Why Do Our Rich Kids Rank 23rd in Math…?
The other day, I posted the country rankings you never hear about—the only legitimate ones to show how countries’ most privileged 15-year-olds do on the PISA test of what kids know around the world.*
Our richest kids rank No. 7 in reading. OK, so it is not No.1, as others keep insisting, and we spend way more money per student to get there. But I’ll take it. No. 7 is still a perfectly respectable performance—well above the OECD average for rich kids.
But it got me thinking: What about math and science? How did our most privileged kids (who are, by the way, more privileged than most countries’ well-off children) do in math and science?
Oh Lord…Brace yourselves, suburban parents:
With thanks to the folks at the Education Trust who helped me ferret out this data from the PISA results, here we go:
MATH ACHIEVEMENT of the most privileged teenagers around the world:
1. Belgium
2. Netherlands
3. South Korea
4. Finland
5. New Zealand
6. Japan
7. Switzerland
8. Czech Republic
9. Canada
10. Australia
11. Germany
(Still going…)
12. Denmark
13. France
14. Sweden
15. Austria
16. Hungary
17. Slovak Republic (!)
18. Iceland
(Hang in there…)
19. Luxembourg
20. Ireland
21. Norway
22. Poland
23. UNITED STATES
There it is, No. 23 out of 29 countries in math, according to the 2003 PISA exam (which was the last time math was the primary focus of the test, yielding enough data to make such comparisons).
Wow. How to explain this? Our most privileged kids attend, on average, the most well-resourced schools in the world with some of the smallest class sizes and among the most credentialed, experienced, well-paid teachers. They have educated parents, books at home and computers to use, and this sample includes our private-school students.
And yet they score below the OECD average in math when compared to other countries most-privileged students. What is going on here?
SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT of the most privileged teenagers around the world:
1. Finland
2. New Zealand
3. Netherlands
4. Canada
5. Australia
6. Germany
7. United Kingdom
8. Czech Republic
9. Belgium
10. Switzerland
11. Japan
12. France
13. Austria
14. Hungary
15. Ireland
16. Sweden
17. South Korea
18. UNITED STATES
In science, our most privileged students ring in 18th out of 30 countries, per the 2006 PISA test (the last one that had science as its primary focus.) This is, as in math, just below the OECD average for similarly affluent kids.
Why does it matter?
I bring this up just to point out that it is possible for kids to learn at much higher levels than our kids are learning—even our most-advantaged kids. I am not (repeat, not!) saying that poverty doesn’t matter; it obviously matters enormously. Let’s just stop talking about poverty as if it is some dark force that acts in isolation from the rest of our institutions.
Even if we could magically eliminate poverty in America (which would be a beautiful thing and something we should try much harder to do), then we still would not have world-class education outcomes.
Anyone care to offer a theory for why our most affluent kids score 23rd in math and 18th in science? Is it a lack of motivation? An overabundance of wealth? If so, why aren’t we below average in reading, too?
*And remember, before you send me links to wildly misleading blog posts and demand a recount: these rankings listed here rely upon PISA’s own carefully administered survey of students’ socioeconomic status known as the index of Economic, Social and Cultural Status—not a hijacked table regarding free-or-reduced price lunch ratios that was never ever intended to be used for international comparisons.
CarolineSF said on December 15, 2011 at 12:55 pm
U.S. students have ALWAYS scored poorly in international comparisons. So usually, your point (which of course is not groundbreaking, since the hedge-funder/so-called-reformer types make it constantly, as part of their ongoing attacks on our schools, students and educators) is twinned with the false claim that this is a new atrocity and the quality of our kids’ education has plunged. It’s paired with that falsehood so often, in fact, that a solid piece of reporting on this issue would address that, @Amanda Ripley.
Sources with whom you might discuss it (and should have) include Yong Zhao and Bruce Baker; you can also learn more be researching the work of the late Gerald Bracey.
Beatrice said on December 15, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Interesting. That’s a lot of weight to give the PISA indexes, which are self-reported by the 15 year olds taking the exam. But hey, that supports your conclusion, as opposed to using verified free and reduced lunch qualification data.
