As we have just described, school-age children are great learners, using logic, developing strategies, accumulating knowledge, and expanding language proficiency. In every nation, new responsibilities and formal instruction begin at about age 6, because that is when the human body and brain are ready for them.

Traditionally, learning occurred at home, but now United Nations data find that more than 95 percent of the world’s 7-year-olds are in school; that is where their parents and political leaders want them to be. (See Visualizing Development, p. 404, for U.S. and international statistics on education in middle childhood.)

Indeed, in many developing nations the number of students in elementary school exceeds the number of school-age children, because many older children who missed some early learning are enrolled in primary education. In 2012, Ghana, El Salvador, and China were among the nations with significantly more students enrolled in primary school than the total population of children who were primary school age (UNESCO, 2012). That is not a good sign: Many of them eventually drop out without having learned to read, write, and calculate.

Everywhere children are taught to read, write, and do arithmetic. Because of brain maturation and sequenced learning, 6-year-olds are not expected to multiply three-digit numbers or read paragraphs fluently out loud, but every nation teaches 10-year-olds to do so. Some of the sequences recognized universally are listed in the At About This Time tables.

Nations also want their children to be good citizens. However, citizenship is not easy to teach. There is no consensus as to what good citizenship means or what developmental paths should be followed for children to learn it (Cohen & Malin, 2010). Accordingly, many children simply follow their parents example regarding everything from picking up trash to supporting a candidate for president.

393

Although literacy and numeracy (reading and math, respectively) are valued everywhere, many curriculum specifics vary by nation, by community, and by school. These variations are evident in the results of international tests, in the mix of school subjects, and in the relative power of parents, educators, and political leaders.

For example, daily physical activity is mandated in some schools but not in others. Many schools in Japan have swimming pools; virtually no schools in Africa or Latin America do. As you read in Chapter 11, some U.S. schools have no recess at all.

Geography, music, and art are essential in some places, not in others. Half of all U.S. 18- to 24-year-olds say they had no arts education in childhood, either in school or anywhere else (Rabkin & Hedberg, 2011) (see Figure 12.4). By contrast, schools in Finland consider arts education essential, with a positive impact on learning (Nevanen et al., 2014).

Educational practices may differ even between nations that are geographically and culturally close. For example, the average child in a primary school in Spain spends twice as much school time studying science as does the average child in Italy (145 versus 78 hours per year, respectively). Similar disparities occur in nations in which each region or district is allowed to set local standards. For example in Canada, children in the province of Quebec study science about half as much as those in Ontario (50 compared to 92 hours per year) (Snyder & Dillow, 2013).

394

Differences between one nation and another, and, in the United States, between one school and another, may be dramatic in the hidden curriculum, which includes all the implicit values and assumptions of the school. The hidden curriculum is evident in course offerings, schedules, tracking, teacher characteristics, discipline, teaching methods, sports competition, student government, extracurricular activities, and so on.

Whether students should be quiet or talkative in the classroom is part of the hidden curriculum, taught from kindergarten on. I realized this when I taught at the United Nations high school. One student, newly arrived from India, never spoke in class so I called on him. He immediately stood up to answer—to the surprise of his classmates. Soon he learned to stay seated, but he never spoke spontaneously. Students are taught to express opinions or not, and that correlates with their later political responses in their nation, as passive or active citizens (Lin, 2014).

395

The hidden curriculum is also thought to be the underlying reason for a disheartening difference in whether elementary school students respond to their teachers’ offer of special assistance. In one study, middle-class children were likely to ask for help but lower-SES students were not: They wanted to avoid special attention, fearing it would lead to criticism (Calarco, 2014). This researcher concluded that the hidden curriculum of the social context, as well as the teachers’ expectations, affected learning, unintentionally benefitting the middle-class students.

More generally, if teachers’ gender, ethnicity, or economic background is unlike that of the students, children may conclude that education is irrelevant for them. If the school has gifted classes, the hidden message may be that all the rest of the students are not very capable.

The physical setting of the school also sends a message. Some schools have spacious classrooms, wide hallways, and large, grassy playgrounds; others have cramped, poorly equipped classrooms and cement play yards. In some nations, school is held outdoors, with no chairs, desks, or books. Sessions are canceled when it rains. What does that tell the students?

