Understanding American Education

For my friends and colleagues in the Caribbean and Elsewhere

I have long felt challenged by what I sometimes refer to as the American approach to education. I grew up in Barbados with what I suppose was a British approach to education. I now live and work primarily in the US. Recently I started teaching students in China. Some follow a British curriculum, and some follow a US curriculum. This has truly made me realize the uniqueness of the American Education system, how it compares to European systems, and, more broadly, how educational systems are impacted by the societies in which they operate.

 One can best understand the different approaches to educational by understanding the educational environments of the different systems, Governance, Curriculum, Standards, Assessments, and Qualifications/Certifications.

Governance

British type education systems are run by the academic elite. The graduates of prestigious universities who have distinguished themselves in academe. They have earned the right by their academic laurels to advocate for what content and skills should be taught and tested. Many of them work in academic institutions and their experience informs their determination of the content knowledge and skills necessary for matriculating students to be successful in their institutions. They usually work for testing organizations or examination syndicates and they create the exams that are used as the basis for university matriculation and various other forms of certification and licensing.

American education has been democratized. Nearly every jurisdiction has a School Board. This is often an elected or appointed group of community representatives who determine how the District’s tax dollars should be spent on education. States too have Boards of Education. Their role is to inform State governments on how education should be implemented in the state. So, there is this hierarchical system with the State Board with overall purview for the State and then Local School Boards with purview of the schools in their jurisdiction, usually a county or a town. 

Different states have different mechanisms for selecting the members of the state board of education. In some states the members are elected, in others they are appointed by the elected Governor, and in other states there is a mix of elected and appoint members. These boards of education, either State or local, will hire a representative to oversee the day-to-day operations of the schools under their purview. This representative is often titled a Superintendent or a Chancellor. It is important to note here that as community representatives the School Board or State Board members do not need an impressive academic resume, they need to be elected or appointed. While the academic expertise is brought in by the Superintendent or the Chancellor. The Chancellor/Superintendent works for and at the pleasure of the members of the Board of Education. While a Superintendent may have clear ideas on what a good education looks like his or her job is to implement the wishes of the Board.

To add another dimension to this, with the education reform movement, some jurisdictions have abandoned local boards and local school systems have fallen directly under the control of the Mayor or County Executive. In this case the Chancellor/Superintendent reports directly to the Mayor or County Executive or one of their assistants.

Curriculum

In British/European type systems examination syllabi are set by examinations organizations, syndicates, boards, or councils. Some examples are the Cambridge International Organization, the International Baccalaureate Organization, The Caribbean Examinations Council, The West African Examinations Council-Nigeria, and the French Baccalaureate, to name just a few. In these jurisdictions the curriculum of local schools is predominantly determined by the examination syllabus of the appropriate examining body. The goal is for students to be successful on the appropriate examinations. Many Americans would see this as the wresting away of local school control from the appropriate authorities; State and local education boards.

In contrast the Curriculum in American schools is set by the local school board based on standards created or adopted by the state board of education. Remember, the education board members at both the state and local levels are either elected themselves or appointed by an elected official. As a result, they invariably have a political agenda. Textbooks are then created to match local standards and the local curriculum. This impacts what is taught and how it is taught. We have heard of the Texas textbooks that compare slaves to immigrant workers, the States were it is illegal to teach about evolution in Biology classes, and one cannot help but wonder if the long history of xenophobia in the US might not be a contributing factor to the language learning gap in the US.

While there is some academic objectivity with organizations like the College Board, the Educational Testing Service, and ACT we cannot escape the fact that local standards and curriculum are ultimately controlled by elected officials.

Standards

This brings us to the concept of standards.

In grappling with the fact that, by several measures, US students lag students in other parts of the world in academic achievement there was a movement to create a system of standards, curriculum, instruction and assessments that would level the playing field. These are the Common Core State Standards. The initial ideas were good. The initial mantra was ‘fewer higher standards.’ However, that did not quite work out. The process quickly became political. States sent their representatives to content meetings and, in no time, people were negotiating which standards they would keep and which they would lose.

I know my American friends, who believe in democratization would say this is a good thing. I would say: that is a matter of perspective. So, allow me offer an example that was recently brought back to mind.

