Philippines:
Enough said.

The UK educational system is both the best and worst I have ever experienced. Unless you count a visit by French exchange students... My observation of the chief difference between British and French students was that the French tend to be rather more hairy.

"webDiplomacy is accessed by people from all over the globe"

You're mistaken. webdip is only accessed by a small community of people in rural Ontario.

French education system far superior in my opinion to the English. Much more emphasis on foreign languages to give students the skills to cope in the global market and longer days to get more in. Plus in my experience a lot more opportunity to do sports during lunch and better access to a range of sports rather than just rugby/football. Just my two pence/cents having experienced both

"French education system far superior in my opinion to the English. Much more emphasis on foreign languages to give students the skills to cope in the global market and longer days to get more in."
-Yet not allowing formation of correct English sentences. Despite emphasis on foreign languages. Weird.

I'm pretty sure that average frenchman speaks better english that average englishman french (or any other foreign language). So... yeah.

Sure, but English replaced French as the global standard.

That doesn't really change the fact that the French are able to learn a second language more than the English are.

As an American high-school teacher, our system is deeply flawed. I live in a fairly decent community, but teach in an extremely poor one. Personal property taxes makes up the bulk of the educational funding, so the schools in the area that I live are far better than those where I teach, and the inequity is disturbing. We pretend as a nation that it's all about drive and initiative if you want to achieve the "American Dream," but we start so many of our children at such a drastic disadvantage. Sure, some of the best and brightest can overcome that disadvantage--but the average students at a poor school will under-perform what the average students at a wealthy school can accomplish. There's a built-in socio-economic inequity that we pretend doesn't exist (Americans instead want to lay the blame at the feet of the teachers).

On top of that, our Department of Education is comprised of career politicians without a single former teacher or administrator on board (at least that's been the case for the last decade--if it's changed it's been recent) which is how you end up with asinine laws like "No Child Left Behind" which places ultimate importance on standardized testing and punishes the schools that perform below-par by taking away the one thing they need most--funding.

It's quite noble that we strive to educate everyone, and I think our hearts are in the right place, but anyone who can look at our system with an educated eye can see that our international rankings are dropping because of some inherent and difficult-to-solve problems.

The French have by far a greater motivation to learn English than the English have to learn French. The same is true (to a lesser extent) for the likes of German, Spanish and Italian. The Frenchman, if he desires a global language, has English as an obvious choice. For the Frenchman living near Germany the advantages of learning German are obvious. He will find many occasions to practice the language, will be able to hear it in songs on the radio, and there is a good chance learning the langauge will increase his career opportunities.

The Englishman already speaks the global language of choice, and (unless he is rather wealthy) has no foriegn speaking neighbour he could commute to on a regular basis. There is no obvious choice or motivation. His experience of learning a foriegn language is almost entirely classroom based (with the occasional holiday or school trip) which makes the learning experience that much harder. After learning enough to get by he generally hardly ever finds use for it again and forgets it.

As a Bostonian, I'm mostly happy with Massachusetts Education. From what I've seen, Primary and Secondary education is fairly decent and consistent (ignoring the disaster that was Busing, which we're still feeling the pain of). We have an amazing selection of Public and Private post-secondary colleges, although they are getting too expensive. Unions still suck, but w/e.

As an American, our education system is rather embarrassing. There is absolutely no consistency in education across states, and some states are actually anti-teaching.

@murray - Do you live in Ohio by chance? I ask because that isou current system but it has been found to actually be unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court. They just haven't found a replacement system for it yet and the court hasn't forced their hand on it. I wish the court would though.

@Draugnar No, I live near Kansas City, MO. I live in one suburb and teach in another. The KC school district is particularly embarrassing--it lost its accreditation last year. The suburb I live in is middle- to upper-middle-class (with very good schools), but the area I teach in is well below the poverty line. We have very limited classroom technology and extremely dated textbooks (10+ years in many cases). I work there because I feel I can still have an impact with some of those kids, but it's definitely a struggle.

For those interested in reading more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeRolph_v._State

There are links at the bottom to all four decisions. DeRolph III was vacated but DeRolph I an II reaffrimed and the court demanded that the system receive a thorough overhaul. It still hasn't happened more than a decade later. Ohio schools are unfair and the people of Ohio, both those in poor neighborhoods and in rich ones, need to stand up and say "Enough!"

Sounds like it is time for a political change and a constitutional change in Kansas. IF it isn't there now, that is a great clause to have in it (efficient and effective public school system) for forcing the hand if the Supreme Court will enforce the State Constitution instead of just writing opinions. After all, they can order people to be jailed on contempt charges. Imagine Voinovich and the other governor's who have been in power since the original DeRolph ruling being held in contempt and put in jail for a period of time. Imagine Kasich realizing that if he didn't get things changed, he would be sitting there as soon as his time in office was complete and that he might be removed from office if the courts ruled he was in contempt of their ruling for not effecting change and would go to jail as soon as he was out of office.

