BBC Show: Are British Kids Tough Enough to Handle Chinese School?

[StChris]

I didn't watch the final episode (not planning to either!), but according to an article I read in the Financial Times the Chinese school students' results averaged 10 points above the other students. 

 

http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001063576?page=1

 

The article wisely dismisses the show within the first couple of paragraphs (calling the "experiment" unscientific) and goes on to explore other aspects of the topic. 

[StChris]

If there were ever to be a proper experiment, I'd like to see the results of 4 test groups:

1. English teaching style and English teaching hours (9am-3pm)

2. English teaching style and Chinese school hours (7am-7pm)

3. Chinese teaching style and English teaching hours.

4. Chinese teaching style and Chinese teaching hours

 

That way you could see whether the differences in performance were just due to increased study time or not. 

[LiMo]

That's what I would have said too to be honest. It's too bad the article is in Chinese. I'm not sure but I bet the English language media will put a different spin on things. I won't labour the point but I think it's incredibly misleading in many ways. As most people don't know anything much about how to design a study all you have to do is say a test was set by an independent body and that's probably enough to varnish it with "scientific approval" in many people's eyes. It's because of shows like this that general impressions and expectations are set about our education system that may, in the long run, influence policy and millions of peoples futures. It's blatantly unscientific if you're attuned to these things, but I don't think it's patronising to say that the vast majority of people aren't. I could be wrong but I think unless you actually conduct a valid experiment something like this-which is tantamount to no evidence at all, it wouldn't even pass as a plot study- will just mislead people.

 

Yes, I agree with your groupings there. We'd also have to look beyond mean averages, examine the distribution itself, and determine if the differences in results are statistically significant (given the variance etcetera). I know this is the kind of stuff that producers think would be boring but it's very interesting in my opinion. With a decent teacher even statistics can be rapidly explained to a lay audience with enough depth to get the requisite point across. It's just laziness and conservatism in my opinion. 

[imron]

Higher math scores are great and all, but on the flip side here's an interesting article discussing a possible link between excessive studying and myopia: http://smh.com.au/national/how-hothousing-kids-is-ruining-their-eyesight-20150821-gj4i32.html

[Shelley]

You will never be able to do a true comparison because you only have one of every child. ideally you would want 4 of each child and exactly the same parameters for everything except the 4 groups described by StChris in post#142.

 

Best you might get is the same kids used every time with the 4 different tests.

 

Still my personal opinion and I stress this is only my opinion, I have no facts to back it up, I think the Chinese way is better except for the long hours, 9 - 5 like any other working day should be enough and leave some time for the child to play and grow.

[gato]

Such strict disciplinarian teaching approach is also used at some charter schools in the U.S., such as the Success Academy in Harlem. Charter schools are government-funded schools that have more freedom to set up their own rules and school hours. I think they are called "academies" in the UK.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/nyregion/at-success-academy-charter-schools-polarizing-methods-and-superior-results.html?_r=0&referrer=

At Success Academy Charter Schools, High Scores and Polarizing Tactics

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/17/nyregion/success-academy-parents-voices.html

Stories From Current and Former Success Academy Parents

[somethingfunny]

For a truly worthwhile study, it would have to be conducted over a long period of time.  If you put a group of kids in a Chinese environment for a few months, then give them a Chinese style test at the end and they all do well this doesn't prove anything more than going to school helps you learn stuff.

 

So what you'd need is a large sample size (let's say, all children under the age of 16), exposed to either the Chinese or British education system over many years (let's say ~12 years) and then look at outcome after that in terms of average pay, living standard, number going on to further education (and ranking of institution attended) etc.  

 

If they ever introduced the Chinese system in the UK, I would quit my job and home-school my kids... instantly.  I'm sorry, but when you're 30 years old and looking for a job, being good at maths is useful, but having a high score on a maths test when you were 15 isn't worth s**t.

[skylee]

So how does a kid who is not so good on a math test become being good at math 15 years later?

[Flickserve]

Higher math scores are great and all, but on the flip side here's an interesting article discussing a possible link between excessive studying and myopia: http://smh.com.au/national/how-hothousing-kids-is-ruining-their-eyesight-20150821-gj4i32.html

that's an association! The causation is the lack of sunshine!!

[somethingfunny]

What I mean is that testing, while useful for placement and measuring progress, is ultimately of very little value later on in life.  I would be much more concerned about my child's ability at maths rather than their ability at maths tests.

 

When I was a student, I took a level 4 course in Density Functional Theory (verify here that the maths involved is of a sufficiently complex variety).  The person that taught this course was a Professor of Theoretical Chemistry at one of the best Chemistry departments in the country (and a leading academic in the field).  All of this despite the fact that he had not taken A-level Maths.  So, just because I don't have a high score on the maths test, doesn't mean I'm not good at Maths.

 

Interestingly, it's not false negatives like this example but false positives which are more serious in test-heavy systems.  I, for example, have an A in GCSE French, but apart from telling you my name, my age (12 years old) and where I live (or where I lived when I was 12 years old) there's not a lot else that I can say.

 

The UK suffers from a test-oriented system, but it is no-where near as serious as the problem in China, where it is further compounded by problems with integrity etc etc.

 

So yeah, homeschooling.

[skylee]

Why would someone who is good at math get bad scores at math tests?

I failed very badly at higher math and there was no excuse - I was not good at it. On the same certificate there are a couple of As and then there is this "U" grade for my higher math. I think it reflected the truth. I don't blame the systems.

