Compared to other developed countries, U.S. 15-year-olds are average in reading and science literacy and below average in math, according to study released today by PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), which is coordinated by the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).
PISA tries to measure the reading, math and scientific literacy skills and knowledge “essential for full participation in society.”
In reading, Shanghai, Korea, Finland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada, New Zealand, Japan and Australia posted the highest scores with the U.S. in the middle, tied with Iceland and Poland. The U.S. had average percentages of students scoring below level 2 (can’t find the main idea) and above level 4 (capable of critically evaluating a text) compared to other OECD countries.
In math, the U.S. was below average, on a par with Ireland and Portugal, but well below Korea, Finland and Switzerland. Top-scoring countries — and cities — included Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, Finland and Switzerland. The U.S. was similar to the OECD average in low-scoring students but had only 27 percent of students scored at or above level 4 compared to the 32 percent for the OECD average.
In science literacy, the U.S. matched the OECD average for both low-scoring and high-scoring students. The usual suspects — Asian countries plus Finland and New Zealand– topped the charts.
U.S. scores for white and Asian-American students were above the OECD average, as were scores for students attending low-poverty schools. Girls scored higher in reading but lower in math and science literacy.
Does it matter? Some argue the U.S. has more high-scoring students — because we have more people than Korea, Singapore, Finland or New Zealand — so it doesn’t matter if our students’ average performance can’t match the high flyers’ performance.
Eighteen percent of U.S. students scored poorly in reading and science and 23 percent scored poorly in math. On the other end of the scale, 30 percent of U.S. students scored 4 or better in reading, 27 percent did well in math and 29 percent were strong in science literacy. Can we afford to write off 18 to 23 percent of the population and rely on the top 27 to 30 percent?
The report is “an absolute wake-up call for America,” said Education Secretary Arne Duncan. “The results are extraordinarily challenging to us and we have to deal with the brutal truth. We have to get much more serious about investing in education.”
“Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States,” a report by the National Center on Education and the Economy, looks at the education systems in top performers, such as Finland, Singapore, Japan and Canada, and fast improvers, such as China and Poland.
Though there are many differences between Finland and Singapore, for example, NCEE president Marc Tucker pointed to commonalities, including “clear, rigorous standards for what students should know” closely tied to a curriculum aligned with “high-quality assessments that measure complex, higher-order thinking.” Students don’t move on till they demonstrate they’ve mastered the curriculum.
The top performing systems ensure that they get high quality teachers by aggressively raising the standards to get into pre-service teacher education programs, concentrating teacher education in major universities, raising teacher pay (U.S. teachers’ pay is very low compared to the top performing countries), providing prospective teachers with the skills they need to diagnose student problems early on and prescribing the appropriate remedies, raising the standards to enter the teaching force, providing new recruits with master teachers who can mentor them, and creating career ladders for master teachers that will enable them to earn at high levels and stay in teaching.
“While many Americans believe that other countries get better results because those countries educate only a few, while the United States educates everyone, that turns out not to be true,” NCEE concludes. Compared to the U.S., most top-performing countries do a better job of educating students from low-income families.
-->Filed Under: Education Tagged With: Canada, Finland, Hong Kong, Korea, math, New Zealand, OECD, PISA, reading, science, Shanghai, Singapore
momof4 says: December 7, 2010 at 5:42 amThe educational establishment seems to be less and less interested in the top end of the ability/effort curve; evidenced by mainstreaming, full inclusion, differentiated instruction, heterogeneous grouping and reduction/elimination of ES-MS honors and gifted programs. Those kids will do well on the state tests (which typically are so weak as to be meaningless) and “they don’t deserve any special programs because they’ll do fine anyway.” However, they won’t attain their potential without help and neither will the average-hardworking kids. If the top two thirds was given the resources the lower third (including the most severe spec ed and the least motivated) gets, it would really soar.
Bill says: December 7, 2010 at 5:46 amThis is an example of setting the bar so low for achievement that everyone can clear it (instead of the old school method of subject matter expertise and knowledge based learning). As a result, we now have the educational system (since the upholding of Plyler vs Texas in 1982) that we americans deserve.
Cal says: December 7, 2010 at 6:26 amUnless there’s evidence that Finland, Singapore, etc take the same type of kids we struggle with and raise them to the top, this remains a population problem, not an education problem.
