The thesis seems to be "School's are really not that bad". But the article compares only from within the same system. If you look at other countries it's clear the USA is falling behind and public perception is correct.
Because the usa has significant racial minority groups, inter country comparisons with more racially homogenous countries are vulnerable to simpson's paradox. If you compare the usa's white kids score to any other country's white kids's scores we do alright. http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm
Just an example: my son went from a California school to Berlin -- he needed tutoring in English to catch up. He went back to a highly ranked competitive private ("college prep") school in Silicon Valley and found the math he was given in grade 8 was stuff he'd had in German in grade 6.
History was much rote and dogma, just like my mother's Asian education. True questioning got in the way of meeting the all-important UC curriculum requirements.
And it's worse in the Palo Alto public schools (which are, shockingly, considered some of the best): from talking to my friends and their kids, it's all "teach to the test".
If I wanted that I'd have sent my kid to school in Singapore.
> If I wanted [teaching to the test] I'd have sent my kid to school in Singapore.
AFAIU kids in Singapore also score better than Americans in both math and English.
Perhaps curriculums in both Germany and Singapore are tailored toward better PISA scores. Perhaps PISA testing is more segregated or those countries have less income inequality such that their PISA test-takers are generally more relatively wealthy.
And I've yet to see any evidence that more advanced curriculums ultimately result in a smarter, more efficient workforce. (What with diminishing returns and all.) Even within a country, elders always lament how the current curriculum is easier or less strict then when they were in school. Never do they provide data showing a worse work force; merely data showing a difference in scores for a very narrow and specific set of skills.
AFAIK, kids in Switzerland don't start a normal academic curriculum until age 7, as opposed to age 5 in the U.S. Yet the initial skills gap (such as it is) is quickly erased. That to me suggests the only reason to worry about how advanced is a curriculum is if you have a particular reason to believe it would result in a serious impediment that couldn't be easily overcome. When might that be a real issue? By your account, certainly when changing schools between jurisdictions with significantly different curriculums, like when moving to a different country. Otherwise, it's really quite hard to tell. Americans always lament how kids are unprepared for college, but that cry often sounds like the typical cry of the older generation. Certainly I don't think I've ever heard a professor praise his foreign students over similarly situated native students, particularly by the 4th year.
> I've yet to see any evidence that more advanced curriculums ultimately result in a smarter, better workforce.
Nobody is going to do a study where they change something for a 5-year-old and see the impact twenty or thirty years later. Studies on education focus on specific, measurable outcomes at most three to five years out -- for example, seeing the impact on a cohort between Grade 3 and Grade 6, or measuring the percentage of students that "go on to college", or "graduate with a Bachelor's", or "had a job within 6 and 12 months of graduating".
Basically, you measure things that you can measure, even if they're imperfect measures of "I want to make the world a better place".
> Basically, you measure things that you can measure, even if they're imperfect measures of "I want to make the world a better place".
Yes, of course. But the question is precisely about the significance of what we're measuring, and the conclusions we can draw. The current derisive narrative is that American schools teach to the test. The article points out that despite test scores staying the same or getting stronger, the opinion of American schools has stayed the same or dropped. Part of the narrative is that the tests are too narrowly focused (which, as you point out, isn't a coincidence or for lack of effort). This derision is echoed by the poster I replied to.
At the same time, the poster points to PISA test scores. But as I pointed out, the PISA is just another multiple-choice test and, AFAICT, fairly subject to all the same criticisms as the American standardized test.
Basically, the whole debate--national and international--suffers from confusion, ignorance, and in some cases outright irrationality. (I do not mean to imply anything about the poster to whom I replied.) On the one hand we have more data points than ever. On the other hand there's little data about what all this new data is actually telling us, if anything, about the quality of our citizenry and workforce.
But given what we do know, such as how quickly a skills gap can be bridged, all other things equal, or how critical it is to develop both knowledge acquisition skills and opportunity, there's reason to believe that a lot of the data--particularly the standardized test data--is meaningless at the macro scale and in isolation.
Much like nutritional science, I think we'd all do well to emphasize how little we actually know. As it currently stands we're merely weaponizing data in contexts where we have little reason to believe it has significant meaning. That doesn't mean gathering that data is pointless; just that it might not be as easily applied as we'd like.
> American schools are doing what they're designed to do--crank out standard units of compliant citizens.
Arguably, compared to most developed nations, that's where American primary and secondary schools are the absolute worst. Which isn't to say they excel at producing rational, free-thinking citizens. IMO we have the worse possible world--an exaggerated valuation of free speech and anti-government, anti-establishment sentiment without the requisite commensurate critical thinking skills. Among other things, this means we can deftly criticize but are crippled when it comes to providing constructive, substantive criticism or well-considered, concrete solutions. That has resulted in a dangerous, destructive political environment.
