by Clara Modlin
Lately I’ve been thinking about the differences in between school systems. Where I used to live, France, the teachers were strict. They did not hesitate at calling us stupid, idiots, or (and this was not rare) mentally retarded. The system was rigorous. We had a college-type schedule, having two hours of French on Monday, none on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, or Thursdays, and then three on Fridays.
If you were absent for a test, there were no retakes. You just got an ‘absent’ on your report card. The schools weren’t afraid about holding people back. ‘Left-backs’ were much more common in France then they are here; the French feel no sympathy for you in school.
As you can see, the American school system is almost a complete opposite of this system. Teachers here don’t call you idiots; they manage to imply that you could have done a better job and they are disappointed in you. They are much nicer in general. My meanest teacher here, in this country, is nothing compared to my math teacher in France.
Her named was Madame Florentz. She was 5’2” in her two-inch heels, and looked up to all of her students. She was ancient; we don’t know how old she was on account of the fact that she did what every teacher at our school did.
She smoked. And not only did she smoke, she smoked Kools. As a result, her skin was monkey brown, and, due to her unfortunately large nostrils, she looked like a monkey.
Not that we dared to mention it. She was ferocious. One time a few kids in our class got the nerve up to tell her that she wasn’t a very good teacher. That was a mistake. She took out the class list.
“Voici les élèves qui sont bien dans ma classe.” Here are the students that are doing well in my class, she said to us. Out of thirty-two in our class, she named eight. Eight. The students who insulted her not included.
The room was so silent our breathing was loud. We were in the largest classroom in the school; the windows were open, there was a breeze. I was sitting alone that day. That was the only day in my memory that we all sat straight up, without talking, and we were all listening with our undivided attention.
But that part of my life is over now, and now I am back in this world where we students can do almost no wrong, where our opinions are taken into account. At the end of this year my fellow classmates from last year will have to take a huge achievement test. Their teachers will probably been threatening them about it all year. The tension and stress will mount all year.
While I will sit there, enjoying the last days of school, I will wonder about them. Will they do well? Will it just be like any other test? Will they have high hopes when they are done?
Or will they fail it, and go on to a life as a plumber?
Eh bien. One does not always know the difference between passing and failing, achieving or not achieving, two different places, two different schools.
John, the population argument goes both ways; if we have such a large population shouldn’t a proportionally larger amount of Americans achieve the highest scores on tests? The OECD rankings aren’t determined by sheer number of scores; they are determined by proportion of the population or average score. Check out the following A1.2 Chart and the table that shows “Top Performers in Science”:
http://ourtimes.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/oecd-education-rankings/
The chart shows that, while the US has a relatively high proportion of people who have attained upper secondary education, there has been a lack of increase in the younger populations. In the US, about 87% of people between ages 25 and 64 have achieved upper secondary education. However, in many other countries, the amount of people ages 25 to 34 in upper secondary education has sky-rocketed. In Korea, for example, nearly 100% of 25 to 34-year-olds achieve it.
The science table is far more worrisome, however. It tells us that not only does the US rank 22nd in science performance, but it even falls below the average score of 500. I do agree that we are lucky to live in such an educationally priviledged area. However, I don’t think that our American superiority complex is justified, and considering how the French regularly score higher than us, I don’t believe we should criticize their methods (especially when the main criticism in this article was that they are too strict or overly competitive or too test-centered, when many of these characteristics can be attributed to culture).
The point of my previous argument was not to state that other countries’ educational systems are better than America’s, but rather to question our basic assumptions that we know best.
I think that this is a very one-dimensional view of the French school system. The truth of the matter is that most countries around the world have a similar system. My father is Greek and my mother is Chinese, and those school systems are extremely different from the American one as well. However, what Clara forgot to flesh out in this article is the clear cultural differences between France and America.
In China, just like in France, teachers are very rarely complimentary. In fact, Chinese teachers regularly go down the list of students and inform the class how each individual is doing (including mocking students for low scores). However, Chinese students come from a different culture and they understand where this criticism is coming from. It also means that when a teacher compliments a student, that is high praise that the student may be proud of for the rest of his or her life.