Cranberry says: December 7, 2010 at 8:10 amYeah! We’re mediocre! WooHoo!
On a more serious note, Massachusetts is at the top of the charts in most national comparisons. There is no support for gifted programs on the state level, most school systems don’t track in elementary education, and allow only limited tracking (mostly in math) in middle school.
I think there is a link between a lack of gifted programs and good state results. I think the splitting of the student body into “gifted” and “non-gifted” harms the overall performance. It lowers expectations for the non-gifted, and it concentrates the attention of the “gifted” parents on the gifted programs.
As my children would be considered gifted in other states (based on test results), I’m not personally overjoyed to notice this. On the other hand, I think there is an argument to be made that most schools should focus their efforts on educating the norm well, rather than focusing on the outliers. The outliers should be allowed to seek out magnet, charter, or private schools, which can craft curricula to fit their student bodies.
Roger Sweeny says: December 7, 2010 at 9:23 amAs far as I know (I am a Massachusetts teacher), most Massachusetts high schools have “honors” and “college” (or “college 1″ and “college 2″) versions of their courses.
I hate the “gifted” label because it puts the emphasis on what you start out with rather than what you do, but I would love to see more interesting versions of courses for those who work hard and show interest.
cranberry says: December 7, 2010 at 10:04 amRoger, yes, but placement into “honors” and “college” isn’t decided by surpassing a threshold on an IQ test. Honors courses are often seen as a precursur to the AP courses, so their course content is determined by the need to prepare students for the higher-level course. “College” levels are often described as covering the “honors” course material, but with less depth. In other words, it’s not two different curricula, but the same general material with different degrees of rigor.
I know of some high schools in Massachusetts which don’t offer honors courses in certain academic areas, generally in the humanities. They are held to be good schools.
scrooge mcduck says: December 7, 2010 at 11:29 amUnless there’s evidence that Finland, Singapore, etc take the same type of kids we struggle with and raise them to the top, this remains a population problem, not an education problem.
I’m glad that’s settled. Someone better tell Hanushek and Peterson:
http://educationnext.org/teaching-math-to-the-talented/
Roger Sweeny says: December 7, 2010 at 1:04 pmI hate–hate, hate, hate, hate, hate–programs that single out a group of people and say you are special, you are different, you are better, you are “gifted” and “talented.” (Truth be told, I also hate programs that single out a group of people and say you are special, you are different, you have “non-specific learning disabilities.”) I love programs that say, “You are interested in these things. You have done well in the past. We’d like you to do more.”
You are absolutely right that “college” level courses generally cover much of the “honors” material but with less depth and rigor. Inevitably, this means that the “college” kids do less than the “honors” kids.
CarolineSF says: December 7, 2010 at 1:33 pmHowever, all the nations that are supposedly kicking our butts track students vigorously — a mega-form of tracking that impacts their entire school careers and really their entire lives. In a vacuum, I would be unsure how to view tracking myself, but when we’re in a discussion about high-performing nations, it seems a little unclear on the concept to claim that the solution is to do the exact opposite of what they do.
Not only that — none of them starve their public schools for funds. None of their national leaders attack and disparage their school systems. All of them respect and professionalize teachers rather than attacking, demeaning and blaming them, and espousing replacing them with inexperienced temps who had a quickie crash course in How To Be A Teacher.
So can someone explain to me why it is that the Reformy Ones want to do the exact opposite of what those nations do in their educational system?
SuperSub says: December 7, 2010 at 1:51 pmThe gifted program I attended in elementary schools probably saved me from becoming a PITA student. Our school had a self-guided computer instruction program in math and reading that is used to supplement normal classroom teaching. I never saw a math lesson that I hadn’t already mastered until 7th grade, when I was moved up two years in math.
If I had sat through every single lesson in elementary school that my peers had to I would have likely become frustrated and acted out and/or given up. Being able to leave the classroom on a daily basis to discuss oceanography or build and program LEGO Technic robots kept me interested and actually learning in school.
Some kids are gifted and talented. In academics they are superior. Taking away a student’s ability to actually be challenged and to learn in school out of fear of offending some parents is misguided.
That being said, admission to G&T programs should not be about connections, wealth, or test prep, which many unfortunately become.
