Asian American test scores

A really interesting finding first emerged several years ago from the comparisons of eighth grade math scores in both the National and International Assessments of Education Progress.

The top performing students in the world—of any race, nationality, or subset combination—turned out to be Asian American students in United States schools. In fact, their scores far surpassed those of Asian students in Asian schools.

Interestingly, Asian students worldwide are known for their discipline and work ethic, as stressed by their families and cultural values. Many of these students do their homework and study hard. Apparently, when students with those values are placed in American schools, with our emphasis on critical thinking and mastery of basics, they learn and perform better than in any other school environment in the world.

It is possible to get an excellent education in schools all across our country—but there are certain prerequisites that students must bring in order to get the full benefit.

So the question arises: Should we reform our schools to accommodate the growing number of students who do not have self-discipline and do not work hard? Or should other institutions, such as families, churches, civic groups, and the like, be enlisted to help instill the old-fashioned values of hard work on which our school system was originally based and with which it still thrives?

There are some who say the schools should expand their programs to include instruction in discipline and work ethic. Others say schools should be restricted only to teaching the basics, and leave all other types of instruction to other institutions or to the family.

If, however, other institutions or families are not providing those lessons, or if for whatever reason students aren’t absorbing those values, students will clearly not reap the same educational benefits as their hard-working classmates.

Mike Roberts, a parent and writer from Georgia, raised similar questions in an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution some time ago. He asserted that “public education is the employee of a boss with multiple personalities. Americans cannot decide what they want their schools to be.”

And he provided examples: “We want schools to cut the fat and keep taxes low, but we want our kids to have bright, shiny schools, current textbooks, and all the extra-curricular activities the youngsters might want. We demand that schools provide an alphabet soup of programs for this student and that student, but then we gripe because our school systems have so many administrators. We sue to get what we want, then complain that our schools are too afraid of lawsuits to make needed improvements.”

“Worse of all,” he wrote, “we parents fail in our responsibilities to train our children in values and responsibility and to live peacefully in society. Then we send those children to our schools, demand that the schools give our children social skills, and damn the schools when they don’t teach the way we would have.”

His solution still makes sense: “If we want our schools to survive and do well, we parents…must somehow agree on a coherent and reasonable job description for our children’s teachers, principals, and administrators. Then we must give our schools the support they need to carry out that job. To do less puts in jeopardy our schools, our children, and ultimately, our country.”

In the meantime, the question remains: How do we best shape school reform? Do we change our schools to accommodate a clientele that increasingly arrives without discipline and work ethic, or do we enlist the aid of other institutions to shore up the support structure for all our students? Maybe it’s not an either-or proposition. Either way, it’s an important question to consider.