NAEP VERSUS NEWT: Us against the world!

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2011

EPILOGUE—ARE THEY SMARTER THAN OUR (RICHEST) THIRD GRADERS: Do American students stink to high heaven? How about their lazy, incompetent teachers?

The claim that American teachers stink has become Standard Plutocrat Dogma. The plutocrats and their scripted tribunes love to recite this familiar tale. As this script has taken hold, the liberal and progressive worlds have been too dumb and too uncaring to put up much of a fight.

When NAEP scores show our low-income kids improving, we liberals yawn and go back to sleep. Ditto with any attempt to explore plutocrat claims about the way our crummy students stink on international tests.

That said, how do American kids perform on such tests if you adjust for poverty factors? How do our schools compare with glorious Finland when such adjustments are made? Last week, we cited a claim by David Sirota at Salon. Let's review what he said:
SIROTA (12/9/11): As 2011 draws to a close, we can confidently declare that one of the biggest debates over education is—mercifully—resolved. We may not have addressed all the huge challenges facing our schools, but we finally have empirical data ruling out apocryphal theories and exposing the fundamental problems.

We’ve learned, for instance, that our entire education system is not “in crisis,” as so many executives in the for-profit education industry insist when pushing to privatize public schools. On the contrary, results from Program for International Student Assessment exams show that American students in low-poverty schools are among the highest achieving students in the world.
As we noted, Sirota set a low bar with his assertion that “our entire education system is not in crisis.” But how about his broader claim—the claim that American students “in low-poverty schools” are among the highest achieving in the world on the Program for International Student Assessment?

The PISA is the international test on which Finland made its bones. Let’s look at the basic data which lie behind Sirota’s claim.

(All the data which follow come from the report on the 2009 PISA by the National Center for Education Statistics, a federal agency. Just click here.)

The PISA tests 15-year-old students in various countries and sub-units. The most recent PISA, in 2009, emphasized reading literacy. These are the scores of the nine top-scoring countries and sub-units, along with the OECD average and the score of the United States:
PISA, Reading Literacy, 2009
Shanghai/China 556
Korea 539
Finland 536
Hong Kong/China 533
Singapore 526
Canada 524
New Zealand 521
Japan 520
Australia 515
United States 500
OECD average 493
American students scored well below those of the highest-scoring countries and sub-units, including wondrous Finland. Such PISA scores have produced a million plane rides to Finland, followed by inane attempts to explain how the Finns do so well.

Looking at those overall scores, American students don’t measure up to the students in Finland. But Sirota said that American kids “in low-poverty schools” are among the highest achieving students in the world on the PISA. He refers to the kinds of data summarized on page 15 of that NCES report. This is how those test scores look if you separate out American kids who attend a certain type of school:
PISA, Reading Literacy, 2009
Shanghai/China 556
U.S. students in schools with less than ten percent free or reduced-price lunch 551
Korea 539
Finland 536
Hong Kong/China 533
Singapore 526
Canada 524
New Zealand 521
Japan 520
Australia 515
OECD average 493
In this country, socioeconomic status of students is typically measured in terms of eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch. On that chart, we have included the average score of students who attend schools where fewer than ten percent of the students qualify for such subsidies. Rather plainly, American teachers, with their infernal unions, haven’t managed to ruin those kids. Students in Finland don’t score as high as this sub-set of American kids.

Similar data obtain on the TIMSS, another major international test. For results from the 2007 testing in fourth- and eighth-grade math, just click here.

What sorts of conclusions should we draw from these data, which are rarely discussed? That depends. Let’s note a few major points:

First, a small percentage of American children attend schools of this type. It’s important to understand a key fact: Reduced-price lunch is not a measure of “poverty;” neither is free lunch. According to the USDA, children are eligible for free lunch if they come from families with incomes below 130 percent of the poverty level. The cut-off for reduced-price lunch extends up to 185 percent of poverty.

