(2003) Last week this page featured a column by ESL①specialist Doris Partan, who, on the basis of the results from a recent UNICEF study comparing educational inequality in the 24 nations of the OECD, lamented the state of American public schooling. Her analysis of the contrast between US suburban schools, usually good, and urban schools, typically bad, struck me as fair, but I must take exception to some of the assertions in her article.
Ms Partan refers to America's number 18 position in the 'Educational Disadvantage League' in the UNICEF report. I was prepared to be shocked. The gap between the best and the worst public schools, or between the average and the lowest educational attainment of pupils, was greater in America than in any OECD country except Germany (!), Denmark (!) and, less remarkably, Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal. Wealthy, suburban-and-small-town and ultra-homogeneous Finland shines in slot 3, while wealthy, suburban-and-small-town but far less homogeneous Denmark occupies slot 20. Canada and Australia rank 4th and 5th, the US 18th.
No doubt the rankings bear some relation to classroom realities, but I wonder if it is reasonable to go too deeply into lamentation mode. Finland and Denmark are culturally very similar countries, but one clear difference between them lies in the size and origin of their immigrant populations. Finland has very few immigrants. In contrast, Copenhagen, the Danish capital, has substantial neighborhoods of poorly integrated recent Muslim immigrants and many schools where little Danish is heard on the playground. In this respect Denmark resembles Germany.
Might the presence of large numbers of immigrants not explain some of the performance problems in American schools? And not just any immigrants: the children of poor ill-educated families from societies like Mexico, where few peasants escape poverty through the village school. Canada and Australia are also wealthy English-speaking nations with sizable immigrant populations, but their governments carefully dole out visas on the basis of would-be immigrants' education and professional background; in other words, these nations absorb foreigners fully aware of the economic value of education, having already used it to better their lives. (How many disruptive middle-class Chinese- and Indo-Canadians pupils are there in Canadian schools?) When boatloads of much more ordinary Asians approach the shores of Australia, on the other hand, they are received coolly. For better or worse, official US immigration policy is not geared towards this sort of social selection, and whatever the policy may be, the country cannot control the illegal influx over its southern border.
For historical reasons, this problem does not keep me awake at night. America has been flooded with illiterate Irish, Italian and Slavic peasants in the past, yet in three generations the newcomers were almost wholly absorbed into the American middle class. Given half a chance②, the new peasant arrivals from Mexico and farther south will follow the same broad pattern: problems in the first generation, adjustment in the second, advancement in the third.
What particularly troubles me about Ms Partan's article is the statement that "we need to stop blaming poverty, parents or the home environment for the difficulty a child has in learning." Poverty, I agree, is not directly to blame for such difficulties, but parents and the home environment, on the other hand, are crucial factors. Those immigrant parents who recognize at least the economic value of education will be the first to see that their kids cooperate with schoolteachers. If parents take school seriously, by and large children will too, especially in the early years when literacy skills are being mastered —— and they will thrive even in run-down school buildings. Taking school seriously may mean that a parent forgoes some employment opportunities for a while to make sure that children are doing something constructive after school: homework, reading and supervised play, not watching garbage on TV or hanging out in the street. The worst impact of poverty is in making it harder for immigrant parents to assume this role.
Ms Partan seems to attribute the success of children in school above all to good teachers armed with an effective methodology. I am second to none③in my praise of the dedicated pedagogue, but the record of teachers in rescuing children from families where what kids do in school is of no interest to the parents —— or parent —— is not, in my view, encouraging. Most often at least one of the parents has to be reached in order to guarantee that children make progress in school. Where children respect a parent and know that he or she demands good behavior in school, even mediocre or loutish teachers can pull off the trick④of producing modestly literate and numerate children. Which is not to wish bad teachers on children, but merely to suggest where the key to success lies in most cases: with the parent who makes sure the child does its homework.
