What Everyone Has Wrong About the American Education System

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
30,068
Reputation
4,736
Daps
66,974
http://qz.com/46088/what-everyone-has-wrong-about-the-american-education-system/

Here’s what everybody knows about education in the United States. It’s broken. It’s failing our poorest students and coddling the richest. Americans are falling desperately behind the rest of the developed world.

But here’s what a new study from the Economic Policy Institute tells us about America’s education system: Every one of those common assumptions is simplistic, misguided, or downright wrong.


When you break down student performance by social class, a more complicated, yet more hopeful, picture emerges, highlighted by two pieces of good news. First, our most disadvantaged students have improved their math scores faster than most comparable countries. Second, our most advantaged students are world-class readers.

Why break down international test scores by social class? In just about every country, poor students do worse than rich students. America’s yawning income inequality means our international test sample has a higher share of low-income students, and their scores depress our national average. An apples-to-apples comparison of Americans students to their international peers requires us to control for social class and compare the performances of kids from similarly advantaged and disadvantaged homes.

That’s precisely what Martin Carnoy and Richard Rothstein have done in their new paper, “What Do International Tests Really Show About U.S. Student Performance?” Carnoy and Rothstein dive into international standardized tests and compare U.S. performance, by social class, to three post-industrial countries (Germany, the UK, and France) and three top-scoring countries (Canada, Finland, and Korea).

“The US happens to have a very high fraction of low-social-class kids taking the PISA test,” Carnoy said. “The composition of our test sample is very different from the higher-scoring countries and post-industrial countries. If you want to more clearly see how much students are getting from the school, you have to find some way to control for their families.”

READING: A HAPPY STORY

One of the most heartening findings from the paper is that Americans are awesome readers. Literally, world-class. Our most advantaged students not only perform better than our European competitors, but also they perform about as well as any top-scoring country in the world, as the charts to the right show. [Hard lines compare most advantaged students; dotted lines are most disadvantaged.]

As you can see at the bottom of each chart, the story is equally inspiring for our poorest students, who are closing the gap in reading in Canada, Finland, and Korea.


“I was surprised that reading scores among our advantaged kids are so strong compared to all other countries,” Carnoy said, pointing me to the graph on our right. “We’re slightly lower than Finland, but it’s hardly a difference. Our reading scores have gone up faster at the bottom, and they are as high or higher for advantaged kids as all other countries.”

What’s the explanation? Are American reading curricula the best in the world? Maybe. But there is a complicated story to be told, and it might start with immigration. Rich countries attract multicultural immigrants, Carnoy said, and it’s predictable that immigrant children initially would have trouble with a new language barrier. In the U.S., a country with a long but decelerating legacy of Spanish-speaking immigrants, our schools along the border might be better prepared to deal with the language barrier than European countries whose African and Muslim immigration trends provide fresher challenges.

MATH: BEHIND, BUT CATCHING UP FASTER THAT YOU’D THINK

The single most surprising finding from the new paper might be in math. The conventional wisdom about U.S. math scores is that we’re falling behind the rest of the world, and that’s certainly reflected in our national averages, where we finished 25th in the last PISA test. But a closer look reveals that it’s low-income American students who are clearly closing the gap with similar countries.

“It’s not just [Americans] have been improving over time, but also that low-income students in similar countries have been getting worse, except for in Germany,” Carnoy said.

In the graphs to the left [again: hard lines are rich students; dotted lines are poor], U.S. math scores in dark blue are compared to France, Germany, and the UK.

“What’s really interesting is that, at the bottom, disadvantaged kids actually do as well as disadvantaged kids in France, Germany, and the UK,” Carnoy said. “The problem is that our top-scoring kids do worse than every country we compared them to, except Great Britain.”

When you hear pundits and politicians lament our math program, he pointed out, it’s interesting to note that the real story isn’t how bad our low-income students are doing, but instead how our advantaged kids are falling behind our competitors. “That points to a policy that focuses on our top scoring kids,” he said.

***

The lugubrious pundits and politicians aren’t entirely wrong. No matter how you slice the data, Canada, Finland, and Korea are beating us, at every level. There is no social class in the U.S. that out-performs a similar group of students in these high-flying countries in either reading or math.

