The Economist describes in detail the role China has played in Asia, its relationship with the United States, its growing arms capabilities and its potential political future. While the article is an excellent source to understand the diplomatic roles important to maintaining a stable world, it consistently describes both the United States and China as single entities much like two people rather than two nations made up of many important role players with complex interests. One cannot deny that despite China's lack of democracy there is no question to the potential threat they pose for the world if they should decide to engage in more coercive economic and political relations. An important fact, however, mentioned throughout the analysis of China is that through peace, economic growth is more realistic. While there is little need to have to view the relationship of our two nations as a 'rivalry', a question posed, is whether China's economic growth is sustainable and can truly out perform the rest of the world in the future.
Instead of focusing on nations as just single polities, it is essential to view the growth and development of the populous if we want to understand the future of the nation. More importantly, how is the future of this populous being determined? Unmistakably, the answer is in the existing education system. The New York Times coverage of the recent release of China's PISA test results also came with an important opinion piece by Jiang Xueqin which describes that although Chinese students from Shanghai and other major cities can perform well on mathematics and science exams, they can still fail to find success in critical thinking situations and in a constantly changing global economy. The description of the Chinese schooling system describe the importance of test results, math, science, and disciplined schooling. While the media describes greater emphasis on mathematics and studying, the curriculum of China begs to differ. Nanzhao and Muju's "Educational Reform and Curriculum Change in China: A Comparative Case Study" describes recent changes in the Chinese school system such as increased time for Physical Education and Moral Character Building while less on Mathematics. However, these gains come at the cost of less emphasis on the Arts. Other sources describe mixed views on China's curriculum. Wikipedia claims that as much as 60% of Chinese curriculum in their primary education (the six years before China's version of high school) is spent on Mathematics and the Chinese language alone, however this claim is not supported directly in the text. An impressive aspect of the Chinese schooling system is the more recent growth of emphasis on teaching and its prestige. Teaching is essential to student success and this aspect of China's schooling system should be focused on more than a test. From Nanzhao and Muju's comparison it can be seen that the Chinese culture puts a strong emphasis on education and is truly looking to improve whatever weaknesses may arise in the system. From the PISA test results, however, all that can be inferred is little more than the results themselves. The issue with the articles from the NYTimes and The Economist is their description of China's changes as a movement toward modernization.
Modernization can be defined very subjectively but there seems to be a strong point missing from the analysis of how the Chinese schooling system is affecting the students. Other than not preparing students for critical thinking in the business world which requires communication skills and creativity to remain relevant, these articles are forgetting about the individual. The populous of both the United States and China are more important than the politicians who guide the system. Moreover, focusing success as a students ability to engage in the modern global economy is very short-sighted of what this world has to offer. In other words, education is more than just creating a savvy business player or vocational worker. A strong education system creates a well rounded human being, able to access many mental faculties and apply creative thinking to every situation, not simply making money. China's culture of committing children to long study hours on mathematics and science tells us little of their path toward well-rounded development, not to mention little in regards to the Western world's view of the term modern.
Math and science are just two pieces of this world and to deny a growing brain the ability to fully appreciate music, athletics, the arts, history, social studies, culture, religion, and a myriad of other topics is not a stretch toward modernization but a move in the opposite direction. Focusing only on test results, math or even science does not transcend the logic of the world around us and puts little effort towards giving these fields sincere purpose. The US secretary of education must understand that test results and international prestige are not so easily aligned with a better education system. A powerful education system allows students to find their own strengths and weaknesses and work to create their own careers. Fields in the humanities such as sociology, performing and visual arts, philosophy, and literature are key to creating students with passion. This passion is what will drive those desiring a better global economy, not strict focus on the ability to solve math problems. Even athletics cannot be undermined in this analysis because our bodies are an integral part of the growing process. Experiencing the joys of life are more important for a healthier society and this truth must be reflected in an education system that wishes to create a better future. The Chinese government and many Chinese parents may not be delivering this essential ingredient to their hard-working youth and are depriving them of a full view of our world.