It is indeed true that French teachers are stricter than American teachers. In fact, most of the teachers in the rest of the world are stricter than American teachers… But it’s time for America to let go of our one-dimensional superiority complex and for us to start learning from other countries. The United States was placed 18th out of the 36th most industrialized countries for secondary education, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. We are by no means the strongest country, academically, in the modern world. Maybe a little strictness in the classroom or more competition to get into college would do us some good.
Awesome article Clara!!!!!!!!!! I’ve heard a lot of these stories before and it was a great idea to write it out……….
I think that this is a reflection of the basic difference between the objective of the school systems of France and America. Although I am not highly informed, I have been told that in France, there is no promise of equal educational opportunity. From what I’ve heard, in France, the school system is designed to determine your basic apptitude. At the end of your school career, there is some sort of test that apparently is the final factor in the government’s judgment of where you are heading in life. Only the best are sent to academic colleges; those who do not perform so admirably are sent to trade schools to learn a profession as directed by the government (yippee socialism!). As a part of this, I wouldn’t be surprised that the objective of the French school system is to have the country’s youth “get tough or die”, instead of dying, though, doors are shut on a student’s future. Belligerent teaching would fit in perfectly with this; it would serve to develop the skills to deal with induced stress and a rigorous life in those who are worthy, and to identify those who can’t hold up to the strain.
that’s pretty much it. it is unbelievably hard to get into any colleges in france. it involves spending two years in a stressful, high-tension school where you work and work and work and usually don’t get in to the school anyways. but i would say that the percentage of highly skilled bakers and plumbers and construction overseers, etc is probably much much higher in france than here in the states…but i’ll have to check that.
A purely meritocratic system- where only grades and a big test determine who gets into college- is the epitome of equal educational opportunity.
In some respects, yes. In others, absolutely not.
Firstly, there’s no way to achieve this even if it was the best way to educate and separate the best from the mass of decent students. This is because there is no equality in teachers, and will never be. Some teachers, simply put, are worse than others. Because of this, students in certain classes will have inherent disadvantages.
Secondly, this may not be the best way to show which students deserve to get into colleges because some students test better than others. Just because a student doesn’t thrive in a high stress environment where everything hinges on one test doesn’t mean they shouldn’t go to college. College and later in life isn’t based around a single test which you pass or fail to decide whether your life is amazing or terrible. It’s a series which seen as a whole constitutes a college education or a person’s life. For this reason, opportunity to get into college shouldn’t be based around a stress filled education with only one opportunity to be successful.
All other things equal, a meritocratic system is the epitome of equal educational opportunity, as you said. However, given that there’s no way to assure other factors can be equal, this realistically isn’t the case. There’s also the case to be made that purely equal educational opportunity (the same exact experience for everyone) isn’t the best way to educate.
I am in complete agreement with regards to your statements about the realism of a “pure” meritocratic system. You raise excellent points.
My purpose was merely to point out that simply because the French system is different from the American one does not necessarily mean that ours is superior, which seemed to be a main message in the article. There is a strong implication that the French system is somehow flawed, which I believe to be an incomplete analysis without considering culture.
I agree that a pure meritocratic system may not be realistically feasible. However, I disagree with one of your statements. Equal educational opportunity does not mean that everyone experiences the same thing; it means that all people have an equal chance to succeed, regardless of racial, religious, or ethnic background. And I do maintain that this is the most fair, best way to educate.
In any case, I was neither advocating the French system nor the American system. I was trying to point out that this article does not mention culture at all, and I believe that to be the most important aspect when discussing educational differences. The fact that we are ranked 18th out of the 36 most developed countries merely serves to underscore the point that the United States is not necessarily in the position to criticize other educational systems.
About those rankings we keep referring to… here’s the deal.
Fact: Of all the countries in the OECD ranking, the U.S. has the largest population. Although it’s more difficult to objectively measure, I would also argue that we have one of the most culturally diverse populations on the list.
Fact: U.S. students achieved some of the highest scores in every category of the test. So why aren’t we #1? Because there is a lot of variance in our data. (Yes, I’m taking AP Statistics and I’m overexcited about my limited knowledge of the subject.)
Basically, the U.S. is a really big country with a lot of good education and a lot of bad education. We’re lucky enough to live in an area with exceptionally good education AND cultural diversity, which puts us in an excellent position to criticize other educational systems.