Bill says: December 7, 2010 at 4:03 pmSpending on G&T programs, or programs which only the very best students qualify for amounts for less than 3% of all education spending nationally. On the other hand, spending on the other end of the spectrum comes out to approximately 10 times that amount (i’m not begrudging anyone’s education, but as a rule, it has always cost schools and taxpayers more to education the students on the bottom end of the bel curve).
I know several teachers and have taught at the college level myself, and from what I can see, you have to practically do no work to flunk a class, and if you exert a small to medium amount of effort, you can get at least an average grade.
Joanne says: December 7, 2010 at 5:43 pmI don’t know the tracking policies of all the high-performing countries, though I think Canada’s policies, set at the provincial level, are comparable to U.S. policies. Korea doesn’t track students. Finland doesn’t track in K-8 but offers academic or vocational high school programs. I think Singapore is similar. Not sure on New Zealand, but I think they don’t track. China’s quality schools are open to the top 20 percent of students (or to those with political connections). Urban schools are much better than rural schools.
Education reformers differ in their views of tracking and of offering a career-tech option in high school. I think there’s a strong case for offering career programs, if the quality is high enough to give students choices when they leave high school.
As for people criticizing the schools, it’s very common around the world, though more common in countries that see their schools slipping in international comparisons.
Crimson Wife says: December 7, 2010 at 6:16 pmMassachusetts is pretty good at getting students to “proficiency” but lags at getting students to the “advanced” level. It’s simply not a priority for the schools, which are much more focused on helping below-average learners than on helping above-average ones.
I’m against traditional tracking but do believe that students should be grouped by where they are in the curriculum instead of by age. All children should go through the same rigorous curriculum but at a different rate.
Bill says: December 7, 2010 at 8:24 pmJoanne,
While having a career track option is a good idea (worked 30 years ago when I was in high school), the career field is quite a bit different today compared to 30 years ago. Many students wouldn’t be able to succeed in career tracks (IMO) due to poor skills in reading, writing, and math.
As the service manager at a local dealership told me a few years ago, he wants to hire persons who know how to analyze, diagnose, and troubleshoot (anyone can swap out parts, it takes more to diagnose a tough problem), and the ASE certification exams aren’t easy by any means.
Same goes for electrical tracks, 80% of students who apply to electricians school aren’t accepted due to poor math skills.
Firefighting even requires math, and you’ll never be promoted to Engineer (drive the truck and work the pumps) without a solid knowledge of algebra (how much water can I deliver to the fire, how much pressure can be sent so I don’t knock the guys holding the line on the other end flat on their can, etc).
Career options today sound like a good thing, but without solid knowledge of the basics, many students will be setup for failure (IMO).
Deirdre Mundy says: December 8, 2010 at 7:43 amWhen I taught Algebra, the kids who couldn’t “get it” were the kids who’d never become fluent at addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, fractions and decimals.
Our current strategy seems to be to put the kids who haven’t mastered 4th grade math into 8th grade math, and then to wonder why the middle school teachers can’t teach them.
The answer isn’t more academics in Kindergarten, however. The problem isn’t that we’re not teaching long enough–it’s that we’re not teaching it WELL.
We need more drills, not less. We need to get out kids to the point where they don’t have to panic when they see 5 3/4 + 6 7/9 …… They need to learn the algorithms.
Once they have the algorothms down, we can teach them the harder stuff– and maybe turn out decent mechanics and electricians!
mazenko says: December 8, 2010 at 2:13 pmCertainly, these results of mediocrity, in which Americans are so completely average, are disturbing. And there is no doubt that American schools are lacking the rigor and effective instruction that many Finnish and South Korean schools exemplify. Much of this has to do with the entitlement of public education here, and a lot has to do with the conflict of skills versus effort that I mentioned in a previous post. Certainly, there is much we can and should do. Yet I am always suspicious of standardized test evaluations, knowing many American students asked to take the test simply don’t take it seriously. My experience is the our best still compete with the best in the world, and even if they trail in test scores at fifteen, our top students are still turning into top doctors, engineers, scientists, inventors, businessmen/women, humanitarians, activists, parents, neighbors, and citizens.
momof4 says: December 8, 2010 at 2:55 pmDoes anyone know of to what extent other countries, especially the high-scoring ones, allow their most serverely handicapped kids to enter school at all and to what extent the next group above them are in regular schools? The mainstreaming and full inclusion here has had a real impact on the classroom, both in behavior and in curriculum and instruction.