It's why Americans elected Trump and the UK voted for Brexit[1], while France and Germany have proved more stable. The latter aren't smarter, but enjoy more uniformity. Uniformity has its benefits.
[1] Not that I think Brexit is inherently wrong, but the ostensible reasons were ridiculous; namely, that the UK could leave without suffering significant economic consequences.
> American schools are doing what they're designed to do--crank out standard units of compliant citizens.
No, even if that was the goal (I don't think it intentionally is, though American schools were largely copied from a system where they was an intentional goal), American schools are, by all evidence I can see, fairly bad at that. It's not like compliance or social cohesion in the US are notably high.
It probably depends on what you think is compliant or how absolutely universal things must be.
You're never going to get 100% of the population to be totally compliant. However if the number of non-compliant citizens are a minority or can be convinced to work entirely within the legal framework of the system they're railing against that certainly smacks of compliance or at least superficial non-compliance.
One should just look at voter participation, a majority of eligible voters don't. One could argue they're so apathetic that they'll just go along with whatever is foisted upon them by either political party, election after election, decade after decade.
Somehow the status quo is largely maintained day in and day out, despite how loud activists from any position are.
> As research indicates, out-of-school factors like family and neighborhood account for roughly 60 percent of the variance in student test scores; teachers, by contrast—the largest in-school influence—account for only about 10 percent.
> Current data systems, which consist primarily of standardized-test scores, misrepresent school quality. They say more about family income than they do about schools.
The article seems to say that schools are fine, but it's our perceptions that are off. I don't doubt that our perceptions are off at all, when you know more about a situation, there's less fear and random judgement. Especially when it's about your children.
On the other hand, implying that out of school factors such as family income aren't related to schooling leaves out what I consider the real crux of the issue: funding.
Schools in the US are usually funded by local tax dollars, which is why school funding can vary so much from district to district. If you are trying to control for funding, then sure, I could see where you would say that where you live makes up 60% of your child's education, and only 10% is the difference between teachers. What I take this to mean is that 60% of the results come from actually funding the system.
I'm not sure if this controls for the fact that better funded schools have more teachers, which equates to smaller class size, and more time with the teacher, etc.
I also think there's a link between having well paid families and parental involvement in childhood activities, especially school. Involved parents also get involved in the school activities as well, like PTA.
Let's also not forget about the poorest school districts many of the children get free or reduced lunch programs. Comparing the test scores of children that are struggling with the basics vs those who aren't is a pretty stark difference.
Sadly political and religious leanings shade both the quality of schools as well as the perception of schools. Have a school district with good curriculum - strong science, math, history. Good health hygiene (ie, sex education) and then ask people in the district who are various degrees of left wing and right wing as well as highly religions and you'll get plenty of "Our school stinks because they teach ... [insert whatever historical or science which the particular group opposes].
Not that I have any big solution - local school district regulations are important. I think there needs to be more regulation and contribution from other sources to balance out the issues.
I agree. But I suspect many people would disagree because that sort of thing would water down their local influence and mitigate whatever personal agendas they have.
You just can't emphasis local influence and then still expect to meet national or universal standards. And as long as we try to do both we'll always have that tug of war battle over what matters more.
14 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 38.2 ms ] threadExamining the US results: http://www.compareyourcountry.org/pisa/country/USA?lg=en
The PISA site: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/
Just an example: my son went from a California school to Berlin -- he needed tutoring in English to catch up. He went back to a highly ranked competitive private ("college prep") school in Silicon Valley and found the math he was given in grade 8 was stuff he'd had in German in grade 6.
History was much rote and dogma, just like my mother's Asian education. True questioning got in the way of meeting the all-important UC curriculum requirements.
And it's worse in the Palo Alto public schools (which are, shockingly, considered some of the best): from talking to my friends and their kids, it's all "teach to the test".
If I wanted that I'd have sent my kid to school in Singapore.
Perhaps curriculums in both Germany and Singapore are tailored toward better PISA scores. Perhaps PISA testing is more segregated or those countries have less income inequality such that their PISA test-takers are generally more relatively wealthy.
And I've yet to see any evidence that more advanced curriculums ultimately result in a smarter, more efficient workforce. (What with diminishing returns and all.) Even within a country, elders always lament how the current curriculum is easier or less strict then when they were in school. Never do they provide data showing a worse work force; merely data showing a difference in scores for a very narrow and specific set of skills.
