The Smartest Kids in the World (31 page)

To date, there is remarkably scant research comparing the relative investments in technology in schools around the world. We know precious little about how much money countries spend on technology,
let alone whether those expenditures actually lead to student learning.

Chart 1.
U.S. and international students saw more technology in use in U.S. schools.

Our results suggest that the United States invests more heavily in technology in classrooms than even high-performing countries. (In our survey, 61 percent of students from HACs said the United States had more technology in its classrooms.) That does not necessarily mean that technology is negatively correlated with education performance, of course; many things interact to lead to education outcomes, and our results suggest that lower-performing countries use even less technology than high-achieving countries. (Almost three-quarters of students from LACs said the United States had “much more” technology compared to a third of students from HACs.)

Still, this difference might help explain (in part) why the United States spends more money per student than almost any country in the world. Our romance with educational technology has been expensive, distracting, and one-sided for a very long time.

International and U.S. students agreed that school in the United States was easier than school abroad. In all, 92 percent of international students and 70 percent of U.S. students said school in the United States was easier than school abroad. U.S. students were more likely to say school in the United States was a “little easier” rather than “much easier” (see
Chart 2
).

Chart 2.
U.S. and international students said that U.S. classes were easier.

These results corroborate
the findings from the 2001 and 2002 Brookings Institute surveys of international and U.S. exchange students. In those surveys, 85 percent of international students and 56 percent of U.S. students found U.S. classes easier.

The similarity in the findings suggest that the intervening ten years of education reforms under the federal No Child Left Behind Act did not, in the estimation of our sample, render U.S. schools any harder compared to schools abroad.

Another interesting finding points to a lack of rigor in U.S. coursework. International students from both high- and lower-achieving countries agreed that U.S. school was easier. However, international students from high-achieving schools were more likely to say that U.S. school was “much easier” than school at home. Specifically, 73 percent of students from high-achieving countries said U.S. school was “much easier,” compared to just 53 percent of students from lower-achieving countries. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis of this book: In countries with strong education systems, school is actually harder. Rigor runs through those countries’ approaches to learning and parenting, shaping everything from teacher training to the make-up of standardized tests.

It is interesting to note, however, that even students from lower-achieving countries overwhelmingly reported that U.S. school was easier. There may have been a bias toward defending the rigor of one’s home education, but that wouldn’t explain why U.S. students also said that their home classes were easier.

This difference may have to do with how students perceive difficulty in school. In many countries around the world, high-achieving and lower-achieving, school is a more formal and structured environment than school in the United States. The codes of conduct are more rigid, and the consequences for academic failure are more serious, particularly in high school. In some cases, students might have been reacting to those differences of school culture as opposed to the actual level of challenge in the material. Regardless, given other research showing a
lack of rigor in U.S. textbooks, curricula, and teacher training, this difference in perceived rigor is important and worthy of further research.

International and U.S. students also agreed that U.S. parents gave their children less freedom than parents abroad. Of all respondents, 63 percent of international students and 68 percent of U.S. students agreed with this assertion (see
Chart 3
).

Interestingly, international students from high-performing countries were much more likely than students from lower-performing countries to report that the U.S. parents gave their children much less freedom. Specifically, 70 percent of international students from high-performing countries said U.S. parents gave their children less freedom compared to 45 percent of students from lower-performing countries.

These findings support existing literature suggesting that
United States children lead highly structured lives. The reasons for this difference are complex and hard to disentangle. American parents might be more protective of their children due to pervasive concerns about crime and violence, for example. In some areas of the United States, particularly low-income neighborhoods, these concerns could be based in hard facts; in other, higher-income areas, crime may be low but parental anxiety about crime may still be high.

Chart 3.
U.S. and international students said that U.S. parents gave their children less freedom.

Regardless of the reasons, what does it mean for education outcomes if U.S. parents really
do
grant their children less autonomy? It is, again, difficult to speculate, but the existing literature on raising resilient children suggests there is great value in allowing them to be free to make decisions and mistakes (within limits) while they are still children. Otherwise, teenagers raised in highly controlled high schools and homes only discover the perils and thrills of independence when they are grown, and largely on their own.

International and U.S. students agreed on the importance of sports in the lives of U.S. teenagers. Of all students, 91 percent of international students and 62 percent of U.S. students said U.S. students placed more importance on doing well in sports than did students abroad (see
Chart 4
). International students were more likely to say U.S. students cared “much more” about athletic achievement.

These findings corroborate results from the Brookings Institute surveys. In those surveys, 85 percent of international students and 82 percent of U.S. students said that U.S. students placed higher importance on doing well in sports than did students abroad.

It is not at all clear that placing a high importance on athletic achievement is negatively associated with academic performance. Of international
students, 88 percent of those from high-achieving countries said U.S. students place more importance on doing well in sports than students abroad; whereas nearly all students (96 percent) from lower-achieving countries said U.S. students placed more importance on success in sports. This suggests that students from high-achieving countries cared more about sports than students in lower-achieving countries—although none of them cared as much as American students, it seems.

Chart 4.
U.S. and international students said U.S. students placed more importance on doing well in sports.

In any case, the unparalleled importance of athletic achievement at U.S. high schools should be the subject of serious debate. Sports, for all the value they offer, also siphon money and attention from classroom learning. It is their relative importance—not their absolute existence—that is worrisome.

International and U.S. students agreed that U.S. math teachers were more likely to praise student work than math teachers abroad. Roughly half of international
and
U.S. students said their U.S. math teachers were more likely to praise student work; about a third thought that their math teachers did about the same amount of praising in both countries; and less than 10 percent of both groups thought their math teachers abroad were more likely to praise student work (see
Chart 5
).

Chart 5.
U.S. and international students said U.S. math teachers gave their students more praise than did teachers abroad.

Note that this question was asked of a slightly smaller sample. We
asked students specifically to compare their experiences in their math class at home and abroad. Of the international students who filled out the survey, 82 percent took a math class in the United States, allowing them to answer this question. Of the U.S. respondents, 89 percent took math and completed this question.

The results beg the question: Are U.S. teachers warranted in praising their students to the extent reported in this survey? The United States is solidly among the lower-achieving countries in math, and yet U.S. kids are much more likely to report getting high grades in math, as discussed elsewhere in this book.

What are the effects of praising students for work that does not reach the average performance of students in other developed nations? How does pervasive praise impact the learning environment and students’ expectations for themselves? Is praise related to the tendency (also suggested by this survey) of U.S. parents to grant their children less freedom? Do U.S. teachers and parents treat their children as if they are more fragile than they are? Or do other countries handle their children with too
little
care?