Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

President Obama said in his address to the nation last night that the nation’s public schools must place more emphasis on math and science, something economic giants like India and China had already figured out. Anchor Marco Werman speaks with someone who’s experienced China’s math and science curriculum firsthand, Yong Zhao, professor of education at the University of Oregon. Download MP3

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: In his speech last night president Obama said American education in math and science lacks behind that of other nations. He specifically mentioned India and China, and the greater emphasis in schools there on math and science. Young Zhao grew up in China. He got that big dose of math and science in the schools there. He is now a professor of education at the University of Oregon. Young Zhao, we hear about these high math and science test scores out of places like China and South Korea and Singapore. What exactly is the pedagogical difference in how math and science are taught in places like China, your home country compared to the United States?

YONG ZHAO: Well I think the biggest pedagogical difference is that in China and other Asian countries get good scores, students spend excessive amount of time on doing mathematics and in memorizing math facts. And in addition is that the Chinese teachers typically are going to have more training in a mathematic content, but they may not have enough knowledge about the children, but they know the content quite well.

WERMAN: So in your mind what are the pros and cons of the Asian approach if we dare call it to math and science?

ZHAO: Well I say more cons actually than pros at this time. I think I’m biased in that regard. But I think the cons generally come in terms of how they learn mathematics, for example is that they do not necessarily have mathematic competency or mathematic interest or competency in that.

WERMAN: So as president Obama tries to press for better math and science education in American schools, I mean he’ got some peculiar American challenges he’ got to deal with like the federal state and local layers of education.

ZHAO: That’ true, but I think president Obama’ problem is that he is trying to draw the link between innovation, economic development and education, but he draws the connections only through test scores. Last night he talked a lot about how the US is still strong, still innovative, but at the same time he is talking about how American public education is not doing well and worse than other countries for over half a century since the Sputnik moment. The US grades have been said to be worse than that of Russia, then Japan, and now China, India, but regardless of this conversation with a half of century US remains very strong. Another problem he talks about is US needs innovation. I think that the current formula of the federal government [xx] Race to the top and other accountability measures such as No child left behind are not necessarily stimulating the kind of innovation we need or prepare a type of innovative [xx] we might need in the future. He has challenges, but I don’t think the way he is doing it is necessarily the right way for the future of the US.

WERMAN: Why I’d love to know what your prescription is then for Mr. Obama. I mean if he is so impressed by China’ track record in math and science and you feel there are pros and cons in China’ teaching of math and science, because he is upon, but let’ treat it as a Chinese menu, what should he take and what should he leave behind from China’ example?

ZHAO: I don’t think necessarily China is necessarily the country to imitate in terms of education in general. What I think America should do right now is continue to broaden the definition of education beyond certain subject areas, certain content areas or what we need in US is actually to develop the spirit of entrepreneurship. So I think from China we can learn perhaps more about classroom instruction or content instruction, but at the same time we need to think education is much broader than just content instruction in the classroom. I don’t know we should be happy or sad but in the past three decades the Chinese changes have all trying to be to reorient education to move away from test scores, to be more like the US, to allow more flexibility and more diversity in the curriculum choices to scores. I think the US education, right now, our problem is not trying to switch more efficiency in instruction. Therefore to nationalize everything, we need to think about local and I think distributed decision making. Giving teachers and others more autonomy might be the best way to stimulate more consistency in learning. These policies can come and go, but the most reliable stable force is public school educators. If you respect them, if they develop the professionalism can have, that will be very powerful. [?]

WERMAN: Yong Zhao a professor of education at the University of Oregon with a special interest in the impact of globalization on education. Young Zhao, thanks for speaking with us.

ZHAO: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.