上周本版這個欄目刊登了教母語不是英語的孩子學英語的美國專家道麗絲·帕坦的文章。她基于不久前聯(lián)合國兒童基金會對經(jīng)濟合作與發(fā)展組織(OECD)24個國家教育質(zhì)量不合格狀況進行比較后得出的結(jié)果，悲嘆美國公立學校教育質(zhì)量的現(xiàn)狀之差。她對美國郊區(qū)學校(通常教育質(zhì)量高)與城里學校(通常教育質(zhì)量低)所做的公正分析給我留下了深刻印象，但對文中的某些論斷我必須提出反對意見。
帕坦女士提到美國在聯(lián)合國兒童基金會報告中的“教育缺陷排列”表中名列十八，于是我做好心理準備來看令人震驚的信息。尖子校與撮底校之間的差距，或者是平均水平與最差生之間的差距,除了德國(！)丹麥(！)和不太引人注意的西班牙、意大利、希臘、葡萄牙之外，美國的教育“溝壑”比OECD的其他國家都大。多數(shù)人住在郊區(qū)并以小城鎮(zhèn)為主以及種族極為單一的富裕的芬蘭榮居第三，而同樣富裕的丹麥，多數(shù)人也住在郊區(qū)也以小城鎮(zhèn)為主，但遠不是單一種族，其卻名落二十。加拿大與澳大利亞位居第四和第五，美國是第十八。
毫無疑問，這一排序與學校實際狀況有一定關(guān)系。但我想，對此而深感痛惜是否有道理？芬蘭與丹麥是文化上很類似的國家，但是，十分明確的一點區(qū)別在于他們的移民人口的數(shù)量與來源顯著不同。芬蘭的移民極少，相比之下，在丹麥首都哥本哈根存在著還沒有真正融入丹麥社會的人數(shù)可觀的穆斯林新移民區(qū)，很多學校的操場上只有很少的丹麥孩子。在這方面丹麥與德國一樣。
大量移民人口的存在不能解釋美國學校中的一些問題嗎？當然，并非是每一個移民都不重視教育,可比如說像來自墨西哥那樣的國家的沒有受過良好教育的窮人家的孩子，在墨西哥幾乎沒有哪戶農(nóng)民能夠通過鄉(xiāng)村學校擺脫貧窮。加拿大與澳大利亞也是富裕的英語國家，也有著數(shù)量可觀的移民，但這兩國政府在發(fā)放簽證上極為謹慎，他們考慮的基本點是即將成為移民的人的文化水平和專業(yè)背景，換句話說，他們所吸納的外國人都充分意識到了教育在謀生中的作用，并且已經(jīng)通過受教育而提高了他們的生活水平(在加拿大學校里有幾個中產(chǎn)階級的中國人或印度人的孩子會調(diào)皮搗蛋？)。而另一方面，當極為一般的亞洲人乘船到了澳大利亞的海岸時，他們受到的則是冷遇。然而，不管是好是壞，反正美國官方的移民政策不與這類社會選擇掛鉤，而且，不管政策如何，美國控制不住從她南部邊界涌入的大量非法移民。
出于歷史原因，這些問題并不讓我夜不能寐。過去，沒有文化的愛爾蘭、意大利和斯拉夫農(nóng)民都涌入過美國，但過了三代之后，這些新來者幾乎全都進入到了美國的中產(chǎn)階級。如果條件相似，從墨西哥或是更南部地區(qū)來的新農(nóng)民也將沿襲同樣的模式———第一代問題很多，第二代能適應，第三代得到發(fā)展。
帕坦女士的文章中最困擾我的是那句“我們不應再因孩子在學習中發(fā)生的困難而譴責貧困、父母和生活環(huán)境?！辈粦蚝⒆訉W習困難而直接譴責貧困，對此我同意，但另一方面，家長與環(huán)境則是重要因素。那些至少知道教育有經(jīng)濟價值的移民家長第一關(guān)注的就是自己的孩子是否與學校老師的要求相吻合。如果家長認真對待孩子的學習，絕大多數(shù)孩子也會認真對待———特別是在掌握文化技能的低年級階段———他們會健康成長，哪怕是在破舊的教室里面。家長認真對待孩子的學習有可能意味著一段時間內(nèi)放棄某些就業(yè)機會，從而確保孩子放學后做有益的事：做作業(yè)、讀書，玩有大人監(jiān)督的游戲，而不是去看那些無聊的電視節(jié)目或是到大街上閑逛。貧窮所帶來的最壞影響就是讓移民家長承擔起這一角色變得更難。
帕坦女士似乎將孩子在學校的成功主要歸結(jié)于擁有有效教學方法的老師。我對那些敬業(yè)的老師的稱贊不亞于任何人，但是老師從那些父母對自己孩子在校表現(xiàn)毫不關(guān)心的家庭中救治孩子的成效，在我看來并不令人鼓舞。一般說來，父母中至少要有一人能得到有關(guān)教育的信息，以確保孩子在學校取得進步。如果孩子尊重父母，并且知道父母要求自己好好上學，即便是平庸的或是很笨的老師也能夠成功地教出一般水平的能讀會算的小學生。我這么說并不是希望孩子們有差教師，只是想說明在大多數(shù)情況下孩子成功的關(guān)鍵在于：家長確保孩子做作業(yè)。
Ms Partan refers to America's number 18 position in the 'Educational Disadvantage League' in the UNICEF report. I was prepared to be shocked. The gap between the best and the worst public schools, or between the average and the lowest educational attainment of pupils, was greater in America than in any OECD country except Germany (!), Denmark (!) and, less remarkably, Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal. Wealthy, suburban-and-small-town and ultra-homogeneous Finland shines in slot 3, while wealthy, suburban-and-small-town but far less homogeneous Denmark occupies slot 20. Canada and Australia rank 4th and 5th, the US 18th.
