Skinner 1

Samuel Skinner

Ms. Hunter

English 1201-507

21 March 2021

Why is the United States’ Education System Behind?

Education systems allow society to improve and make sure that the next generation of

kids is more prepared than their parents. Ideally, they would prepare every student so that they

could achieve their full potential, but nothing is ever ideal. That leads into the question, is the

United States' education system good enough at preparing students? And arguably more

important, are we falling behind other developed countries? 

In the not-so-distant past, education systems didn’t prepare students for their futures at

all. Over time, these systems have evolved and have become a requirement for almost every

child. Today’s educational systems are designed to educate students and prepare them for their

future, but because every country tackles problems in a slightly different way, education systems

vary in their effectiveness. In order to increase the effectiveness of schools all around the world,

information is transferred through academia. In academia, there are many de facto standards for

communicating, but the most important one is the segmenting of an entire educational system

into primary, secondary, and tertiary, sometimes called post-secondary, categories. These

correspond to pre-high school, high school, and college in the American educational system.

Funding is almost always a topic of discussion when education change is discussed, but

only certain types of funding help. For example, in a 2016 article published by Paul E. Peterson,

an author that specializes in research into education reform. The average U.S. student had

$12.700 spent on their education, while at the same time in Germany, $10,300 was spent per
 Skinner 2

pupil (Peterson par. 7). This reduction of per-student expenditures manifested itself not in lower

taxes, but in increases in teacher’s salaries of about $10,000 to $20,000 (Peterson par. 7). At the

same time that German teachers were being paid more, the United States was increasing its

spending per pupil (Peterson and Hanushek par. 12). In a 2014 article co-written by Mr. Peterson

and Eric A. Hanushek, an economist with a focus on education. They noted that in 2013, the

United States spent about $12,000 per pupil; a $700 change in just two years. It is unknown what

this average increase in funding will do, but if one looks into the past one would see that

“increments in spending per pupil between 1990 and 2010 show no correlation with changes in

student performance” (Peterson and Hanushek par. 12).

The idea that the United States is behind in absolute terms is not new, but the idea that

this is caused by a slowing in growth is relatively new. Many sources mention that the United

States’ growth is lower, but they don’t quantify with statistics exactly how much slower the

United States is growing. In a study of data from 1960 up until 2009, Mr. Peterson and Eric A.

Hanushek quantified these differences by looking at developed and developing countries like

Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. Those countries tended to grow about 2% faster per year than

expected, while the United States only grew around 0.66% faster than the world average. This

difference is small, but a difference of 1.33% over many years adds up to a significant difference

over time (Hanushek and Peterson par. 6-7). This slowing in growth has caused the United States

to fall behind. In another one of Peterson’s articles he notes that between the years 2000 and

2012, Germany outgrew “their U.S. peers by 32 points in math, 27 points in science, and 10

points in reading” (Peterson par. 4). These differences are caused by a slowing in growth

compared to other countries and not the United States regressing.

 Skinner 3

Part of the reason the United States tends to be behind the rest of the world is that it tends

to not learn from other countries' successes; The United States tends to do things its own way. A

perfect example of this is our gifted programs. Mark Bauerlein, an English professor, published a

review of the book Failing our Brightest Kids in the Harvard Education Press. This book talks

about many of the key differences between the United States’ and Singapore's education systems.

In Singapore, they have a program that selects the top 1% of students through a series of two

tests in primary and secondary schools (Bauerlein par. 2). Whereas the United States doesn’t

have a national system of tests and in fact does the exact opposite by focusing “all the energy …

on low performers, not high ones” (Bauerlein par. 4) through pieces of legislation like the No

Child Left Behind Act. In the United States, the focus is put on making sure the bottom 5% is

able to succeed rather than letting the top 1% achieve their top potential. This difference in

policy on where targeted education goes means that “Singapore's poorest kids far outperform the

highest-income quartile in the U.S.!” (Bauerlein par. 9). Another very good example of the

United States refusing to adapt is outlined in Young M. Kim’s paper on the standardization of

Europe’s tertiary education systems. The systems were standardized to decrease the “inefficient

use of public money that produces less than stellar student progression” (Kim 3). As a result of

this standardization, Europe has had a “surge in degree attainment” (Kim 1) that “[has]

implications for American policy-makers” (Kim 1). Reading further into the paper one can see

that these changes have not caused the United States to change its funding of tertiary education,

as the funding system described on page 9 is still the same funding system used today. 

Another consistently talked about idea is the fact that the United States significantly

underperforms its expectations when being compared to other developed countries. For example,

only “32 percent of US high school students are proficient in math” (Hanushek and Peterson)
 Skinner 4

compared to “45 percent in Germany, 49 percent in Canada, and 63 percent in Singapore”

(Hanushek and Peterson par. 1). Overall, this means that the United States ranks 28th in math,

21st in science, and 19th in reading on the PISA international test (Bauerlein par. 6). This lack of

in-school proficiency translates into low standardized test scores as well as a lack of general

knowledge retention. A 1991 article, while older, details a survey of about 5000 adults split

between Japan and the United States and their responses to basic yes/no science questions that

show that information retention from school is low. An example question is: ‘lasers work by

focusing sound waves’ (Langreth par.3) to which only 37% of American respondents and 14% of

Japanese respondents gave the correct response of no.

Just because the United States doesn’t achieve what it could, doesn’t mean that the

education system is a complete failure and should be removed. It does a perfectly adequate job at

giving an education to people that otherwise would have never attained an education. On

international tests, the U.S. tends to score in the high teens and 20s of the best countries which is

still better than the vast majority of countries. Another major misconception is that the entire

system should be scrapped and completely re-done from scratch. While that may be a solution

that would eventually be slightly better over a long period, the 20-year gap of students passing

through a divided system would probably do significantly more harm than the newer, more

refined education system would do.

Some of the best possible solutions right now would be to institute stop-gap and

patchwork solutions to make the current education system more like Europe’s and other places

that tend to perform significantly better. The biggest change, ideally, would be to our treatment

of gifted kids. This could be instituted by adding on to the No Child Left Behind act and making

sure that no student is left with untapped potential at the end of their education.
 Skinner 5

Works Cited

Bauerlein, Mark. "High-achieving countries leave America behind: it's time to stop ignoring

smart kids." Education Next, vol. 16, no. 2, 2016, p. 89+. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A448138336/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=cd94ae1d. Accessed 21 Mar. 2021.

Hanushek, Eric A., and Paul E. Peterson. "Higher grades, higher GDP: the stronger the student

performance, the more prosperous the nation." Hoover Digest, no. 1, 2014, p. 75+. Gale

In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A373680614/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=f6fc9ac1. Accessed 21 Mar. 2021.

Kim, Young M. “Convergence of Tertiary Education Policies in Europe and Implications for the

United States of America.” Higher Education in Europe, vol. 34, no. 1, Apr. 2009, pp.

65–76. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/03797720902747041. Accessed 21 Mar. 2021.

Langreth, Robert. "Surprise! U.S. sometimes beats Japan in understanding science." Science, vol.

251, no. 4997, 1991, p. 1024. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A10492461/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=ee69b236.

Accessed 21 Mar. 2021.

Peterson, Paul E. "Why do German students learn more, when their schools get less money?"

Education Next, vol. 16, no. 1, 2016, p. 5. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A441690169/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=472547f8.

Accessed 21 Mar. 2021.

 Skinner 6

Update citatiosn