Over the past two decades, more than 50 nations have participated in at least one massive international test of educational achievement. Longitudinal data reveal that when achievement rises, the national economy advances with it; this sequence seems causal, not merely correlational (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2009). Apparently, better-educated adults become more productive workers.

Science and math achievement are tested in the Trends in Math and Science Study (TIMSS). The main test of reading is the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). These tests are given every few years, with East Asian nations usually ranking at the top. The rank of the United States has risen over the past two decades, but it is still below several nations in Eastern and Western Europe, as well as in Asia (see Table 12.2 and Table 12.3). Most developing nations in Africa or South America do not give these tests, but when they do, their scores are low.

After a wholesale reform of the educational system, Finland’s scores increased dramatically from about 1990 to 2011. Changes occurred over several years, including the abolishment of ability grouping in 1985 and curriculum reform in 1994 to encourage collaboration and active learning. Strict requirements for becoming a teacher are in place. Only the top 3 percent of Finland’s high school graduates are admitted to teachers’ colleges. They study five years at the university at no charge, earning a master’s degree in the theory and practice of education.

396

Finnish teachers are also granted more autonomy within their classrooms than is typical in other systems, and since the 1990s, they have had more time and encouragement to work with colleagues (Sahlberg, 2011). Buildings are designed to foster collaboration, with comfortable teacher’s lounges (Sparks, 2012) that reflect a hidden curriculum regarding teacher professionalism. The teachers also belong to a union—again, a sign of respect.

Respect for teaching might be the reason for Finland’s success, or perhaps the reasons are more basic, such as Finland’s size, population, culture, or history.

The crucial difference may be expectations: Every child is assumed to have strengths and weaknesses that the teacher uses to find the right combination of approaches that will foster learning. Almost no child is designated for special education because all are given individualized attention.

International test results reflect educational approaches in various nations, as well as cultural values. TIMSS experts videotaped 231 math classes in Japan, Germany, and the United States (Stigler & Hiebert, 2009). The U.S. teachers taught math at a lower level than did their German and Japanese counterparts, presenting more definitions disconnected to prior learning. Few U.S. students seemed engaged in math because they felt the “teachers seem to believe that learning terms and practicing skills is not very exciting” (p. 89).

By contrast, the Japanese teachers were excited about math instruction, working collaboratively and structuring lessons so that the children developed proofs and alternative solutions, both alone and in groups. Teachers used social interaction and followed an orderly sequence (building lessons on previous knowledge). Japanese teaching reflected all three theories of cognition: children’s creative problem solving from Piaget, collaborative learning from Vygotsky, and sequencing from information processing. Since Japanese students excel on the TIMSS, the teachers’ use of strategies from all three theories may lead to student success.

397

Elaborate and extensive measures are in place to make the PIRLS and the TIMSS valid. For instance, test items are designed to be fair and culture-free, and participating children represent the diversity (economic, ethnic, etc.) of the child population. Consequently, most social scientists respect the data gathered from these tests.

The tests are far from perfect, however. Designing test items that are equally challenging to every student in every nation is impossible. Should fourth-graders be expected to understand fractions, graphs, and simple geometry, or should the test examine only basic operations with whole numbers? Once such general issues are decided so that every child has an equal chance, then specific items need to be written, again with an effort to be equally fair to every culture. The following item was used to test fourth-grade math:

Al wanted to find out how much his cat weighed. He weighed himself and noted that the scale read 57 kg. He then stepped on the scale holding his cat and found that it read 62 kg. What was the weight of the cat in kilograms?

This problem involves simple subtraction, yet 40 percent of U.S. fourth-graders got it wrong. Were they unable to subtract 57 from 62? Did they not understand the example? Did the abbreviation for kilograms confuse them because—unlike children in most nations—they are more familiar with pounds? On this item, children from Yemen were at the bottom, with 95 percent of them failing. Is that because few of them have cats for pets or weigh themselves on a scale? As you see, national and cultural contexts may affect test scores.

In addition to marked national, ethnic, and economic differences, gender differences in achievement scores are reported. The PIRLS finds girls ahead of boys in verbal skills in every nation by an average of 16 points. The female advantage is not that high in the United States, with the 2011 PIRLS finding girls 10 points ahead. This meant that they were about 2 percent ahead of the average boy, an advantage—similar to Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands—suggesting that those nations are closer in gender equality than the average PIRLS nation.

