When studying in New York, I was introduced to a public high school named KIPP. More than 95% of the students studying here were of Latino or African origin; more than 86% of them came from families so poor that they qualified for meal subsidies.
However, if not for their backgrounds, I would have thought this was a Vietnamese-style specialized school when looking at the statistics: 95% of students at KIPP graduated from high school, 90% entered college, and 33% graduated from college. Contrast this with the U.S. average where 83% of students graduate high school, 62% enter college, and 31% graduate from college.
The formula of the founders of KIPP was extremely simple: there are no shortcuts to success other than having outstanding educators; hard-working and disciplined students; a truly good curriculum, along with building a culture that continuously supports and encourages them to succeed; and a commitment to cooperation from parents.
In 2011, I visited a school in Bangalore, India. Called a school, it was merely an old donated building with two hundred students aged 6–15. Their parents were so destitute that they could not enroll them in public schools. The entire family of the philanthropic owner participated in managing and teaching at the school. The mother was the principal. The daughter-in-law and daughter made time outside of work hours to teach the children.
What amazed me was that the children received a wonderful education. They spoke perfect English and studied the famous CBSE curriculum. The majority of them got accepted into major Indian high schools and universities to study medicine, engineering, and law. Tuition for a student was only 7 dollars per month, an unthinkable thing to me.
The owner of this school was very creative in eliminating all non-essential things, retaining only the most important parts: the curriculum content and the teachers. The classrooms had no desks and chairs, no air conditioning, and no electric lights. Windows were wide open to catch light, students sat on carpets using ceiling fans, with no need for uniforms or too many books. The children were taught by very talented teachers and experts who volunteered directly or via smart boards connected to the Internet. The lectures were digitized very well to increase appeal to children. Through this, the children received the best possible quality of education.
I came to the realization that starting point or innate intelligence has never been a prerequisite for determining success in a child’s education.
For the past few months, in Vietnam, educators have been going in circles with the Ministry of Education and Training over why we are not allowed to organize entrance exams, how famous schools like mine can recruit students if done this way, and why competition is not permitted. Perhaps those famous middle schools have a major anxiety that no one dares to speak aloud, which is that the quality and thereby the reputation of the school will decline if they cannot recruit good students. So then, is a good school made by good teachers or by students who are already good?
Why be afraid of teaching students who are not yet good? Do good teachers dare to teach students with “normal starting points,” or must there be good students for teachers to teach well? In reality, I see that good students themselves already possess starting capability, self-study ability, and a very good learning attitude. Often without the help of teachers, they still study well. Good students will create a reputation and ensure quality for the school.
Selecting students through entrance examinations at public middle schools, in my opinion, goes completely against the principle of social equity, especially under a socialist regime. Tax-paying citizens have equal rights in letting their children have an opportunity to access high-quality public education programs and be taught by the best people.
Their children may not have a better starting point than students who have an initial intelligence advantage or were test-prepped beforehand, but I am certain that, with good teachers, children with “normal starting points” can go very far, no less than peers who had a “more advantageous starting point.”
Therefore, I would like to challenge famous middle schools, especially public schools such as Hanoi-Amsterdam (Hanoi), Giang Vo (Hanoi), Tran Dai Nghia (Ho Chi Minh City), and even private schools such as Luong The Vinh, Doan Thi Diem, Nguyen Sieu (in Hanoi) to dare to accept students with “normal” starting points and turn them into “good students.” Only when doing so will the schools be worthy of the proud title of good and famous schools; otherwise, those schools are merely ordinary gathering places for the elite.
If schools do not know how to accept a small number out of thousands of submitted applications, in my opinion, there are many very fair ways that do not involve testing. Running a lottery to select students is one of the fairest forms. Each registered application is issued an index number, and then a lottery of the index numbers is drawn to select a certain number of admitted applicants.
The drawing of numbers would be overseen by an independent, reputable organization. Students without initial advantages in academics, finances, or social connections would also have equal opportunities with peers more advantageous than themselves. This random selection would significantly reduce the so-called “social stigma” toward children who fail the exam and the “pressure to succeed” too early for children admitted to prestigious schools.
This form is extremely simple to implement and not at all expensive. No matter how many millions of people register, computers can handle it. A portion of applications for immigration to the U.S. and applications to many famous public K-12 schools in the U.S. and the UK, including the aforementioned KIPP school system, are also conducted through this lottery format.
The primary foundation of an advanced public education and a civilized society is fairness. So let us be fair right from the student admission stage, so that students with “normal starting points” have the opportunity to be trained by the best people and have the opportunity to succeed from there. High-quality public education cannot be reserved exclusively for the elite or those with “initial advantages.”
