Fifty-three years after Sputnik caused an earthquake in American education by giving us reason to believe that the Soviet Union had surpassed us, China has delivered another shock. On math, reading and science tests given to 15-year-olds in 65 countries last year, Shanghai's teenagers topped every other jurisdiction in all three subjects. Hong Kong also ranked in the top four on all three assessments.

　　當(dāng)年“旅行者號(hào)”(Sputnik)人造衛(wèi)星的發(fā)射在美國教育界引起了一場地震，因?yàn)樗屛覀冇欣碛上嘈盘K聯(lián)已經(jīng)跑在前面。53年過后，中國又給我們帶來新的震動(dòng)。去年來自65個(gè)國家的15歲學(xué)生參加一輪數(shù)學(xué)、閱讀和科學(xué)考試，結(jié)果上海少年在三個(gè)科目中均超過其他任何地區(qū)。香港這三個(gè)科目也都排在前四。

　　Though Hong Kong took part in earlier rounds of the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the 2009 test marked the first time that youngsters in mainland China participated. It was only Shanghai─the country's flagship city, on which Beijing has lavished much investment and attention, many favorable policies, and (for China) a relatively high degree of freedom. But Americans would be making a big mistake to suppose that Shanghai's result is some sort of aberration.

　　AFP/Getty Images如果說2009年中國可以有一座城市出現(xiàn)PISA最高分獲得者，那么在2019年就可以有10座城市出現(xiàn)最高分獲得者。這是經(jīng)濟(jì)合作與發(fā)展組織(OECD)組織的“學(xué)生能力國際評(píng)估計(jì)劃”(Programme for International Student Assessment，簡稱PISA)考試，香港已經(jīng)參加前幾輪，但2009年這輪還是中國內(nèi)地少年第一次參加。參加的只是上海這座中國首屈一指的城市，中央政府給了它大量投資與關(guān)注、諸多優(yōu)惠政策，以及在中國來說相對(duì)較高的自由度。但美國人如果想當(dāng)然地以為上海學(xué)生的成績屬于某種形式的反常，那就是大錯(cuò)特錯(cuò)了。

　　If China can produce top PISA scorers in one city in 2009─Shanghai's population of 20 million is larger than that of many whole countries─it can do this in 10 cities in 2019 and 50 in 2029. Or maybe faster.

　　如果說2009年中國可以有一座城市出現(xiàn)PISA最高分獲得者──上海2,000萬的人口比很多國家的人口總數(shù)還多──那么在2019年就可以有10座城市、2029年可以有50座城市出現(xiàn)最高分獲得者?；蛟S還會(huì)更快。

　　I have misgivings about PISA─about how it defines knowledge, what it tests, and how it tries to divorce itself from school curriculum. But its international rankings are widely trusted as a reliable barometer of how young people in different countries compare on core academic subjects.

　　我對(duì)PISA有所保留，對(duì)它怎樣界定知識(shí)、測試什么、怎樣擺脫學(xué)校課程不敢茍同。但其國際排名獲得了普遍信任，人們認(rèn)為這個(gè)排名能夠可靠地反映不同國家年輕人在核心學(xué)術(shù)科目中的高下。

　　How did Shanghai accomplish this? The OECD folks offer some explanations, terming Shanghai a "leader in reform." They specifically cite the city's near universal education system, its competitiveness (measured by student admissions to universities and to the best secondary schools), a very high level of student engagement, a modern assessment system, an ambitious curriculum, and a program to intervene in weak schools.

　　上海是怎樣拿到第一名的？經(jīng)合組織方面的人士把上海稱為“改革先鋒”，給出了一定的解釋。具體來說就是它接近普及的教育體系，激烈的競爭（按學(xué)生進(jìn)入大學(xué)、最佳中學(xué)的人數(shù)衡量），非常高的學(xué)生參與度，現(xiàn)代化的評(píng)估體系，充滿雄心的課程設(shè)置，以及一個(gè)干預(yù)薄弱學(xué)校的計(jì)劃。

　　Today most cities and towns in China don't have these resources. But tomorrow is apt to be a very different story.

　　今天中國多數(shù)城鎮(zhèn)都沒有這些資源。但明天的情形很可能大為不同。

　　Also near the top on PISA were five countries that should come as no surprise: Singapore, Taipei, Finland, South Korea and Japan. In reading, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the Netherlands also did well. The United States was, once again, in the middle of the pack in reading and science and a bit below the international average in math. So we're not getting worse. But we're mostly flat, and our very modest gains were trumped by many other countries.

　　在PISA考試中接近第一的另外五個(gè)國家和地區(qū)應(yīng)該不會(huì)讓人意外，它們分別是新加坡、臺(tái)北、芬蘭、韓國和日本。在閱讀方面，加拿大、新西蘭、澳大利亞和荷蘭也表現(xiàn)不錯(cuò)。美國在閱讀和科學(xué)科目中又一次排在中間，數(shù)學(xué)略低于國際平均水平。所以我們并沒有越來越差。但我們多數(shù)時(shí)候是與過去相當(dāng)，而非常微小的進(jìn)步又被其他很多國家甩在了后面。

　　Plenty of experts have been pointing out this trend for a long time. But until this week we could at least pretend that China wasn't one of those countries that was a threat. We could treat Hong Kong as a special case─the British legacy, combined with prosperity. We could allow ourselves to believe that China was only interested in building dams, buying our bonds, making fake Prada bags, underselling everybody else, and coating our kids' toys with toxic paint, while neglecting its education system.

　　很多專家長期以來都在指出這個(gè)趨勢。但在本周以前，我們至少可以假裝認(rèn)為中國不屬于那些構(gòu)成威脅的國家之列。我們可以將香港視為特例，它有英國遺留的影響，并享有經(jīng)濟(jì)的繁榮。我們可以讓自己相信中國的興趣只是建設(shè)大壩、購買我們國債、制造假冒普拉達(dá)(Prada)手包、跟其他所有人打價(jià)格戰(zhàn)，并給我們孩子的玩具涂上有毒涂料，同時(shí)忽略了它的教育體系。

　　Yes, we knew they were exporting Chinese teachers to teach Mandarin in our schools while importing native English speakers to instruct their children in our language. But we could comfort ourselves that their curriculum emphasized discipline and rote learning, not analysis or creativity.

　　是的，我們知道他們?cè)谳敵鲋形慕處熢谖覀兊膶W(xué)校教授普通話，同時(shí)引進(jìn)母語為英語的人士去教他們的孩子學(xué)我們的語言。但我們可以安慰自己說，他們的課程設(shè)置強(qiáng)調(diào)的是紀(jì)律約束和死記硬背，而不是分析與創(chuàng)造。

　　Today that comfort has been stripped away. We must face the fact that China is bent on surpassing us, and everyone else, in education.

　　今天這種安慰已經(jīng)被一掃而光。我們必須直面事實(shí)，中國已經(jīng)下定決心要在教育方面超過我們和其他所有人。

　　Will this news be the wake-up call that America needs to get serious about educational achievement? Will it get us beyond excuse-making, bickering over who should do what, and prioritizing adults over children?

　　這條消息會(huì)不會(huì)敲響警鐘，讓我們知道美國需要認(rèn)真對(duì)待教育成績？它是否會(huì)讓我們不再找借口，不再相互推諉，不再只重視大人而忽略孩子？

　　I sure hope so.

　　但愿如此。