A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Chapter 2 - Education Standards (Part 3 of 3)

Discussions of education standards must deal with the question of how the same standards can be applied to all schools within a region when the backgrounds of the students and quality of the teaching staff and the academic facilities differ. This matter is less likely to be an issue in Japan than in Germany and the United States.

Japan. Japanese educators and parents acknowledged to us that there were differences in students' achievement between elementary schools in poor and affluent areas, but they considered these to be minor differences. No parents, for example, suggested that they would ever decide where to live primarily because of the quality of the elementary school in the neighborhood.

This was not the case with parents of junior high school students. Many indicated that they were aware of an unofficial ranking of junior high schools in the area, and one principal told us that in his experience parents often did consider the reputation of the junior high school in selecting a residence. In some Japanese schools, nearly all of the students aspired to enter a highly ranked high school and eventually attend college. At other junior high schools, teachers reported that they had trouble keeping students motivated and interested in school. The guidance rooms at these schools were filled with pamphlets describing and advertising vocational high schools and career-training centers.

Japanese high schools exist within a socially derived hierarchical structure in which the reputation of a high school is defined by the number of graduates accepted by universities and the prestige of the universities to which they are admitted. The entrance test for high schools, therefore, acts as a tracking mechanism, separating students of different academic ability into different schools. While all academic high schools follow the same curriculum, teachers told us that the rigor and depth with which the curriculum is covered are adjusted to match the academic abilities of the school's students.

Vocational high schools offer an alternate form of schooling. On the basis of our interviews and observations, it was clear that within the vocational high school, the various vocational tracks offer curricula that require different levels of academic ability. Vocational teachers pointed out that although graduates of vocational high schools have an advantage in terms of employability, they are at a disadvantage in taking college entrance examinations, which cover only academic subjects. They also noted that the restricted opportunities for attending college contributes to a current lack of popularity of vocational high schools among Japanese students.

Germany. Parents and teachers agreed that the role of elementary school is to provide a good foundation in education and social skills for all children. Most of them also felt that this goal was less likely to be attained in some neighborhood schools than in others, especially those with high enrollments of foreign children.

While parents and teachers recognize that there is some variation in the standards of high schools among different neighborhoods, they see more similarities than differences among individual Hauptschulen and individual Realschulen. Gymnasien, while more variable in standards, are nevertheless clearly perceived as having the highest standards. The most frequently mentioned basis for the greater variability of the Gymnasien was the disparity in standards among the various states.

United States. In our interviews with parents and teachers, two factors were most often mentioned as having a major influence on the standards adopted by a school and on students' levels of achievement in the United States. They are: the level of funding available for education in different school districts and the level of involvement and support provided by the parents. The fact that schools within a district share the same tax base and receive their funding from local tax revenues means that schools within the same school district generally have comparable budgets. But dependence on local tax revenues also means that budgets vary greatly among school districts. Those where families have high incomes and high property values are able to spend more money on teachers' salaries, physical facilities, and instructional resources than those in poorer districts.

In addition to the variation among schools resulting from differences in funding, many teachers and administrators in economically depressed neighborhoods spoke of the strong impact differences in students' daily environments have on the ability of students to learn. A principal at one of these schools had this to say:

All I can say is that it is easy to teach kids who are well-prepared, who have the parents helping them, who have the advantages of the average middle-class child. It's hard to teach kids who don't have advantages, who can't go home and say 'help me.'

Typically, students who begin school in disadvantaged school environments remain in disadvantaged environments at each successive level of schooling. Teachers and principals said that students who followed this path frequently entered junior and senior high school with much lower levels of knowledge and academic skills than students attending schools in more prosperous areas. Teachers at one high school enrolling predominantly low-achieving students explained that because of this, standards of any kind were barely relevant. Rather than debating the merits of national standards, teachers and administrators in these schools were more concerned with finding ways to attract students' interest and to enable students to meet the minimal standards of the state.