Across the country, roughly 45 percent of all students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. A very small percentage of students attend schools where less than ten percent quality for these subsidies; generally, these are schools in our most advantaged neighborhoods. (Example: In many Maryland counties, no children attend such schools. No such schools exist in these counties.) These would be very low-poverty schools. In many of these schools, none of the students would come from families with incomes below the poverty level. (Good!)

For that reason, people should be careful when citing data like these. We should be clear—for the most part, we’re talking about groups of kids in our most selective neighborhoods. On the other hand, American students still do rather well at the next level of social advantage. Here’s how those PISA reading scores look at the next level down:
PISA, Reading Literacy, 2009
Shanghai/China 556
U.S. students in schools with less than ten percent free or reduced-price lunch 551
Korea 539
Finland 536
Hong Kong/China 533
U.S. students in schools with 10-25 percent free or reduced-price lunch 527
Singapore 526
Canada 524
New Zealand 521
Japan 520
Australia 515
OECD average 493
As noted, schools with this level of free or reduced price lunch are still serving student populations which are substantially more advantaged than the American average. But those foreign test scores start seeming less magical when we factor income in.

This brings us back to those foolish articles which are constantly written about the magic of Finland.

Remember: In the American context, free or reduced-price lunch is not a measure of poverty. Many of the American schools singled out in the data above have no poverty at all. (Good!) But there seems to be almost no student poverty in Finland whatsoever. (Good!) According to this report by UNICEF, these were the child poverty figures for two well-known developed nations in 2005:
Child poverty/UNICEF 2005
United States: 21.9 percent
Finland: 2.8 percent
And yet, people keep flying off to Finland, wondering how they do it! The reason for this behavior is clear. Whatever we think of American students, American “journalists” plainly can’t read, write, reason or work with data. American journalists are plainly among the dumbest folk in the world. (They’re also among the most scripted, generally with plutocrat scripts.)

We’ve never cited those PISA or TIMSS data because they’re hard to interpret and may tend to be misleading. On the other hand, those data help us see how foolish it is when our journalists, in thrall to plutocrat scripts, keep writing those foolish reports about miraculous Finland. In the international context, “poverty” can be hard to measure. But if UNICEF knows what it’s talking about, Finland has very little student poverty. It isn’t clear that Finland does better with non-poverty students than we do in this country, although it may be that they do.

Finland has very few immigrant kids—and Finland has very little child poverty. Beyond that, Finland didn’t spend three or four centuries working to eliminate literacy among one major part of its population. Despite these blindingly obvious cultural differences, American journalists keep flying to Finland and puzzling about the way the Finns do it. Let’s say it one last time:

These silly reports say little about American students or teachers. They mainly suggest that American “journalists” ought to go take a good long rest. This includes liberals and progressives who pimp the Finland bandwagon, cherry-picking the fact that Finland pays high salaries to its teachers and the fact that its teachers are unionized. Right from the jump, the comparison between the U.S. and Finland doesn’t make a lot of sense. Liberals should simply say so—and we ought to know how to explain why.

Is that claim by Sirota correct? Are American students in low-poverty schools among the highest achieving students in the world? Those NCES data may tend to be misleading. But we’d love to see that claim fleshed out—examined, sifted, poked and prodded. This raises a rather obvious question:

In a world where plutocrat scripts are ruling the discourse, why haven’t liberals and progressives already done so? For example, why haven’t Rachel and Lawrence been on the case?

Answer: Rachel and Lawrence don’t seem to care about low-income kids or about their ratty prole teachers. Rachel and Lawrence and other progressives just flat-out don’t seem to care.

We liberals don’t seem to care about kids of this type. What fact could be more clear?

Tomorrow: What Winerip said

8 comments:

  1. It's not that all liberals don't care about these children, but you make the excellent point that interpreting the data requires some hard work and facility with numbers, and it's not just the mainstream media or the right-wing who suffer from innumeracy and a deficit in logical reasoning. Many liberals do too.

