46 pages • 1-hour read
Amanda RipleyA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Content Warning: This section of the guide includes discussion of death and mental illness.
Andreas Schleicher, a German physicist and supporter of data-driven research, created the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2000, with the help of the Organization for Economic Cooperation (OECD). The test was designed to measure abilities that other tests did not, such as critical thinking, creativity, and communication skills, based on the argument that memorization and comprehension aren’t the only skills needed to succeed in life and work. The test was originally administered in 43 countries, and the results were shared publicly.
The top-scoring country at the time turned out to be Finland, while the United States was in the average range, along with Germany. This caused some Americans to blame outdated policies and high poverty rates, while others tried to blame immigrants. Though financial status was a factor, it did not appear to be the main factor. While spending on education was shown to be inadequate on its own, as the United States’ high spending lacked results, the way that money was spent did play a role. The test was criticized for cultural bias, but Schleicher and his team continued to improve, expand, and advance the test.
Ripley met Schleicher and took the PISA to experience it firsthand and know her score. She describes the test as being much easier than she expected, with questions that asked her to think for herself, assess the validity of data, come up with unique answers, and offer opinions with justifications. While Ripley only got one question on the test wrong, she notes that American teens struggle with many aspects of the test, and as little as 18% score correctly on some questions. Ripley believes that the PISA is a measure of critical thinking and wonders why critical thinking appears to be absent in American education. PISA scores are reliable predictors of college entrance and earning potential, and raising these scores will ultimately benefit the country as a whole. Ripley decided to visit South Korea, Poland (where scores were increasing despite high poverty rates), and Finland to speak with American students studying there and see what she could learn from their experience.
The first exchange student, Kim, grew up in the town of Sallisaw, Oklahoma. Despite the state’s concerted efforts to improve its education quality, Oklahoma remained behind, with staggering numbers of students failing to graduate high school in the typical four-year time span. The state made several attempts to create a diploma exam, but it was abandoned each time for fear of humiliation or repercussions from parents. Ripley found that principals and educators consistently made excuses, refusing to accept responsibility for their students’ poor performance.
Kim did well in school from an early age and was noticed by the Duke University 7th Grade Talent Search, which invited her to take a mock-SAT exam in Oklahoma City. Though skeptical of taking the test at first, Kim earned a high score and was invited to a special dinner to celebrate. A year later, Kim confessed to her sister that her initial reluctance stemmed from wanting to see the world and be around like-minded, equally curious people, which she didn’t think colleges in the United States could provide. She then began researching countries outside the United States in which she might study.
When Kim came across Finland, she discovered that it was home to the “smartest kids in the world” and decided that it was the place for her (39). Her mother said that she could go on the condition that she justified her reasons and raised the $10,000 herself. Kim got to work, selling her flute on eBay, hosting bake sales, and asking for donations online. Kim also lucked out with a scholarship and some help from her grandparents, and after a successful interview, she was accepted for the exchange. She was invited to stay with a single mother of twin girls who lived in a small town on Finland’s west coast called Pietarsaari.
The second exchange student, Eric, is from Minnetonka, Minnesota, where he attended a high-performing high school in one of the best performing states in the United States. He worked through the International Baccalaureate program and finally decided to study abroad. At 18, he took a year off to study in Busan, South Korea, eager to discover what the country had to offer.
Eric was greeted warmly by his host family, made up of a mother, father, and son, and after a few days getting settled, he went to visit his new school, Namsan. Eric was placed two grades lower than his age group because senior high school students would be consumed by their graduation exam, which would determine the course of their futures. Students who score in the top percentiles went on to the best universities and were practically guaranteed a successful and privileged life. Eric found this fixation on education to be alarming and unsettling, but he was happily surprised by the warmth and friendliness of the Korean people. Eric had many new experiences, including exploring a new language and cuisine, and was surprised to find that Korean classrooms did not have the same technological advancements as his own back home. He noticed that break times were short and well used by the students, and he discovered that Korean students typically went to school for eight hours, followed by test prep and then tutoring at places called hagwons, which usually ended at around 11 o’clock at night. When Ripley met up with Eric in South Korea, he expressed all of this to her.
Ripley met the country’s minister of education, science, and technology, Lee Ju-Ho, who told her about South Korea’s history of illiteracy and poverty and how education became the means for families to elevate themselves through the generations. Ripley calls this the “Iron Child competition” because children are responsible for more than just themselves and rely mainly on rigor to succeed (58). Still, this fixation on education leads to a competitive atmosphere in which people are more concerned with top scores than the merits of learning. Additionally, mental health is a major concern, and one stark example of this occurred when a student named Ji killed his mother before a parent-teacher meeting. He cited the reason as fear of her finding out his test scores. Lee attempted to shift the country toward a more holistic approach to education, similar to the United States’ system, and saw minor success as spending on tutoring dropped across the country.
The third exchange student, Tom, was almost 18 when he set off for Wrocław, Poland, from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Tom grew up with a fascination of World War II and cultures that reminded him of the characters and places in his favorite books. Tom chose Poland for this reason, thinking that it would be romantic and that he would meet likeminded people.