Parents in these schools had a different view from those held by the teachers and administrators. Although they recognized the discrepancy between what students were capable of doing and the state's guidelines for what they should be doing, they did not dismiss the relevance of guidelines. In our discussions with them, these parents were generally supportive of national standards. In fact, some of the most active advocates of the standards published by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics were parents of students in the lowest achieving elementary school that we visited.

Parents of students in middle-class schools also expressed their support for the equalizing effect of national standards. A parent from one of the middle-class schools spoke of the difficulties unequal standards created for students who move to a new school in the middle of the year and find themselves either ahead of or behind their classmates.

Ultimately, the application of education standards occurs in classrooms. It is easier to apply standards to students' performance when there is grouping of students within a classroom according to their level of ability than when the grouping occurs between schools. All countries that promote universal education at the elementary level face this problem. The application of common standards also becomes a problem in countries such as the United States, where grouping by ability is practiced in some classes of the all-purpose junior high and high schools.

Japan. According to the teachers, students in many high schools are assigned to different classes on the basis of ability and future plans, but they are not further divided into groups within the classroom. Nearly all of the educators with whom we spoke about ability differences among students said that they believe that grouping by ability within classrooms is discriminatory and may hurt students emotionally. Teachers also indicated that when students are found to have trouble in keeping up with their classmates, they often spend time with the students outside of class or provide remedial homework assignments during the summer or winter vacations. Alternatively, the students may choose to attend remedial juku (private after-school classes) that provide review and practice related to the content of the government-approved textbooks used in the students' school.

Germany. German schools, like Japanese schools, do not group students by level of ability within classes. Teachers explained that they believe it is the school's responsibility to foster each student's full potential, and that it is the teachers' responsibility to bring the weaker students along and to help them keep up while fostering learning for all students. In contrast to Japan, where it is extremely rare to require a student to repeat a grade, German teachers can make this recommendation if they believe the situation would only worsen if the student were promoted.

The value of small group interactions is acknowledged by German elementary school teachers, who reported to us that they used small groups and peer tutoring as integral parts of classroom instruction. Teachers also said that the importance of the group in classroom instruction is also acknowledged in the practice of having students and their teacher remain together from first through fourth grade of elementary school. It is also a common practice in Japanese schools to keep the teacher and students together for more than a single year. In both countries the argument presented to us for this practice is that it enables teachers to know their students very well and to be able to provide appropriate types of assistance before any problems become magnified.

In our interviews, teachers in secondary schools also said they saw it as their responsibility to intervene when students were having academic difficulties. Hauptschule teachers made themselves available after class and frequently organized group work and peer tutoring as means of avoiding or reducing academic problems among the students. Realschule teachers said they expected their students to be more motivated than Hauptschule students and to take the initiative in learning and studying. Nevertheless, they encouraged peer tutoring by having students work on their in-class exercises in pairs or in small groups. Our classroom observations revealed that these approaches to instruction were not commonly used in Gymnasium. The teachers we interviewed said they thought it was acceptable for students to study together after school and ask each other for help if necessary, but they did not propose that it was their duty to recognize students who were having academic difficulties. In their view, academic problems usually arise from lack of study rather than lack of aptitude, and students who are unwilling to work hard should go to an easier school form.

United States. In contrast to both Germany and Japan, no effort is usually made in U.S. schools to keep a class composed of students and teacher together for more than a year. Students are usually assigned to a new classroom and a new teacher when they move to the next grade. As a result, teachers are faced each year with the need to provide some means of socialization within the classroom as well as to teach the students the subject matter. A commonly used means of accomplishing these two goals is through the formation of cooperative learning groups. Teachers explained that they believe such groups facilitate interactions among students and provide an opportunity for peer tutoring during classroom time. One junior high teacher explained her support for cooperative learning groups:

I really believe in the hands-on approach. I believe that all students do not arrive with the same level of readiness. That is why I think group learning is really good for them. Peer coaching goes on within a group. And students, if you make them comfortable with a new group, they will help each other out.