No doubt the rankings bear some relation to classroom realities, but I wonder if it is reasonable to go too deeply into lamentation mode. Finland and Denmark are culturally very similar countries, but one clear difference between them lies in the size and origin of their immigrant populations. Finland has very few immigrants. In contrast, Copenhagen, the Danish capital, has substantial neighborhoods of poorly integrated recent Muslim immigrants and many schools where little Danish is heard on the playground. In this respect Denmark resembles Germany.
Might the presence of large numbers of immigrants not explain some of the performance problems in American schools? And not just any immigrants: the children of poor ill-educated families from societies like Mexico, where few peasants escape poverty through the village school. Canada and Australia are also wealthy English-speaking nations with sizable immigrant populations, but their governments carefully dole out visas on the basis of would-be immigrants' education and professional background; in other words, these nations absorb foreigners fully aware of the economic value of education, having already used it to better their lives. (How many disruptive middle-class Chinese- and Indo-Canadians pupils are there in Canadian schools?) When boatloads of much more ordinary Asians approach the shores of Australia, on the other hand, they are received coolly. For better or worse, official US immigration policy is not geared towards this sort of social selection, and whatever the policy may be, the country cannot control the illegal influx over its southern border.
For historical reasons, this problem does not keep me awake at night. America has been flooded with illiterate Irish, Italian and Slavic peasants in the past, yet in three generations the newcomers were almost wholly absorbed into the American middle class. Given half a chance②, the new peasant arrivals from Mexico and farther south will follow the same broad pattern: problems in the first generation, adjustment in the second, advancement in the third.
What particularly troubles me about Ms Partan's article is the statement that "we need to stop blaming poverty, parents or the home environment for the difficulty a child has in learning." Poverty, I agree, is not directly to blame for such difficulties, but parents and the home environment, on the other hand, are crucial factors. Those immigrant parents who recognize at least the economic value of education will be the first to see that their kids cooperate with schoolteachers. If parents take school seriously, by and large children will too, especially in the early years when literacy skills are being mastered —— and they will thrive even in run-down school buildings. Taking school seriously may mean that a parent forgoes some employment opportunities for a while to make sure that children are doing something constructive after school: homework, reading and supervised play, not watching garbage on TV or hanging out in the street. The worst impact of poverty is in making it harder for immigrant parents to assume this role.
Ms Partan seems to attribute the success of children in school above all to good teachers armed with an effective methodology. I am second to none③in my praise of the dedicated pedagogue, but the record of teachers in rescuing children from families where what kids do in school is of no interest to the parents —— or parent —— is not, in my view, encouraging. Most often at least one of the parents has to be reached in order to guarantee that children make progress in school. Where children respect a parent and know that he or she demands good behavior in school, even mediocre or loutish teachers can pull off the trick④of producing modestly literate and numerate children. Which is not to wish bad teachers on children, but merely to suggest where the key to success lies in most cases: with the parent who makes sure the child does its homework.