I'm with you. As an FYI, Kansas City's a bit of a misnomer...most of it's on the Missouri side (the Chiefs and the Royals both are, as am I). I'm with you that it's time for a change--the state is threatening to take administration of the KC district away from the city. That's not going to do a ton of good, though. The biggest problem is that wealthy cities don't care to see their property taxes go to the schools in poorer cities. It amounts to "socialism" for most of them, and being a very red state, you know how much we hate the words "entitlement" and "socialism" (though most of us don't really know what they mean). We're so red that I had the Obama '12 sticker ripped off of my car in a public parking lot one day.

I knew that. KC, MO. Where was my brain.

Ohio is a mixed state. But the simple fact is, you could increase the state income tax and do away with property taxes for schools and have the state fund them. I don't know why Ohio hasn't thought of such a simple plan.

As a private school high schooler in the United States that sat through ten years of public school prior to leaving that system, I can say for certain that the United States has flaws but it is entirely fixable. It revolves around the quality of teachers, administrators, and parents. At the very least, the government needs to force schools to raise their standards and, in the worst cases (New Orleans already did this), abolish the school district and make each school a charter so that they can get their act together rather than isolating the "good" and "bad" in each district.

@Bo - As you just admitted you are in private school now, I somehow doubt your public school experience was typical. Come to Cincinnati and attend W.H. Taft. Our inner city schools are turning into battlegrounds. They have little to no funding because the schools get their money from the local community whose property values are so low and whose people make so little that drugs run rampant and crime is the order of the day. Getting a useable education in one is nigh on impossible.

No, bo, you went through "rich kid" public schools like we have in Indian Hill where the kid with the used Mustang is considered a charity case. All the girls drive bimmer and all the boys drive new Corvettes or Escalades.

@ bo_sox - I appreciate your sentiment, but "raising standards" and "quality of teachers, administrators, and parents" is all very vague, buzz-wordy double speak that replaces the actual issues. Hiring better teachers or administrators isn't really a viable option in the status quo...teaching requires more education than most professions while managing to pay less at the same time, meaning that nearly all teachers are the people that really have a passion for teaching--they're definitely not in it for the money (and getting certified is far easier said than done). Bad teachers and principals are certainly out there, but they are already a drastic minority.
Parents, on the other hand, are such a mixed bag. You have some great, involved parents out there--I would say that most of the parents fit this umbrella. You do, however, have some that really don't give a shit (I've met plenty of those). The worst kind are the ones that are involved but will accept no responsibility. It can't be anything that they or their child need to do differently...it MUST be a bad teacher, or their child MUST have ADD, or it MUST be that the standards are not written properly.
As far as raising standards go--you should visit a low-performing public school sometime. What good will "raising the standards" do for schools or students that can't meet the current standard? The problem is that "standard" isn't an appropriate word. Look at the disparity in a single classroom in a standard public school--some high-performing students, some average students, and some low-performing students. What's the standard for that room--should they all be held to the high-performing standard and have most students fail? Should it be the lowest-common-denominator and not have the higher-performing students reach their full potential? Keep in mind that in lower-income districts, class size is sitting around 30 on a good day--a gifted class just isn't an option. What happens if the standard isn't met? Funding is withheld? The school has a mandatory change in administration? Teachers have their pay cut? What measure do you use for the standards? Test scores? College acceptance? Viable employment?
Sorry about soap-boxing, but It's a complex question without an easy answer, and it happens to be one that I'm quite passionate about.

posted my reply before I saw Draug's...same sentiment applies...

No, Draug, IPS is one of the worst school districts in the country. Cincinnati is one of the rare ones that's worse. Good try though.

Murray, I didn't say hire better teachers. Make better teachers. If you're going to keep standardized tests - frankly I don't see those going away - then yes, that's your judge.

I don't know why you guys assume that my life is perfect. I just graduated out of those schools knowing that I got a shitty education and so I went somewhere else.

I'm not calling your life perfect, but I'm trying to point out to you that your opinion has extended far past your particular expertise. It's not just you, it's a problem many Americans tend to have (I can't speak as to the world in general)--please don't grow an opinion on an issue until you are at least somewhat informed on it.

Fair enough. I guess experience doesn't count as information anymore.

That's my case-in-point...you seem to be under the impression that since you went to a school once, you're an expert on the public education system.

Uhh no, I'm not an expert. I just have an expanded vocabulary compared to most people my age and I happen to portray things in a way that makes me sound smart. Doesn't mean I'm an expert.

Hell, doesn't mean I'm smart either.

Mmm, circular logic...are you on your school's debate team?

If there were one, I likely would be.