Polynomial division is an important math skill that is taught in Algebra 2in the US and in Pre-College IB and A-level math courses. There is a skill, synthetic division, which requires the memorization of an algorithm based on Polynomial division. This skill is taught in Algebra 2 but non-existent in other Math curricula across the world. I have never understood why American educators invest time in teaching this skill. If you want students to truly understand Polynomial division then have them learn to do Polynomial division at a Mastery level. This is what the Cambridge A and AS level Math and the IB classes focus on. Synthetic division creeps into Algebra 2 under the standard for Rewriting Rational Expressions: “using inspection, long division, or, for the more complicated examples, a computer algebra system” as a computer algebra system.

 American educators may claim that teaching synthetic division supports students in understanding Polynomials. It does not. It gives students one more recondite algorithm to be memorized in a world of meaningless mnemonics. Rather than making mathematics more meaningful it makes it more recondite and arbitrary. On the other hand, the average A-level or IB students who focuses on Polynomial division without worrying about a computer algebra system designed for more complicated examples, usually has a much deeper understanding of this content. Don’t take my word for it, look at any number of comparisons of US students in math to students of other nations.

So, if synthetic division does not help students build a deeper understanding of mathematics why is it included on the Common Core Standards? No doubt it was someone’s pet topic, and that person was able to argue successfully for its inclusion.

My point: in the American system standards are driven by political considerations whether it is the exclusion of evolution in Biology, the reimagining of Slavery in History, or the inclusion of synthetic division in Math. These political considerations may or may not have academic value, but the academic value is neither required nor the driving force.

Assessments

Assessments were created to measure student performance on the standards. The two main ones I am aware of are PARCC, and Smarter Balanced.

The American concept of high stakes testing is particularly interesting. Students’ scores on High Stakes State Tests are used to evaluate School Systems and States, not the students themselves. A-level exams, IB Exams, CXC exams, CAPE exams, and WAEC Exams are used to evaluate and certify students. For these exams, students have ‘skin-in-the-game.’ One could argue that the only ‘skin’ in the game belongs to the students. Students are invested in doing well because their future depends on it. This would not be accurate. As an A-level Chemistry teacher my reputation was based on my students' abilities to do well on the A-level Exam. Both students and teachers had skin in the same game: we both had the same goal, the academic success of the student on a rigorous, and objective instructional and assessment protocol.

In some American jurisdictions, State test results are used as graduation gateways. This is not ubiquitous. In these situations, it could be argued that students have some ‘skin-in-the-game.’ Usually the goal is simply to pass the test, meeting the minimal passing score, and earning that graduation requirement. Even in these situations there is no incentive for students to achieve mastery in the content.

In the other jurisdictions mentioned; Europe, the Caribbean, and Africa; all students are required to take high stakes exams on which their futures are dependent. These students are incentivized to achieve mastery on the testing standards.

There is also motivation to achieve mastery in American schools, but it is determined by the students themselves. Students who aspire to competitive tertiary institutions often participate in AP, IB, or A-level programs. These students are often from high SES families. This exacerbates the American student Achievement Gap. Hence that motivation doe not promote equity in educational outcomes.

Qualification/Certifications

American Colleges and universities have maintained a preeminent position in the international education landscape. Given the stark comparative underperformance of the American K-12 sector the question becomes: What can this success be attributed to?

K-12 Qualifications and certifications are to a large extend politically managed. These are curriculum course credits and high school diplomas.

However, universities operate in an international arena outside the spheres of local political control. Curriculum control is distinctly non-political. The students, prizes, and grants for which universities compete are based on academic reputation and sound academic results. These results include the academic quality of the peer reviewed publications of the staff, the patents earned by staff, the research successes, and the ability to deliver on promised cutting edge products.

Conclusion

Local political control of the American K-12 Education System has led to a Balkanization of the K-12 educational landscape in a way that has caused it to lag the education systems in other parts of the world. The absence of that political control on tertiary level educations systems in the US and their laser like focus on academic excellence unencumbered by political interference and supported by the protections for faculty to insulate them from the potential of political interference, like the tenure system, has led to American Universities being consistently classified among the best in the World. 

Perhaps it is time to make the K-12 US education system an academic rather than the politically controlled system the currently exists. Only then can we replicate the success of the Grade 13 + sector at the PK-12 grade levels. Ironically, the task of wresting away local political control, if it can be done, would devolve to the US Department of Education: a political entity itself.