the entire US system based on his
daughter's experience in one US high school, which he admits is "overcrowded,
under-resourced [and] doesn’t think much of science".

Is this really a problem of the US system as a whole or is it this particular
school?

Seems like a bit of a "the grass is always greener on the other side" thing.

~~~
TimGebhardt
Most school systems are underfunded right now because our state governments
are still recovering from the 2008 financial crash.

~~~
yardie
Many have been underfunded for much longer than that. It's only after the GFC
that we realized how bad it has gotten. When it was only the schools in the
poor districts the middle class didn't complain (and didn't care) but as the
crisis spread to even upper-middle class districts it was hard to ignore.

Now, overworked parents are blaming overworked school teachers about their
underperforming kids.

------
tgrem
This post struck a nerve with me as I'm agonizing over the decision of moving
to the US while my daughter is about to enter her final year of GCSEs at a
great school.

I really worry that moving her will seriously damage her chances of going to
university in the UK, but the thought of leaving her here while the rest of
her family move to the US is just too heart breaking to contemplate.

The area around San Francisco we're looking to move to has great schools but
the final 2 years of the US high school curriculum is totally different to the
UKs A-Levels and I fear she will struggle to adapt.

------
grandalf
The public school in question is likely one of these:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huron_High_School_(Ann_Arbor,_M...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huron_High_School_\(Ann_Arbor,_Michigan\))

or

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_High_School_(Ann_Arbor,...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_High_School_\(Ann_Arbor,_Michigan\))

------
jonsen
It makes me sad that this modern world with so much progress elsewhere still
can't get education right for our children.

~~~
rdtsc
Because schools are not the first in line for funding. Wars are. Elderly
health-care and pensions benefits are. Other stuff as well.

Why are schools tied to local property taxes? I could never understand that.
That is all kinds of messed up. Schools funds should be first in line in the
federal budget, alongside with the new "surgical strike weapons" and the new
"aircraft carriers".

Also, the politicians who are can vote and effect changes are sending their
kids to private schools so they really don't care what everyone else does.

As a society we allegedly claim that children are the most precious things we
have and yet when it comes to education, our actions seem to betray our words.

~~~
waqf
Not to disagree with anything you say, but it's not just funding. There's also
an immense, yawning lack of consensus on what and how children should be
taught.

For example, I would expect much, much more science to be recommended by the
typical HN commentator than by the typical teachers' union.

The consequence is that the "traditional" high-school curriculum, which was
invented well over a century ago, has barely changed since because nobody can
get all the stakeholders to agree.

~~~
rdtsc
Start with funding. Pay teachers well. Make being a teacher the same as being
a lawyer or a good engineer.

> For example, I would expect much, much more science to be recommended by the
> typical HN commentator than by the typical teachers' union.

Great point. I understand that some teachers wouldn't really understand a bad
science text book/curriculum vs a good one, because they are not that good at
it. Associate schools with local universities. Ask university math and physics
professors to rate a curriculum., don't just rely on English majors being
influenced by book publishers to determine how science should be taught

Fundamentally education is so far down the list after wars spending, elderly
care and other issues that it just gets the short end of the stick. If they
approached it with the same budget and interest as they approach a new
aircraft carrier fleet we'd have a world-class education system.

~~~
droithomme
If the goal is science literacy wouldn't it make sense to use a scientific
approach to determining whether there is a correlation between spending and
achievement in schools?

------
randallu
Maybe science just isn't the thing his daughter wants to do. I hope that the
problem isn't really him forcing his daugher to be someone she isn't (like the
stereotypical "you can be any kind of doctor you want" parents...).

------
gpvos
Apparently this school has an emphasis on sports and the arts. Couldn't he
have chosen a different school? (I know next to nothing about the U.S. system,
and Wikipedia doesn't help me.)

~~~
jauer
That is actually a large controversy right now. Generally speaking you have to
attend the government school in the same tax district as your residence.
Unless of course you have enough money to go to a religious or independent
school but those can cost $20,000+ per year.

There is a push for "school vouchers" that allow you to move between
government schools or use government funds to pay for tuition at a non-
government school. This is opposed by the teacher's union as it will "drain
funds from schools that need most" (schools are funded by property tax with
per-student funds from the state and federal government). Wikipedia:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_choice#United_States>