Can you clarify if you are using suburban school data in aggregate or individual student results from those with high SES ranks?
Bruce William Smith said on December 15, 2011 at 4:14 pm
You should investigate the curriculum and the culture of our secondary schools, in particular the fact that our comprehensive high schools have no academic requirements for admission, and therefore our middle school students have less incentive to study their less demanding programs. By contrast, Flemish secondary schools (tops in your math rankings) establish separate tracks for students after the seventh grade, while Finnish students (tops in science here) also must compete for admissions to their upper secondary schools, which, like the Flemish, separate students into distinct general academic vs. vocational upper secondary schools.
Amanda said on December 16, 2011 at 11:20 am
Hi Caroline, I agree. There is no evidence that the quality of our education was dramatically better throughout history (although our high school graduation rates were slightly better in the late 1960s). But I am confused. I don’t believe I said that the quality has plunged, did I? If so, please do let me know! Thanks.
CarolineSF said on December 16, 2011 at 11:52 am
No, you didn’t. But that discussion is part of the story that you just didn’t discuss. And you should have. I’ll restate my point.
—It’s hammered in constantly—nonstop— that U.S. students score below students in other developed nations.
—Almost always, this point is made in tandem with the false claim—or at least strong implication—that this is new and that U.S. students used to be at the top. Again, just in case I didn’t make myself clear, that statement is false, and has even been made (and never corrected) by President Obama. (Why does the press allow this to stand uncorrected?)
—To me, that makes the pattern of relative achievement over the years —and the false claims about it—part of the story.
—Also, the fact that the false claims that U.S. students’ performance has dropped are constantly part of the discussion make it clear that the purpose of this discussion, usually, is to attack our schools, teachers and students. That’s also part of the story. A few years ago, the far-right Pacific Research Institute here in San Francisco produced a gleefully, willfully dishonest piece of material purporting (falsely) to show that even public schools in high-income California districts are failures, using a couple of clever tricks that were interesting to dissect. I can discuss this in more detail if you’re interested.
I’m interested in why there is such a passion—including by our president—for exaggerated claims that our schools are failures, our teachers are unsuccessful and our students are poorly educated. We know why the Pacific Research Institute (an advocate of fully privatizing education, as in eliminating public education) wants to push that view, but why is it so widespread? Naturally, as the product of public schools, the parent of two (well-educated) urban public school students/alumni and the wife of a teacher, I find that both curious and offensive.
Stuart Buck said on December 16, 2011 at 2:07 pm
So Carolina, you’re criticizing Amanda for an allegedly wrong point that other people, not her, have made somewhere else? Why is everyone obliged to talk about whatever your hobbyhorse is at the moment?
CarolineSF said on December 16, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Yes, because the story Amanda is telling is told constantly, but usually with the twist of the added falsehood (the implication or explicit dishonest claim that U.S. students used to be top in the world but have fallen). If she’s going to tell the story yet again, it’s incomplete without her addressing that other piece that is constantly told with it.
Beatrice said on December 22, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Ms. Ripley, please respond to the integrity of the PISA index. The data you cite regarding SES and PISA results is self-reported by the students taking the exam. Can you please explain why you feel this data is more reliable than the results of verified Free & Reduced Lunch applications?
“... these rankings listed here rely upon PISA’s own carefully administered survey of students’ socioeconomic status known as the index of Economic, Social and Cultural Status—not a hijacked table regarding free-or-reduced price lunch ratios that was never ever intended to be used for international comparisons.”
Amanda Ripley said on December 22, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Dear Beatrice,
Thanks for the question. I tried to answer it in my latest blog post here: http://www.amandaripley.com/blog/calling_all_data_nerds/
Hope that helps!
Best,
Amanda
SC Mike said on December 26, 2011 at 3:04 pm
People going deaf over a period of time don’t notice the gradual degradation of their hearing. In education we’ve let personal preferences, convenience, and really good excuses get in the way of effective instruction. As one who received an excellent primary and secondary education, a parent of two who’s kids experienced two different methods of teaching, the spouse of an educator, and a professional engaged in training development (a/k/a instructional systems development), I think I’ve identified the three minor changes that have had a devastating cumulative effect on our education system over the years: 1) dislike of memorization, 2) reduction of class room contact hours for each subject, 3) the use of subjective criteria to implement changes in the classroom.