Traditionally, boys were ahead of girls in math and science. However, the 2011 TIMSS reported that gender differences among fourth-graders in math have narrowed or disappeared. In most nations, boys are still slightly ahead, with the United States showing the greatest male advantage (9 points). However in many nations, girls are ahead, sometimes by a great deal, such as 14 points in Thailand and 35 points in Kuwait. Such results lead to a gender-similarities hypothesis that males and females are similar on most test measures, with “trivial” exceptions (Hyde et al., 2008, p. 494).

Unlike test results, classroom performance during elementary school shows gender differences in almost every nation. Girls have higher report card grades overall, including in math and science. Then, at puberty, girls’ grades dip, especially in science, and in college, fewer women choose STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) majors, and even fewer pursue STEM careers. For instance, in the United States as in most nations, although women earn more college degrees than men, in 2011 only 22 percent of the doctorates in engineering were awarded to women (Snyder & Dillow, 2013).

398

Many reasons for gender differences in educational attainment have been suggested, with the social context of the elementary school classroom being crucial (Legewie & DiPrete, 2012). Perhaps school itself is more connected with feminism than masculinity. Indeed, children are all expected to sit still and concentrate, which may be easier for girls than boys. If sexual attractiveness becomes crucial at puberty, girls may underachieve because they think boys will not be attracted to them if they are too smart. As adults they believe that a career in science will clash with becoming good mothers and wives.

An alternate explanation is that social prejudice and the hidden curriculum favors young girls but not young women. Since most elementary school teachers are women, girls in the early grades may feel (or be) more encouraged than boys. Then, when adolescents begin to prepare for adulthood, most seek the roles that have typically been held by their sex—nurse, not doctor; secretary, not CEO; and definitely not mathematician, physicist, or engineer. Explanations for the gender gap in STEM fields have shifted over the past 40 years: Analysts once blamed the female brain or body; currently blame more often falls on culture or society (Kanny et al., 2014).

The following A Case to Study is an example: Do you think Paul became a low achiever because he was male, or because he was Mexican, or because his school failed him?

Although most national tests indicate improvements in U.S. children’s academic performance over the past decade, when U.S. children are compared with children in other nations, they are still far from the top. A particular concern is that a child’s achievement seems to be more influenced by income and ethnicity in the United States than in other nations. Some high-scoring nations have more ethnic groups and immigrants than the United States, so diversity itself is not the reason.

399

Each state and each school district in the United States determines school policy and funding, with one result being notable disparities. For example, Massachusetts and Minnesota are consistently at the top of state achievement, and West Virginia, Mississippi, and New Mexico are at the bottom—in part because of the investment in education within those states as well as the proportion of students of high or low SES (which itself affects state spending) (Pryor, 2014).

Also in the United States, although many educators and political leaders have attempted to eradicate performance disparities linked to a child’s background, the gap between fourth-grade European Americans and their Latino and African American peers is as wide as it was 15 years ago (Snyder & Dillow, 2013). Furthermore, the gap between low- and high-income U.S. students is widening, as is the gap between Native Americans and other groups (Maxwell, 2012).

International comparisons as well as disparities within the United States led to passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, a federal law promoting high national standards for public schools. One controversial aspect of the law is that it requires frequent testing to measure whether standards are being met. Low-scoring schools lose funding and may be closed. An unfortunate result is that children of average achievement are pushed to meet the benchmark, while children far above or far below may be ignored.

Most people agree with the NCLB goals (accountability and higher achievement) but not with the strategies that must be used (Frey et al., 2012). NCLB troubles those who value the arts, social studies, or physical education because those subjects are often squeezed out when reading and math achievement are the ultimate priorities (Dee et al., 2013). States have been granted substantial power of implementation. Teacher evaluation and preparation has increased, but class size has not decreased, and the tests, and testing, remain controversial (Frey et al., 2012; Dee et al., 2013).

For decades, federally sponsored tests called the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) have measured achievement in reading, mathematics, and other subjects. Many critics believe that the NAEP is more realistic than state tests because the NAEP labels fewer children proficient. For example in the state of New York, state tests found 62 percent proficient in math, but the NAEP found only 32 percent; 51 percent were found proficient in reading on the state tests but only 35 percent according to NAEP (Martin, 2014).

