In what ways is the American approach to creating equity in education ineffective and at times even harmful or counterintuitive? What equity-focused changes could the United States make to its system to achieve outcomes like those of Poland or Finland?

What aspects of American culture might lead to the issues that Ripley discusses in the book, such as the over-emphasis on sports? How do other countries balance their emphasis on student athletics and academics?

Does Ripley argue that rigor is a positive quality across the board? Are there any cases in which rigor should not be emphasized over other qualities, like creativity or exploration? Why might students lose their rigor once they leave high school? How are societal pressures and rigor intertwined?

What underlying mechanisms are responsible for the fact that higher expectations lead to higher scores? How do high expectations influence Rigor and the Drive to Learn?

Discuss the arguments for and against standardized testing. Does the text come down on one side or the other? How might understanding the pros and cons of standardized tests shift attitudes toward an emphasis on testing?

What are the benefits and downsides of privatized and/or free-market education, such as private schools, charter schools, tutors, and hagwons? Provide examples from the text in your response.

Compare The Smartest Kids in the World to Surpassing Shanghai: An Agenda for American Education Built on the World’s Leading Systems (2011). How do these books differ in their styles, methods, and ultimate goals? Do they draw similar conclusions based on their comparisons of the United States’ and other countries’ school systems?

Based on your reading of the text, how might American students benefit from more autonomy in their daily lives and in their schooling? What would be the potential challenges of this approach?