According to the teachers, another common response, especially in elementary schools, was to form subgroups of students who were taken out of the regular classroom to receive accelerated or remedial instruction in basic subjects. Most of the teachers we talked with reported using such a strategy. For example, during mathematics lessons, students who were unable to keep up with the regular lesson or those for whom the regular lesson was too easy frequently went to a different teacher to receive instruction that was more appropriate for their level of ability. One middle school teacher described how she tried to make herself available for students who were having difficulty:

The way I deal with it is that the kids who are doing poorly come in for extra help or sign up for the math assistance class. And for those who do well, you give them problems before class or after class to make them think. Within the class, I know that there are kids who are bored silly and those that are drowning. And I encourage kids to ask questions. I also encourage kids to express their solutions. Some kids may do it differently and be four steps ahead of everyone else. I would have him explain it to everyone. Then I would ask another kid to give his solution. Then I would tell the solution that would always work. That way the kids learn something.

The practices and policies in grading and evaluation varied widely. At one school we visited, the local school board and principal adopted a policy of leniency in grading and evaluation. The consequences of this policy were evident in observations of an eighth-grade mathematics class for advanced students. The teacher told the class:

I am happy to report that 17 out of 25 students are running an A plus average. Good job! I think more of you can get A pluses.

Students received such remarkable grades because the teacher allowed them to take the examinations with open books, to refer to their notes, and to resubmit assignments until they answered everything correctly and received the top score.

U.S. schools also organized tutoring programs for students needing additional assistance. According to the teachers, at many schools students who need help in academic subjects can receive help either from teachers or fellow students who excel in these subjects. However, the teachers also indicated these efforts are not always successful and that students are sometimes promoted to the next grade with serious deficiencies in their knowledge. The principal of one vocational high school told us that a large percentage of the students at his school read at the elementary school level when they entered the ninth grade.

One of the most direct means of assuring that academic standards are upheld is through examinations administered at the completion of junior high school and/or high school. These examinations play an important role in the lives of students in all three countries, for the score they receive has a strong influence on the likelihood students will be admitted to a school or college of their choice. Tables 6 and 7 list the entrance and exit examinations, as well the typical in-class examinations required of secondary students in academic and vocational tracks in the three countries.

Table 6—Examinations required of academic track high school students

SOURCE: Third International Mathematics and Science Study, Case Study Project, 1994–95.

Table 7—Examinations required of vocational track students

SOURCE: Third International Mathematics and Science Study, Case Study Project, 1994–95.

Japan. In order to advance to high school, graduates of junior high schools must take a standard high school examination that covers the five core subjects in the Monbusho curriculum: Japanese, mathematics, social studies, science, and English. According to the teachers with whom we spoke, each test is 40 minutes long and all are weighted equally to produce a total score. This score, along with the student's junior high school grades, is used to determine the student's eligibility for the high school the student wishes to enter.

High school students wishing to attend a college or university are required to take the Center Examination, an examination similar in format to the high school entrance examination and the entrance examination for the university they want to attend. In the past, Japanese universities admitted students solely on the basis of the scores they received on the Center Examination. However, teachers indicated in our conversations with them that recently it has been possible for students to be accepted by universities on the basis of recommendations by their schools because of outstanding merit or extraordinary skills.

Germany. Nearly all Gymnasium students take the Abitur examination. This examination is the gateway to university studies, as well as to other training and education programs. The Conference of Ministers (KMK) has established uniform national standards for 33 subjects which cover the academic knowledge that Abitur examinations are expected to test (KMK 1987). The candidate's knowledge is assessed in one oral and three written examinations covering four subjects, including two designated as advanced subjects.

The Abitur diploma lists all grades from all courses a student took in the upper level of Gymnasium, the grades received in the 22 basic courses, 6 advanced courses, and 4 Abitur examinations. Gymnasium students are acutely aware of the criteria for university admission, especially for admission to subjects that are highly restricted because of their great popularity.