Disagreement about state tests and standards led the governors of all 50 states to designate a group of experts who developed a Common Core of standards, finalized in 2010, for use nationwide. The standards, more rigorous than most state standards, are quite explicit, with half a dozen or more specific expectations for achievement in each subject for each grade. (Table 12.4 provides a sample of the specific standards.) As of 2013, forty-four states adopted this Common Core for both reading and math. Minnesota is a partial adopter, in reading but not in math, and five states—Texas, Virginia, Alaska, Indiana, and Nebraska—opted out of the Common Core.

Most teachers were initially in favor of the Common Core, but implementation has turned many against it. In 2013, a poll by Education Next found only 12 percent of teachers were opposed to the Common Core; a year later, 40 percent were (Gewertz, 2014). Likewise, many state legislators as well as the general public have doubts about the Common Core. This is another example of a general finding: Issues regarding how best to teach children, and what they need to learn, are controversial among teachers, parents, and political leaders.

400

One example of such a controversy involves determining when, how, to whom, and whether schools should provide second-language instruction. These questions are answered in opposite ways from one nation to another. Some nations teach two or more languages throughout elementary school, and others punish children who utter any word in any language other than the majority one.

In the United States, less than 5 percent of children under age 11 study a language other than English in school (Robelen, 2011). (In secondary school, most U.S. students take a year or two of a language other than English, but studies of brain maturation suggest that this is too late for efficient language learning.)

Some U.S. educators note that almost every child studies two languages by age 10 in Canada as well as in most nations of Europe. African children who are talented and fortunate enough to reach high school often speak three languages. The implications of this for U.S. language instruction are often ignored because of debates about immigration and globalization. Instead of trying to teach English-speaking children a second language during the years when they are best able to learn it, educators in the United States debate how best to teach English to children who do not speak it, a topic discussed above.

An underlying issue for almost any national or international school is the proper role of parents. In most nations, matters regarding public education—curriculum, funding, teacher training, and so on—are set by the central government. Almost all children attend the local school, whose resources and standards are similar to those of the other schools in that nation. In those nations, the parents’ job is to support the child’s learning, by checking homework and so on.

401

In contrast to that model, local districts in the United States provide most of the funds and guidelines, and parents, as voters and volunteers, are often active in their child’s school. As part of the trend toward fewer children per family, parents are increasingly ready to move their children from one public school to another. Parents befriend their child’s teacher, join parent–teacher associations (PTAs), move to another school zone, vote for local officials who have particular policies in education, and so on.

Although most U.S. parents send their children to the nearest public school, almost one-third do not. Other choices include a more distant public school, a public charter school, a private school, or home schooling (see Figure 12.5).

The existence of all of these options creates a problem: It is difficult for parents to decide the best school for their child, partly because neither the test scores of students in any of these schools, nor the moral values a particular school may espouse, correlate with the cognitive skills that developmentalists seek to foster (Finn et al., 2014). Thus, parents may choose a school that may not actually be the best educational experience for their child. Schools that enroll only children from selected families may publish high scores, but not because of the school.

Charter schools are public schools funded and licensed by states or local districts. Typically, they also have private money and sponsors. They are exempt from some regulations, especially those negotiated by teacher unions (hours, class size, etc.), and they control admissions and expulsions. They are more ethnically segregated and enroll fewer children with special needs (Stern et al., 2014).

On average, teachers at charter schools are younger and work longer hours than regular public school teachers, and school size is smaller than in traditional schools. Perhaps 4 percent of U.S. children are in charter schools.

Some charter schools are remarkably successful; others are not (Clark et al., 2014). A major criticism is that not every child who enters a charter school stays to graduate; one scholar reports that “the dropout rate for African American males is shocking” (Miron, quoted in Zehr, 2011b, p. 1). Children and teachers leave charter schools more often than they leave regular public schools, a disturbing statistic.

402

Overall, the charter school question is complex, with so much variation from state to state, and school to school (some schools sought by many parents, some avoided for good reasons) that it is difficult to judge charters as a group.

Private schools are funded by tuition, endowments, and church sponsors. Traditionally in the United States, most private schools were parochial (church related), organized by the Catholic Church to teach religion and to resist the anti-Catholic rhetoric of many public schools. Tuition was low since teachers were nuns who earned little pay.

Recently, many Catholic schools have closed, and other church-related schools have opened as have more independent private schools. All told, about 10 percent of students in the United States attend private schools. Economic factors are a major concern: High tuition means that few private-school children are poor or even middle class.

