9486 in the collection
International Comparisons More Fizzle than Fizz
Gerald Bracey offers a lot of
wisdom in this short piece. Read it and pass it
on.
by Gerald Bracey
Principle 23 of the "principles of data
interpretation" that organize Reading
Educational Research: How to Avoid Getting
Statistically Snookered, reads "If the
situation really is as alleged ask, 'So what?'"
The question does not call for some smart-ass
response, it calls for an evaluation of the
consequences of the situation. So the U. S. is
not #1 in mathematics or science testing. So
what? So, very little.
First, comparing nations on average scores is a
pretty silly idea. It's like ranking runners
based on average shoe size or evaluating the
high school football team on the basis of how
fast the average senior can run the 40-yard
dash. Not much link to reality. What is likely
much more important is how many high performers
you have. On both TIMSS math and science, the
U. S. has a much higher proportion of
"advanced" scorers than the international
median although the proportion is much smaller
than in Asian nations.
This was not true on PISA, another
international comparison that tests 15-year-
olds. Only 1.5% of American students scored at
the highest level compared to top performing
New Zealand at 4% and second place Finland at
3.9%. Yet the proportion of Americans at the
highest level meant that 70,000 kids scored
there compared to about 2,000 for New Zealand
and Sweden. No one else even came close--Japan
was second with about 33,000 top performers.
These are the people who might end up creating
leading edge technology in the future. Who
cares if Singapore, with about the same
population as the Washington Metro Area, and
Hong Kong, with about twice that number, score
high? There aren't many people there. (And, as
journalist Fareed Zakariya found out, the
Singapore kids fade as they become adults. More
about that in a moment). The bad news is that
the U. S., on PISA anyway, had many more
students scoring at the lowest levels; these
kids likely can't compete for the good jobs in
the country.
Second, test scores, at least average test
scores, don't seem to be related to anything
important to a national economy. Japan's kids
have always done well, but the economy sank
into the Pacific in 1990 and has never
recovered. The two Swiss-based organizations
that rank nations on global competitiveness,
the Institute for Management Development and
the World Economic Forum, both rank the U. S.
#1 and have for a number of years. The WEF
examines 12 "pillars of competitiveness," only
one of which is education. We do OK there, but
we shine on innovation. Innovation is the only
quality of competitiveness that does not show
at some point diminishing returns. Building
bigger and faster airplanes can only improve
productivity so much. Innovation has no such
limits. When Zakariya asked the Singapore
Minister of Education why his high-flying
students faded in after-school years, the
Minister cited creativity, ambition, and a
willingness to challenge existing knowledge,
all of which he thought American excelled in.
But, as Bob Sternberg of Tufts University has
pointed out, our obsession with standardized
testing has produced one of the best
instruments in the nation's history for
stifling creativity.
But really, does the fate of the nation rest on
how well 9- and 13-year-olds bubble in answer
sheets? I don't think so. Neither does British
economist, S. J. Prais. We look at the test
scores and worry about the nation's economic
performance. Prais looks at the economic
performance and worries about the validity of
the test scores: "That the United States, the
world's top economic performing country, was
found to have school attainments that are only
middling casts fundamental doubts about the
value and approach of these [international
assessments]."
Third, even if comparisons of average test
scores were a meaningful exercise, it only
looks at one dimension--the supply side.
Predictably, the results gave rise to calls for
more spending on science instruction. This
ignores the fact that we have more scientists
and engineers than we can absorb. In one study,
Lindsay Lowell of Georgetown University and
Harold Salzman of the Urban Institute found
that we mint three new engineers for every new
job (this is from permanent residents and
citizens, not foreigners). More disturbing was
the attrition rate. While educators fret over
losing 50% of teachers in 5 years (and well
they should), Lowell and Salzman found that
engineering loses 65% in two years. Why? Low
pay, lousy working conditions, little chance
for advancement. American schools of
engineering are dominated by foreigners because
only people from third world nations can view
our jobs as attractive. In fact, long-time
science writer, Dan Greenberg, invented a new
position for those emerging with Ph.D.'s: post-
doc emeritus.
Schools are doing a great job on the supply
side. Business and industry are doing a lousy
job on the demand side. The oil industry,
responding to increased demand for oil
exploration raised the entry-level salaries for
petroleum engineers by 30-60%. The number of
students lining up to be petroleum engineers
has doubled and enrollment at Texas Tech has
increased sixfold.
As usual in these comparisons, Americans in
low-poverty schools look very good, even in
mathematics. They would be ranked third in the
4th grade (among 36 nations) 6th in the 8th
grade (among 47 nations). This is important
because while other developed nations have poor
children, the U. S. has a much higher
proportion and a much weaker safety net. When
UNICEF studied poverty in 22 wealthy nations,
the U. S. ranked 21st.
Finally, there are some curiosities that will
take some time to analyze. Critics are fond of
pointing to the Czech Republic as a nation that
spend much less than we do on schools but
scores much higher. Not this time. The Czech
Republic has seen catastrophic drops in its
math scores since 1995, 54 points in 4th grade,
63 points in 8th grade and is now well below
the United States in both grades.
Forty-percent of Koreans reached the highest
level in 8th grade math. In PISA, only 1.1%
did. Note that that is fewer than the 1.5% of
American students at the highest level in PISA.
Then there are the gender differences: For some
countries there are huge differences in 8th-
grade mathematics---favoring females. Of the
eight countries with the largest differences,
only Thailand is not an Islamic nation. Does
this reflect which girls get to go to school in
these countries? I don't know.
P. S. Overall the U. S. did pretty well in both
subjects at both grades.
— Gerald Bracey
Huffinton Post
2008-12-09
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-bracey/international-comparisons_b_149690.html
INDEX OF OUTRAGES
Pages: 380
[1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next >> Last >>