Although Realschule students may transfer to a Gymnasium and ultimately take the Abitur, a relatively small percentage of Realschule students do so. Instead, many pursue further education through practical training programs after completing their secondary education at the Realschule. In Bavaria for example, only 1.7 percent of Realschule certificate holders transfer to a Gymnasium, while 69 percent continue their education in a vocational training program (Bavarian State Ministry of Education, Cultural Affairs, Science, and the Arts 1993). According to the teachers we interviewed, in order to qualify for practical training experiences, both Realschule and Hauptschule students must receive their Realschule or Hauptschule certificate. Teachers also indicated that although Hauptschule students do not take completion examinations in most German states, reliance is placed on their high school grades in decisions about future training and education opportunities. This was also said to be true for students who successfully complete Realschule except in states with centralized examination systems. Students in these states must take a centrally developed completion examination after the 10^th grade (Bavarian State Ministry of Education, Cultural Affairs, Science, and the Arts 1993). The results of the examination plays an important role in the students' qualification for various vocational training programs.

United States. Minimum competency tests administered at the completion of high school have become increasingly popular in the United States during the past decade. These tests operate as standards students must meet before they receive their high school diploma. The students for whom the score on these tests is most meaningful are those who seek employment immediately after graduation or who choose to attend a vocational training program.

Students who plan to seek admission to a four-year college or university must usually take one of two college entrance examinations: the American College Test (ACT) or the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Both are commercially prepared examinations and are administered nationally. The ACT is designed to measure progress in areas of English, mathematics, social studies, and natural sciences, and thus has a format similar to that of the Japanese and German tests. The SAT, on the other hand, requires students to answer questions covering a range of verbal and mathematical skills.

Nearly all universities in the United States publish minimum scores that are required on entrance examinations to qualify for admission. Thus, scores on these examinations play an especially strong role in determining students' chances for admission to the country's top public and private colleges and universities. Two-year community and junior colleges rarely require minimum scores for admission.

The question always arises whether standards in education result in a fair education system. Differences in opportunity to learn exist to some degree in all countries, thus standards that are hard to meet in one location may be easily attained in another. We asked the participants themselves to tell us their views about this question.

Japan. Three male students at one of the Japanese vocational schools were interviewed as a group. They had no hesitation in expressing their opinions. The first student said it was fair to establish such standards and explained why:

Those who are smart and those who are not smart study together in one class. No matter how smart or not, you can receive the same education, and this is true at any level of Japanese education—elementary, junior high, and high school. The education at this school is fair in the same way, and I think it's good.

The second student agreed, "I also think it's fair because teachers address their lectures to the whole class. I do feel kind of bad for the students who do poorly, so I cannot really say if it's good or bad." The third student explained, "I think it's fair for the same reason. Dividing students is like attaching labels. Students who are not smart will think of themselves as dumb students, and once they believe they are not smart, their academic performance will become worse and worse."

Although national standards in Japan help ensure that during the years of compulsory education all students have similar opportunities to learn, they cannot guarantee similar outcomes. According to many parents and teachers we interviewed, a primary cause of students' failure to do well in school is the influence of social class on academic achievement. Many parents and teachers also said they believed socioeconomic differences have been getting wider since the 1980s and that highly educated parents were able to provide their children with opportunities for higher education that poorer families could not. This point was emphasized by a working class mother of a high school student:

The way it looks now, it is impossible to keep up by just going to school. One needs to go to juku nowadays. That is all right for students from families with money, but if you don't have money, unless you exert an enormous amount of effort, it is very difficult. I wonder if the system has to be such that it is sustained by a family's economic power, or could there be something different.

Germany. Elementary education in Germany is molded by an egalitarian philosophy of education and is organized to provide equal access to the prescribed subject material. At least, according to teachers and parents with whom we interacted, this is perceived to be the situation for children who enter elementary school ready to learn. Teachers also said that in order to increase the possibilities for other children, such as those of foreign workers or those lacking social skills, supplemental remedial instruction and experiences are provided.

After the elementary school years the German school system is somewhat flexible, but teachers with whom we spoke noted that upward mobility at the secondary level is less likely than lateral or downward mobility. Despite this, individuals we spoke with saw the separation of students into differentiated forms of schooling to be a way of providing an education that was appropriate for the students' capabilities and necessary for giving them the kinds of skills required to become productive members of society.