AFAIK, kids in Switzerland don't start a normal academic curriculum until age 7, as opposed to age 5 in the U.S. Yet the initial skills gap (such as it is) is quickly erased. That to me suggests the only reason to worry about how advanced is a curriculum is if you have a particular reason to believe it would result in a serious impediment that couldn't be easily overcome. When might that be a real issue? By your account, certainly when changing schools between jurisdictions with significantly different curriculums, like when moving to a different country. Otherwise, it's really quite hard to tell. Americans always lament how kids are unprepared for college, but that cry often sounds like the typical cry of the older generation. Certainly I don't think I've ever heard a professor praise his foreign students over similarly situated native students, particularly by the 4th year.
Nobody is going to do a study where they change something for a 5-year-old and see the impact twenty or thirty years later. Studies on education focus on specific, measurable outcomes at most three to five years out -- for example, seeing the impact on a cohort between Grade 3 and Grade 6, or measuring the percentage of students that "go on to college", or "graduate with a Bachelor's", or "had a job within 6 and 12 months of graduating".
Basically, you measure things that you can measure, even if they're imperfect measures of "I want to make the world a better place".
At the same time, the poster points to PISA test scores. But as I pointed out, the PISA is just another multiple-choice test and, AFAICT, fairly subject to all the same criticisms as the American standardized test.
Basically, the whole debate--national and international--suffers from confusion, ignorance, and in some cases outright irrationality. (I do not mean to imply anything about the poster to whom I replied.) On the one hand we have more data points than ever. On the other hand there's little data about what all this new data is actually telling us, if anything, about the quality of our citizenry and workforce.
But given what we do know, such as how quickly a skills gap can be bridged, all other things equal, or how critical it is to develop both knowledge acquisition skills and opportunity, there's reason to believe that a lot of the data--particularly the standardized test data--is meaningless at the macro scale and in isolation.
Much like nutritional science, I think we'd all do well to emphasize how little we actually know. As it currently stands we're merely weaponizing data in contexts where we have little reason to believe it has significant meaning. That doesn't mean gathering that data is pointless; just that it might not be as easily applied as we'd like.
Cf "Underground History of American Education" by Gatto.
Or see some of PG's rants on the subject.
Arguably, compared to most developed nations, that's where American primary and secondary schools are the absolute worst. Which isn't to say they excel at producing rational, free-thinking citizens. IMO we have the worse possible world--an exaggerated valuation of free speech and anti-government, anti-establishment sentiment without the requisite commensurate critical thinking skills. Among other things, this means we can deftly criticize but are crippled when it comes to providing constructive, substantive criticism or well-considered, concrete solutions. That has resulted in a dangerous, destructive political environment.
It's why Americans elected Trump and the UK voted for Brexit[1], while France and Germany have proved more stable. The latter aren't smarter, but enjoy more uniformity. Uniformity has its benefits.
[1] Not that I think Brexit is inherently wrong, but the ostensible reasons were ridiculous; namely, that the UK could leave without suffering significant economic consequences.
No, even if that was the goal (I don't think it intentionally is, though American schools were largely copied from a system where they was an intentional goal), American schools are, by all evidence I can see, fairly bad at that. It's not like compliance or social cohesion in the US are notably high.
You're never going to get 100% of the population to be totally compliant. However if the number of non-compliant citizens are a minority or can be convinced to work entirely within the legal framework of the system they're railing against that certainly smacks of compliance or at least superficial non-compliance.
One should just look at voter participation, a majority of eligible voters don't. One could argue they're so apathetic that they'll just go along with whatever is foisted upon them by either political party, election after election, decade after decade.
Somehow the status quo is largely maintained day in and day out, despite how loud activists from any position are.
> Current data systems, which consist primarily of standardized-test scores, misrepresent school quality. They say more about family income than they do about schools.
The article seems to say that schools are fine, but it's our perceptions that are off. I don't doubt that our perceptions are off at all, when you know more about a situation, there's less fear and random judgement. Especially when it's about your children.
On the other hand, implying that out of school factors such as family income aren't related to schooling leaves out what I consider the real crux of the issue: funding.
Schools in the US are usually funded by local tax dollars, which is why school funding can vary so much from district to district. If you are trying to control for funding, then sure, I could see where you would say that where you live makes up 60% of your child's education, and only 10% is the difference between teachers. What I take this to mean is that 60% of the results come from actually funding the system.
I'm not sure if this controls for the fact that better funded schools have more teachers, which equates to smaller class size, and more time with the teacher, etc.
I also think there's a link between having well paid families and parental involvement in childhood activities, especially school. Involved parents also get involved in the school activities as well, like PTA.
Let's also not forget about the poorest school districts many of the children get free or reduced lunch programs. Comparing the test scores of children that are struggling with the basics vs those who aren't is a pretty stark difference.
Not that I have any big solution - local school district regulations are important. I think there needs to be more regulation and contribution from other sources to balance out the issues.
You just can't emphasis local influence and then still expect to meet national or universal standards. And as long as we try to do both we'll always have that tug of war battle over what matters more.