Bill says: December 8, 2010 at 3:01 pmDeirdre,
A math teacher who hit the nail squarely on the head with your posting. The students who always struggle with Algebra are the ones who haven’t mastered the basics, and without a working knowledge of fractions, they’ll never make it past Algebra I (much less calculus). My old algebra teacher always used to say we had no problems doing algebra, we just didn’t add/subtract/multiply/divide properly (haha).
Addition and subtraction of fractions is quite easy, and can be demonstrated with something as tasty as cake, pie, or even an orange or apple, and it’s not hard to show kids adding 1/4 and 1/4 gives you 1/2 (and not 2/8ths), etc.
Alas, the overuse of calculators (starting in 2nd grade) along with insane new methods of teaching math basics (everyday mathematics) has crippled the math ability of students over the last 20 years or so.
Speak Your Mind Cancel replyName *Email *WebsitePlease leave these two fields as-is:Protected by Invisible Defender. Showed 403 to 50,717 bad guys.
The Book
Subscribe
(a) EdBlogsAnswer SheetBrainstormBridging DifferencesChange the EquationCharter InsightsCharterBlogClass StruggleCollege PuzzleCommon CoreCommunity College SpotlightConcord ReviewCore KnowledgeCritical MassCurriculum MattersD-Ed ReckoningDaily RiffDiscriminationsDropout NationEarly Ed WatchEarly StoriesEd BeatEd ReformerEdMoneyEdspressoEducated GuessEducation GadflyEducation InnovatingEducation NextEducation OptimistsEducation Policy BlogEduFlackEdutopia BlogEduwonkEdWizeEIA InterceptsFIRE’s TorchFlypaperGotham SchoolsGradebookHechingerEdHome EducationInside School ResearchJay P. GreeneKitchen Table MathLarry CubanMinding the CampusNAS BlogNational JournalOut in Left FieldPolitics K-12Public School InsightsQuick and the EdredefinEdRick Hess Straight UpRock the SchoolhouseSchool Law and ReformShanker BlogSherman DornTeacher BeatThe Educated ReporterThis Week in EducationTurnaround ChallengeUniversity DiariesWhitney TilsonWhy Boys Fail(b) TeacherBlogsA Teacher’s EducationA Teacher’s ViewAssorted StuffBiology and BlueberriesCoach BrownCurmudgeonDaily GrindDeTocqueville's DaughterDy/DanExponential CurveGently Hew StoneHistory is ElementaryHuffEnglishLightly SeasonedMathNotationsMildly MelancholyMiss BraveNot All Flowers and SausagesNYC EducatorOrganized ChaosPractical TheoryRight on the Left CoastShrewdness of ApesSiobhan CuriousStories from SchoolTeach for America BlogsTeacher in a Strange LandTeacher VoicesTeacher, I Don't Get ItTeacherLingoTeaching NowThe LineWhat It's Like on the Inside(c) Blogroll11DAnn AlthouseBetsy’s PageBuzzMachineHit & RunI Speak of DreamsInkwellInstapunditIowahawkJames Lileks’ BleatJim MillerJust One MinuteKausfilesMegan McArdlePejman YousefzadehRoger SimonSamizdataScrapplefaceStuart BuckThe CornerThe PlankTim BlairVirginia PostrelVolokh ConspiracyWinds of ChangeWizBang(d) News/InfoBest of the WebCity JournalCommentary MagazinePajamas MediaReasonSlateTCS DailyThe OnionWeekly StandardLinksApidexinArtificial Christmas TreesAsbestos Lung CancerChicago CollegeChristmas DecorationsColleges in IllinoisColorado Nursing SchoolsEducatorMesotheliomaPhlebotomy TrainingScentOnline EducationAccredited Online CollegesBachelor Degrees OnlineCNA Certification OnlineCollege OnlineDay TradingElementary & Secondary EducationEngineering Programs OntarioHealthcare Management DegreeMassage Therapy ProgramsMedical Billing and CodingMedical Billing and Coding TrainingOnline Courses in AustraliaOnline Criminal Justice DegreesOnline MBAOnline Psychology DegreesOnline Trading EducationOnline UniversityPhlebotomy CertificationPhlebotomy TrainingReal Online Degrees BlogUMATSiteMeter
Return to top of page
Copyright © 2010 · Genesis Theme Framework by StudioPress · WordPress · Log in
0 comments:
Post a Comment