Most of our respondents said they thought the system works well for a majority of the students and is fair because of the multiple paths that exist to the Abitur and to advanced professional training. At the same time, they acknowledged the influence of various cultural and environmental factors on the academic achievement of children, including lack of family support, poor home environment, and difficulties with the German language. For the most part, however, these factors were seen as being beyond the control of the school system.

Parents also told us that they believed those parents who had attended Realschule or Gymnasium themselves were in a much better position to advise and assist their children than were those with less education. Further differentiating these families from those whose children were in Hauptschule were the higher aspirations they had for their children and the family's awareness of the opportunities that a higher degree could provide.

United States. Because state and local governments contribute about 92 percent of the funding for schools (USDE 1993a), it is inevitable that there would be great variability in the opportunities for education. The federal government has attempted to equalize opportunities through federal assistance grants for schools enrolling students who need special forms of education, whose native language is not English, and whose families have low incomes. These funds help to support programs for these children, but most parents and teachers we spoke to recognized that although children have access to free public education in the United States, some schools have more resources, better facilities, and better trained teachers.

In general, the U.S. education system supports the practice of tracking students by ability, and most parents with whom we spoke approved of the provision of instruction that parallels the students' levels of ability. Reservations were expressed about this practice, however, by parents who pointed out that narrow measures of ability, such as test scores, resulted in the overrepresentation of certain ethnic and racial minorities in the lower tracks.

A commonly held perception of education standards is that they provide precisely defined curricula for a nation's schools. This perception is inappropriate in the three countries we studied. Rather, education standards are defined by guidelines that describe, in general terms, the accomplishments expected at each grade level.

The relationship between establishing and enforcing national guidelines varies greatly. National guidelines may attain legal status themselves, as is the case in Japan, or they may function as suggestions that must then be enacted into law by state governments, as in Germany. Preliminary steps have been taken in the United States toward defining voluntary national standards. These standards are derived primarily from the Goals 2000 activities and from favorable responses to standards proposed by nongovernmental bodies, such as professional organizations.

What ought to be included in national standards in each of the three nations remains unclear. Some educators propose that the standards should deal with outcomes in terms of students' achievement as well as with the content of the curriculum. Others include a consideration of the opportunities provided by local, regional, and national government agencies for students to learn. What is included in the three countries studied is not consistent.

Even when the content of the curriculum is described in education standards, strict adherence to the curriculum may not be demanded of all schools and all teachers. This occurs in Japan, for example, where it is possible within a nationally-controlled education system for teachers to deviate from the curriculum when it does not seem to be meeting the needs of the students. In fact, based on our interviews and observations, teachers in all three countries appear to be granted more autonomy than might be expected in such matters as their reliance on textbooks and their day-to-day organization of the lessons. Rather than playing a central role in defining the curricula, textbooks are sometimes supplemented or even supplanted by the material contained in teachers' guides and instructional plans, teaching demonstrations, and teachers' discussions.

The general perception among parents we interviewed in all three countries was that curricular guidelines are not unfair and that there is a need to ensure that students from different schools or students moving from one school to another have equal opportunities to cover the same material. In responding to this objective, the question is raised how the same standards, whether in the choice of textbooks or in evaluations of student achievement, can be applied universally.

Differences exist to varying degrees within the three countries in achievement, not only among regions of the country, but also among school districts, schools, classrooms, and among the students themselves. As a result of this high degree of diversity it is difficult to accomplish the objective of meeting common standards for all students.

A wide range of practices has been instituted in attempts to apply standards, including retaining students at the same grade level, having the teachers or peers provide extra help to students encountering academic difficulties, sending students to after-school classes, dividing students within a classroom into groups, and separating students into different curricula. Defining standards and finding ways of implementing them has proven to be one of the most vexing problems in public education.

-###-

[Chapter 2 - Education Standards (Part 2 of 3)]

[Chapter 3 - Dealing With Differences in Academic Ability (Part 1 of 2)]