上周本版這個欄目刊登了教母語不是英語的孩子學英語的美國專家道麗絲·帕坦的文章。她基于不久前聯(lián)合國兒童基金會對經(jīng)濟合作與發(fā)展組織(OECD)24個國家教育質(zhì)量不合格狀況進行比較后得出的結(jié)果，悲嘆美國公立學校教育質(zhì)量的現(xiàn)狀之差。她對美國郊區(qū)學校(通常教育質(zhì)量高)與城里學校(通常教育質(zhì)量低)所做的公正分析給我留下了深刻印象，但對文中的某些論斷我必須提出反對意見。
帕坦女士提到美國在聯(lián)合國兒童基金會報告中的“教育缺陷排列”表中名列十八，于是我做好心理準備來看令人震驚的信息。尖子校與撮底校之間的差距，或者是平均水平與最差生之間的差距,除了德國(！)丹麥(！)和不太引人注意的西班牙、意大利、希臘、葡萄牙之外，美國的教育“溝壑”比OECD的其他國家都大。多數(shù)人住在郊區(qū)并以小城鎮(zhèn)為主以及種族極為單一的富裕的芬蘭榮居第三，而同樣富裕的丹麥，多數(shù)人也住在郊區(qū)也以小城鎮(zhèn)為主，但遠不是單一種族，其卻名落二十。加拿大與澳大利亞位居第四和第五，美國是第十八。
毫無疑問，這一排序與學校實際狀況有一定關(guān)系。但我想，對此而深感痛惜是否有道理？芬蘭與丹麥是文化上很類似的國家，但是，十分明確的一點區(qū)別在于他們的移民人口的數(shù)量與來源顯著不同。芬蘭的移民極少，相比之下，在丹麥首都哥本哈根存在著還沒有真正融入丹麥社會的人數(shù)可觀的穆斯林新移民區(qū)，很多學校的操場上只有很少的丹麥孩子。在這方面丹麥與德國一樣。
大量移民人口的存在不能解釋美國學校中的一些問題嗎？當然，并非是每一個移民都不重視教育,可比如說像來自墨西哥那樣的國家的沒有受過良好教育的窮人家的孩子，在墨西哥幾乎沒有哪戶農(nóng)民能夠通過鄉(xiāng)村學校擺脫貧窮。加拿大與澳大利亞也是富裕的英語國家，也有著數(shù)量可觀的移民，但這兩國政府在發(fā)放簽證上極為謹慎，他們考慮的基本點是即將成為移民的人的文化水平和專業(yè)背景，換句話說，他們所吸納的外國人都充分意識到了教育在謀生中的作用，并且已經(jīng)通過受教育而提高了他們的生活水平(在加拿大學校里有幾個中產(chǎn)階級的中國人或印度人的孩子會調(diào)皮搗蛋？)。而另一方面，當極為一般的亞洲人乘船到了澳大利亞的海岸時，他們受到的則是冷遇。然而，不管是好是壞，反正美國官方的移民政策不與這類社會選擇掛鉤，而且，不管政策如何，美國控制不住從她南部邊界涌入的大量非法移民。
出于歷史原因，這些問題并不讓我夜不能寐。過去，沒有文化的愛爾蘭、意大利和斯拉夫農(nóng)民都涌入過美國，但過了三代之后，這些新來者幾乎全都進入到了美國的中產(chǎn)階級。如果條件相似，從墨西哥或是更南部地區(qū)來的新農(nóng)民也將沿襲同樣的模式———第一代問題很多，第二代能適應，第三代得到發(fā)展。
帕坦女士的文章中最困擾我的是那句“我們不應再因孩子在學習中發(fā)生的困難而譴責貧困、父母和生活環(huán)境?！辈粦蚝⒆訉W習困難而直接譴責貧困，對此我同意，但另一方面，家長與環(huán)境則是重要因素。那些至少知道教育有經(jīng)濟價值的移民家長第一關(guān)注的就是自己的孩子是否與學校老師的要求相吻合。如果家長認真對待孩子的學習，絕大多數(shù)孩子也會認真對待———特別是在掌握文化技能的低年級階段———他們會健康成長，哪怕是在破舊的教室里面。家長認真對待孩子的學習有可能意味著一段時間內(nèi)放棄某些就業(yè)機會，從而確保孩子放學后做有益的事：做作業(yè)、讀書，玩有大人監(jiān)督的游戲，而不是去看那些無聊的電視節(jié)目或是到大街上閑逛。貧窮所帶來的最壞影響就是讓移民家長承擔起這一角色變得更難。
帕坦女士似乎將孩子在學校的成功主要歸結(jié)于擁有有效教學方法的老師。我對那些敬業(yè)的老師的稱贊不亞于任何人，但是老師從那些父母對自己孩子在校表現(xiàn)毫不關(guān)心的家庭中救治孩子的成效，在我看來并不令人鼓舞。一般說來，父母中至少要有一人能得到有關(guān)教育的信息，以確保孩子在學校取得進步。如果孩子尊重父母，并且知道父母要求自己好好上學，即便是平庸的或是很笨的老師也能夠成功地教出一般水平的能讀會算的小學生。我這么說并不是希望孩子們有差教師，只是想說明在大多數(shù)情況下孩子成功的關(guān)鍵在于：家長確保孩子做作業(yè)。