    Yet one would think that, with all the bright young and older people out there, some with mathematical, statistical and logical reason skills to spare, the wealthy liberal think tanks, like the Center for American Progress, and on-air talent types, like Maddow, O'Donnell, etc., would hire some of them (creating jobs!) and have them sort and sift through the numbers so that they could focus on this good news. Also the teachers' unions (and other unions) might do this too.

    This brings me to something else you talk about not infrequently: the professors. In a recent issue of Chronicle of Higher Education, two younger philosophers called for their peers to participate in public debates and discussions, and in the process demonstrate how logic and reason could illuminate the public discourse, while also showing why philosophical training and the discipline of philosophy are still relevant. I hope it happens. But it shouldn't just be philosophers. We need smart people in all fields to do this. Especially those with some sense of how numbers and statistics work. Paul Krugman is an excellent example, but we need many more like him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The problem here is that there's no way to understand the "education gap" without reference to class and wealth, and most who pass as liberals in the U.S. are as adverse to class-based analysis as their Republican counterparts.

    You'd think that poverty would be the first measure we'd look at in the case of failing children -- if only to rule that factor out -- but it's far easier to vilify unions or cite the wholly unrelated immigrant experience of Jews and Asias as "proof" that these failures are individual failing spending more money won't solve anything. If you ask why a rich person is willing to spend $35K a year on pre-school if money doesn't matter, you're branded a socialist.

    We also need to look at the education journalism students receive, and also to look at their role models. The fact that the richest and most powerful journalists are ignoramuses in the realm of policy is to ensure -- adopting Newt Gingrich here --- a cycle of intellectual poverty.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interestingly, if you dig down into the tables, the numbers that really jump out is that 25% of our population is trailing significantly - and the remaining 75% is on par with the best in the world. That 25%? Our Black and Hispanic minorities. And it is stark. But, as anonymous points out: We can't do class or race-based analysis...But if we want to understand what we need to do to serve all of our students at a World-Class level, then we need to start there. It could be poverty - it could be language acquisition, it could be cultural attitude, it could be... but each hypothesis needs to be made, tested, refined, retested...and new hypothesis made from the results until we can see a clear implementation that will improve the experience for all of our students.

    (Thanks for posting this and the link to the study.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with Windisch. It's a subject that requires actually study, looking at data, and educating oneself about a complex topic. Rachel and Lawrence have zero desire to do such a thing. It would require hard work, and the topic just isn't that sexy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why isn't the lunch program a measure of poverty? It is based on the income/family size poverty tables. Only if you limit the definition to only include those at or below the poverty level is the lunch program not a measure of poverty. An absolute measure - you're in poverty or you're not. Of course poverty is relative. The lunch program is a measure of poverty.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you are concerned about your health and are looking to improve it, but modern lifestyles, constant stress, environmental factors and other negative influences stand in your way, then you should definitely visit https://valhallavitality.com/blog/comparing-hexarelin-vs-ipamorelin-key-differences-and-similarities . On this site you will find a sea of information regarding hexarelin and ipamorelin peptides and their effects on health. More and more people are paying attention to these peptides, and for good reason. The site provides an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between hexarelin and ipamorelin, and explains how using them can change your life for the better. I recommend visiting this site to anyone who cares about their health and wants to take steps to improve their lives.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Je voulais partager mon expérience récente avec la réparation d’électroménagers à Montréal. J'ai eu un problème avec mon réfrigérateur et je ne savais pas vers qui me tourner. Heureusement, j'ai trouvé une entreprise incroyable qui a résolu mon problème rapidement et de manière professionnelle. Leur équipe est très compétente, aimable et efficace. Ils sont arrivés à l'heure convenue et ont réparé mon réfrigérateur en un rien de temps. Je suis vraiment reconnaissant pour leur excellent service.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just wanted to share my newfound love for winter sunglasses. Who says shades are just for summer? I've recently discovered the coolest pair that not only protect my eyes from the winter sun but also add a touch of glam to my winter wardrobe. ❄️🕶️

    ReplyDelete