[somethingfunny]

I don't feel like this is a productive discussion.  Are all the Chinese high school kids acing the English part of their Gaokao good at English?  Absolutely not.  

 

Remember, I'm not saying that all kids good at maths are getting bad scores on maths tests, just that it's possible for it to happen.  Maybe you were sick on test day, maybe you missed some school for family reasons, maybe you had a crappy teacher, maybe your deskmate was a jackass who stabbed in you in the leg all lesson with his pair of compasses, maybe you were so tired from basketball practice that you slept all maths class and no-one ever bothered asking you if you were more interested in maths or basketball because you're 16 years old and 6'6" already.

 

In a system that relies entirely on testing a test only tells you one thing:  this kid is good or bad at tests.

[Shelley]

One of the main reasons people place such importance on exams, test and results is because it show not only that you are good at maths or whatever subject but that you can apply yourself to study and retain and retrieve the information you have been taught.

 

This shows that you are capable of learning, and from experience as an employer that is one of the most important things.

 

There needs to be some way an employer can determine whether or not this person is suitable for the job, and these exam results are a good starting point.

 

At the age of 16 I had no idea what I would spend my life doing, heck at 16 I didn't even know the job I have spent my whole life doing even existed.

 

You need to come out of education with a well round set of skills even if you don't know what you might use any or all of them for. I was surprised at the cross section of skills that I have used all my working life.

 

I think you just need to absorb and learn as much as possible early on and then add to and refine these things as you go through life and when you find out just what you need.

[LiMo]

Testing definitely has it's place, but I personally think that the Chinese system takes things too far. What it's testing is whether students can memorise facts under huge amounts of pressure, and here and there, exercise some creative ability in essay writing. These are both useful skills, no doubt, but I think the system has been pushed to extremes in a kind of positive feedback loop. In order to look like you're even half good at life you now have to endure so much stress that the toll this has on students isn't worth it in my opinion. We are often so impressed by the "winners" in this system that we don't stop to think about the "losers" who most likely represent a majority. There are plenty of other skills and competencies that could be taught at schools without this extreme testing culture.

 

More discipline in British schools and support from parents: Yes.

Chinese educational system: No, thank you.

[Flickserve]

What I mean is that testing, while useful for placement and measuring progress, is ultimately of very little value later on in life. I would be much more concerned about my child's ability at maths rather than their ability at maths tests.

When I was a student, I took a level 4 course in Density Functional Theory (verify here that the maths involved is of a sufficiently complex variety). The person that taught this course was a Professor of Theoretical Chemistry at one of the best Chemistry departments in the country (and a leading academic in the field). All of this despite the fact that he had not taken A-level Maths. So, just because I don't have a high score on the maths test, doesn't mean I'm not good at Maths.

Interestingly, it's not false negatives like this example but false positives which are more serious in test-heavy systems. I, for example, have an A in GCSE French, but apart from telling you my name, my age (12 years old) and where I live (or where I lived when I was 12 years old) there's not a lot else that I can say.

The UK suffers from a test-oriented system, but it is no-where near as serious as the problem in China, where it is further compounded by problems with integrity etc etc.

So yeah, homeschooling.

that's interesting. So you imply homeschooling is a higher sensitivity and specificity of ability than just tests.

That might be true but who does the home schooling? Would the ability of the persons who direct the home schooling show a high variability across a population. I don't know much about the evidence but I would imagine a lot of the decision for home schooling is directed by highly motivated individuals who take an active interest in education. And this is the group that has been mentioned beforehand of having children that perform well. This is called 'confounding'.

Edit**

For the languages part, we do know we still need to practice what we learnt. If you don't practice and refresh, you lose it.

[gato]

We are often so impressed by the "winners" in this system that we don't stop to think about the "losers" who most likely represent a majority. There are plenty of other skills and competencies that could be taught at schools without this extreme testing culture.

 

More discipline in British schools and support from parents: Yes.

Chinese educational system: No, thank you.

"Chinese" should be replaced by "East Asian" here.

Aside from the political brainwashing, the teaching method in in the other East Asian countries/jurisdiction such as Taiwan, HK, Japan, and South Korea are very similar to China's. There are pros and cons to the method, just like there are with the US or UK teaching methods.

[somethingfunny]

Really I was just using homeschooling as a way of saying I would take the most drastic action necessary to avoid my children being educated under the Chinese system.  Obviously it would be a financial calculation of how much money I would lose by quitting my job vs. how much private school would cost if I kept my job. 

[StChris]

The documentary was discussed on yesterdays 锵锵三人行:

http://v.ifeng.com/news/society/201509/0180e536-c123-4498-b932-dd1af5278409.shtml

[suMMit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohunt_Chinese_School

Bohunt Chinese School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Bohunt chinese school)

 

Jump to navigationJump to search

Bohunt Chinese School was an experiment that took place at the Bohunt School in Liphook, Hampshire, United Kingdom in 2015.^[1] The experiment involved 50 year nine students at the school being educated by Chinese teachers using traditional Chinese teaching methods for a period of four weeks. This included mostly lecture-basedteaching and 12-hour shifts at school.^[2][3]

At the end of the experiment, the academic achievement of the 50-pupil group that received Chinese education was compared with an equivalent group of their peers through an assessment carried out by an independent board. In the assessment, pupils in the Chinese-educated group performed 10% better than their other peers in maths, science and Mandarin.^[4]

This experiment was broadcast by the BBC as part of a three-episode documentary.^[5]

 

 

[Jan Finster]

8 minutes ago, suMMit said:

12-hour shifts at school

 

Were the control group students also studying 12 hours per day?