MEMORIZATION: Few teachers in the primary grades are thrilled by phonics drills or multiplication tables, but these are enabling skills that permit later mastery of tougher stuff. The impact is visible in current foreign language instruction’s focus on “whole language” because the kids can’t sound new words out or readily memorize vocabulary. Even the second year of such instruction deals with basics and few develop any degree of fluency and certainly cannot make much sense of foreign language periodicals.
The “diversity” comes in as each child figures out different ways to memorize something; they will learn or create for themselves strategies that work and will accumulate more as they progress. In other words by memorizing kids learn how to memorize, retain important facts. As one progresses in math one must memorize more facts and procedures. That’s hard and explains to a large extent why US schools have so few STEM graduates. They’re not dummies, they just haven’t mastered the basics.
I recently assisted a bright 25-year-old master multiplication tables up to 12x12 by providing him with an Excel-generated table. As he progressed he gradually started seeing patterns that made sense to him and gave the correct answer; other folks would achieve the same result in a different manner. The point was that in his case after a painful learning experience he gained enough confidence to attempt certification in a technical field.
REDUCED CLASSROOM TIME: To make a long story short (I can provide backup if you email) the 150-160 hour Carnegie Unit was the standard number of classroom contact hours for each subject in the curriculum up to the late 1990s. While you can still find the CU defined as 150 hours here and there across the internet, not even the Carnegie Foundation has that number anymore. (Although one could compute 150 hours given the example the CU folks had up as late as 2006.) Now the site uses 120 hours as the example…
Thus the traditional schedule was 50 minutes per class over an 180-day school year, or 150 hours per subject. Seven periods per day gave you 5 hours and 50 minutes of classroom time to which you’d add in lunch and recesses for around a seven hour school day.
The move to block scheduling started in the 1990s. I think the primary reason was ease of administration, but it was sold as a better system where kids could take an additional subject each year. The idea was that kids could benefit from classes longer than fifty minutes in some subjects.
Block scheduling organizes a subject around one semester of 90-minute classes instead of two semesters of 50-minute classes. Each school day consists of four 90-minute classes; a school day under block is as long as one under traditional scheduling with about the same lunch and recess time. Having four classes in the first semester and four different classes in the second semester means that kids can take more subjects, a total of eight versus seven for the traditional approach.
How can this be? How does block get “more” out of a school day and academic year that’s no longer than the traditional schedule? Easy: block takes bites of time out of each subject. Take the academic schedule of 180 days, divide that by 2 to get the 90 days for each subject, then multiply that by the 90 minutes of class, and you’ll find that each subject gets 135 hours of instruction (it’s actually typically 120 hours thanks to peculiarities of local schedules, a fact readily acknowledged by most schools). Under block every year every kids loses 15 hours of math, 15 hours of English, etc. That’s three weeks under the old schedule.
There are two issues with the longer periods. Yes, they do allow more time for lab work, but such work fits few subjects. The really big issue is attention span. Try keeping a classroom of elementary or middle school kids on task for 90 minutes, it’s virtually impossible as most research indicates, so teachers cope be doing something of lower instructional value for half of the period.
Related to that is the notion of latency. With math and foreign language it takes time for some concepts and structures to sink in, and there’s less of it under block. Many schools handle this by using the A/B block schedule where a subject is taught on alternated days throughout the school year. The A/B also solves the problem of a child going for as long as a year between one grade’s instruction in math or foreign language and the next grades version.
SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA: Block scheduling, the abandonment of memorization, whole language learning, and other notions are implemented without rigorous research on the effects of these changes on learning. For a while in the 1990s fourth- or fifth-grade arithmetic books in Minnesota had a Mayan number system theme for some strange reason, and I’ve heard that similar nonsense occurred elsewhere in middle-school textbooks. Nothing against the Mayans, but their base-20 numbering system has little relevance to kids that haven’t mastered the decimal system…
At least we still have the Carnegie Unit in its deflated form, yes? Er, no. Where it does not disparage the CU, the current literature regards it as but one facet used in evaluating a curriculum. What’s ironic is that the Carnegie Foundation used the unit as a way to get colleges to demand more of the high schools that fed them using what is now TIAA-CREF as the carrot. You want retirement? Limit your input to only those who graduate from a school that provides at least 150 hours of instruction in each subject.