This wasn’t the case when he arrived. Tom was called on during his very first day of school in math class to solve a problem on the board, but he couldn’t manage to do so and had to sit down without finishing. The experience was a testament to the level of math that Tom experienced in the United States compared to the Polish students’ experience. He noticed that they didn’t use calculators, instead doing their work in their head or by hand.
Math is taught differently in countries with the highest scores, largely because it is not overly repetitive and is woven into other subjects in a way that makes it practical, applicable, and interesting. In the United States, math is particularly prone to the inconsistencies caused by different standards across states and local districts, which means that students may be learning the same concepts year after year. Introducing the Common Core system to establish statewide standards in math and English language arts intended to alleviate this issue, but it has received backlash as a one-size-fits all system that offers teachers little flexibility.
Ripley notes that Eric was the only one of the three students who enjoyed math, which she believes is because he came from Minnesota. Minnesota has high scores and generalized standards across the state, which means that it doesn’t struggle with math like other states. Ripley insists that math is not just numerical problem-solving; it is a “language of logic” that gives kids the intellectual skills needed in virtually every job and aspect of life (70). The greater emphasis on reading and writing instead of math in the United States is one of the major reasons why overall scores are lacking, she argues.
Ripley’s writing style in Part 1 blends data-driven journalism with narrative storytelling, using stylistic devices and imagery to describe the educational systems of different nations. She discusses Andreas Schleicher, the creator of the PISA exam, as “The Map Maker” (13), characterizing him as a visionary and someone worth admiring. To make him more relatable, she includes anecdotes from his life and career, contextualizing his data-driven work within his personal experiences.
To balance the abstract subject matter, Ripley grounds her story in setting. Her sensory-rich descriptions bring the global environments to life, such as her portrayal of Sallisaw, Oklahoma: “Just down the road, a big Indian-owned casino drew a decent crowd at lunch hour. Older men in cowboy hats worked slot machines in the cool darkness. Retirees came for the three-dollar-and-fifty-cent lunch special” (27). This paints a picture of the town as full of culture and tradition, if not necessarily focused on education and advancement. In South Korea, the contrast between Eric’s mundane suburban upbringing and his experience of the bustling streets of Busan is conveyed through imagery like “a kaleidoscope of commerce and color” used to describe his perception of the city (48). Ripley uses this literary style to connect discussions of policy and data to real human experiences.
In Part 1, Ripley constructs her argument using a variety of rhetorical strategies. She opens with her shock at learning of Finland’s unexpected success in the 2001 PISA, drawing readers into the mystery of the book’s major question: What Defines a Quality Education. She introduces the three US exchange students to ground the narrative but also quotes Schleicher—“Without data, you are just another person with an opinion” (19)—to frame the book around a commitment to evidence, rather than reliance on perceptions or anecdotes alone. For instance, she points to the fact that educational success appears to correlate with gross domestic product (GDP) growth. From there, Ripley explores why the United States has a much wider gap between its top and bottom scorers than countries like South Korea, where the performance gap is narrower.
The emphasis on math becomes central as Ripley argues that it reveals the most about a country’s intellectual Rigor and the Drive to Learn, as well as its young people’s futures. Tom arrived in Poland and quickly realized that the math curriculum was far more advanced than what studied in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. His difficulty with a classroom problem illustrates the trend in American math education’s decline. Curricula are inconsistent across states and districts, often causing repetition and boredom, especially in math. Math is also taught in isolation, further contributing to students’ disengagement. Ripley argues that math is an essential component of lifelong critical thinking: “Mastering the language of logic helps to embed higher-order habits in kids’ minds: the ability to reason, for example, to detect patterns and make informed guesses” (70).
Part 1 introduces the book’s key figures and locations, each representing a facet of global education. By giving backstories on Kim, Eric, and Tom (why they left the United States, what they hoped to find, and where they ended up), Ripley allows readers to see international education through their eyes. This narrative method personalizes the abstract data and provides context for the educational systems in Finland, South Korea, Poland, and the United States. Each student becomes a lens through which national policies are experienced firsthand, and their stories segue into broader discussions of policy and practice.
The historical and cultural context that Ripley provides enriches her analysis. She notes how, in the 1980s, a shift toward the social sciences and their potential as valid sources of data to shape policy led to the creation of the PISA. In South Korea, Ripley learned that the country was impoverished and widely illiterate until the late 20th century, when education became a tool for national advancement. University admissions relied solely on high exam scores, raising the stakes for student performance dramatically. The system there calls into question whether student success depends on the motivation behind success or not.
Part 1 concludes that “good education depend[s] on execution, the hardest thing to get right” (18). The firsthand experiences of the exchange students are central to Ripley’s belief that understanding global education systems requires assessing lived experiences. The conflict of cost versus outcome is clear; South Korea’s students work longer hours but score similarly to their Finnish peers, who enjoy a more balanced life. Structural factors, such as the teaching of math, emerge as nodes for assessment in Chapter 4. Through this lens, math becomes symbolic of educational quality itself—its decline in the United States is seen as a warning sign of systemic failure.



Unlock all 46 pages of this Study Guide
Get in-depth, chapter-by-chapter summaries and analysis from our literary experts.