To solve that problem, some U.S. jurisdictions issue vouchers, money that parents can use to pay some or all of the tuition at a private school, including a church-sponsored one. This practice is controversial, not only because it decreases public school support but also because public funds go to religious institutions, contrary to the U.S. principle of separation of church and state. Advocates say that vouchers increase competition and improve all schools; critics counter that they weaken public schools and are costly to taxpayers.

Home schooling occurs when parents avoid both public and private schools by educating their children at home. In most U.S. states, authorities set standards for what a child must learn, but home-schooling families decide specifics of curriculum, schedules, and discipline. This choice has become more common: About 2 percent of all children were home schooled in 2003, about 3 percent in 2007, and perhaps slightly more in 2012 (Snyder & Dillow, 2013; Ray, 2013). Numbers are not expected to continue to increase, because home schooling requires an adult at home, typically the mother in a two-parent family, who is willing to teach the children. Such mothers are increasingly scarce.

The major problem with home schooling is not academic (some mothers are conscientious teachers and some home-schooled children score high on achievement tests) but social: Children have no interaction with classmates. To compensate, many home-schooling parents plan activities with other home-schooling families. This practice reflects local culture: Home schooling is more common in some parts of the United States (in the South and the Northwest more than in the Northeast or Midwest), which affects how readily parents can find other home-schooled children.

The underlying problem with all these options is that people disagree about the best education for a 6- to 11-year-old and about how to measure learning. For example, many parents consider class size to be a major issue: They may choose private school, if they can afford it, because fewer students are in each class. They also insist that children have homework, beginning in the first grade. Yet few developmentalists are convinced that either small classes or daily homework are essential for cognitive development during middle childhood.

403

Mixed evidence comes from nations where children score high on international tests. Sometimes they have large student–teacher ratios (Korea’s average is 28 to 1) and sometimes small (Finland’s is 14 to 1). Fourth-graders with no homework sometimes have higher achievement scores than those with homework (Snyder & Dillow, 2010). This does not prove that small classes and extensive homework are worthless. Perhaps weaker students are assigned to smaller classes with more homework? If so, the data on homework or class size may be the results of low-scoring children, not vice versa. Nevertheless, these correlations raise doubts.

Who should decide what children should learn and how? Every developmental theory can lead to suggestions about education, but implementation is difficult. Statistical analysis raises questions about homeschooling and about charter schools (Lubienski et al., 2013; Finn et al., 2014), but as our discussion of NAEP, Common Core, TIMSS, and so on makes clear, the evidence allows many interpretations. As one review notes, “the modern day, home-based, parent-led education movement … stirs up many a curious query, negative critique, and firm praise” (Ray, 2013, p. 378). Parents, politicians, and developmental experts all agree that school is vital for development and that some children learn much more than others, but disagreement about teachers and curriculum—hidden or overt—abound.

As of 2014 in the United States, the nation’s public schools are said to have become “majority minority,” which means that most students are from groups that once were called minorities—such as African American, Latino, or Asian American (Krogstad & Fry, 2014) (see Figure 12.6). From a developmental perspective, the terms majority and minority are misleading, since the majority category includes many children whose ancestors came from distinct parts of Europe, and the minority category likewise includes many groups. Regarding cognitive development, though, in middle childhood, every child advances, with specifics dependent far more on each individual’s particular experiences than on his or her ethnic background.

404

405

Cognitive research leaves no doubt that, barring severe impairment, all school-age children can learn a second language and become skilled in math, reading, writing, and so on if they are taught logically, step-by-step. Whether they do so, however, is affected by SES, expectations, school practices, and national policies.

Children also learn best from personal contact, as might be expected during the period of concrete operational thinking. If well taught during middle childhood, children can learn about various groups, becoming sensitive to prejudice against any of their peers—whether based on gender, ethnicity, religion, or national origin (Bigler & Wright, 2014).

School children’s ability to be logical and teachable, now that they are no longer preoperational and egocentric, makes this a good time to teach them to be proud of who they are, as well as to learn about their classmates. Ideally, they are fortunate enough to have a diverse classroom and a teacher who appreciates differences and similarities. Schools and homes both have a marked impact on what a child learns, and, as this chapter details again and again, children are ready to learn whatever their social context teaches them.

406