CarolineSF said on December 26, 2011 at 3:18 pm
I usually have a hard-and-fast rule against correcting other people’s spelling errors and typos in online discussion*. But I’m breaking it just this once to point out that my urban-public-school-educated kids comprehend perfectly the correct usage of “whose” and “who’s.”
*I have a deep fear that doing this dooms me, due to karma, to making a worse error in some embarrassing context.
SC Mike said on December 31, 2011 at 2:45 pm
At the risk of getting caught in another faux pas, I call the readers’ attention to the interview in today’s Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203413304577088270404438882.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn_Opinion
Upon ending his career as a millionaire making baskets for billionaires, Jalen Rose headed back home to found a leadership academy in Northwest Detroit. It’s to be a four-year, college prep high school with a school day and year longer than most other schools offer. It looks like he’s not waiting for Superman.
I hope he succeeds.
CarolineSF said on December 31, 2011 at 4:13 pm
I hope he succeeds too, but we’ve seen a barrage of puff pieces on “it’s a miracle!” schools for years and years and years. There are no magical miracles—not sports stars starting schools, not longer schools days and years.
Hype and fads are not a route to improving education. It would be great if the press would get a clue and stop falling for it.
SC Mike said on January 02, 2012 at 10:53 am
From the article I linked to above and a few others it looks to me like Rose is not counting on divine intervention, but rather seems to be relying on traditional and proven methods. The school’s staff appears to be a seasoned crew, not a gaggle of inexperienced idealists.
Rose’s approach reflects what has been taking place here and there across Vespucciland for some time: serious efforts at the local level to improve the educational system.
I readily admit that the nature of charter school legislation encourages half-baked concepts to get started and fail with either a whimper or a bang. But many are serious, well thought out, and successful. It’s the latter that many in public education fear and seek to stifle.
After all US public education exists in a political environment. Some politicians get their start on school boards, mayors and other elected officials enjoy some degree of influence in the schools and occasionally take them over. Other groups vie for power and influence and by so doing indirectly harm the education system.
For example, whatever one thinks of Wisconsin’s recent law banning collective bargaining for public employees, it did save each district $400 per month per teacher by eliminating teachers’ ability to purchase healthcare insurance from the union-backed plan. They now get the same coverage they had before at the price the state negotiates for all employees; somehow the union plan was able to lower its price commensurately. A school with 20 teachers suddenly saw its available cash increase by $100K for the year. A win-win, no?
A miracle would be nice, but until one comes around most folks realize that substantive change for the positive will occur gradually, but only if it is pushed, pulled, dragged, or kicked. The only magical miracle I can see with Rose’s academy is that he decided to contribute his time, wealth, and talent to those in his old hometown.
Amy Johnson said on June 29, 2012 at 12:09 am
My child is in geometry, and is in the 8th grade. We started is math education early in his life. We had him counting out Survival Seeds when he was only 4 years old. I think the problem is that parents aren’t doing enough to prepare their children for their educations.
عراقي شموخي said on September 01, 2012 at 12:24 pm
دردشه العراق
Alan Scott said on April 03, 2013 at 4:17 pm
This can’t be true! Why in Gods name would the richest nation on earth be so far behind in math? I bet the parents spoil the kids and let them get away with not doing homework because they want to get on the ipods and ipads. The parents probably think it’s easier to put an electronic in front of a child instead of a school book and put a good effort forth in aiding the child. If that isn’t it my next guess is that the math these days is much harder than wen parents were in school and they simply aren’t smart enough to help the kids, so they leave it up to the schools and they chalk it up to my tax dollars pay teachers salary so why should I do work their being paid for. If this is the case we should look to having free online resources for uneducated parents that help give them free training for their personal use so they then can aid the kids.