But by focusing on misleading national averages rather than apples-to-apples comparisons, U.S. education critics are missing lessons that could lead to good policy.

“The big takeaway is that we’re not doing as badly as the pundits are claiming,” Carnoy said. “Our advantaged kids are doing very well in reading, as well as anybody in the world, and in math, disadvantaged kids have improved more than almost any other country. We’re making progress, and we should be finding out why we’re making that progress, or identifying what appears to be working, rather than saying we should all run over to Finland. Don’t run to Finland if you want to learn about disadvantaged kids, because they’re going in the wrong direction.”

The take away is our deficiencies are largely attributed to socioeconomic factors. I suppose our education deficiencies to some degree, are largely a derivative of the larger schism between the rich and the poor in the US as opposed to many of our counterparts.
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,874
Reputation
4,381
Daps
88,941
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
Too long, didnt read.:zzz:




But it shouldn't come as any surprise that the most socialized aspect of the nation is failing....:sadcam:


socialism doesnt work. :birdman:
 

Julius Skrrvin

I be winkin' through the scope
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
16,319
Reputation
3,285
Daps
30,742
Too long, didnt read.:zzz:




But it shouldn't come as any surprise that the most socialized aspect of the nation is failing....:sadcam:


socialism doesnt work. :birdman:
Yes because countries like Canada, Finland, and South Korea are running what essentially amounts to free market education :dead:
 

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
30,068
Reputation
4,736
Daps
66,974
Too long, didnt read.:zzz:




But it shouldn't come as any surprise that the most socialized aspect of the nation is failing....:sadcam:


socialism doesnt work. :birdman:

It's not long at all, look at the bolded headings.
 

Serious

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
79,927
Reputation
14,208
Daps
190,262
Reppin
1st Round Playoff Exits
@BarNone

Defining the Wealthy

Financial benchmarks in this area can differ radically from those in places where more people are struggling to put food on the table. Many of Nassau’s affluent families think of themselves as practically middle class, saying that property values and taxes are so high that $380,000 does not go very far.

“On Long Island, it’s barely a living,” said Steven R. Schlesinger, a lawyer and professional poker player. “In Plano, it’s a living.”

There is something to that. Aspen’s 1 percent is very different from Akron’s. In some areas there are so many 1 percenters that the whole income hierarchy can shift. It may take $380,000 to be in the national 1 percent, but it takes $900,000 to be among the top 1 percent of earners in Stamford, Conn. Compared with that, the price of admission to the 1 percent in Clarksville, Tenn., is a bargain at $200,000. Of course, the cutoff is only one measure, and perhaps not the most telling one. The average income of the 1 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center, is $1.5 million, and the superrich — the 120,000 tax filers that make up the top tenth of this group — earned an estimated average of $6.8 million in 2011.

The gap between rich and poor also varies widely. The 1 percent in Manhattan makes $790,000 or more, or 12 times the borough’s median income. In Macon, Ga., the 1 percent is far less lofty. The cutoff there is $270,000, roughly six times the median income.

Location also affects politics. The wealthy in poorer states are more likely to vote Republican than the wealthy in rich states.

The 1 percent also has a different makeup in different cities. Nationally, for example, doctors are more likely than any other profession to be in the 1 percent — one in five is. But in Macon, your surgeon is far more likely to make the local cut than in Manhattan, where financial managers and bankers have crowded doctors off the dance floor.

Still, David Mejias, a divorce and personal injury lawyer who once served as a Democratic legislator for Nassau County, said that the system everywhere was skewed in favor of the self-employed and business owners who could deduct part of the cost of their cars, trips, dinners and even collectibles like art.

“Not only do we make more money, but if you do a lifestyle analysis, we make a lot more money,” he said. “Before we even get paid, most of our life has been paid for already.”

The cutoff for the 1 percent varies depending on how income is calculated. On the low end, an analysis of census data puts the cutoff at $380,000 for a household and provides a wealth of demographic characteristics that were used in this article. On the high end, the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, which uses a broader measure of income that includes capital gains, yielded a cutoff of $690,000 in 2007, the most recent year of data available. The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group, makes projections based on Internal Revenue Service data and adjusts for people who do not file taxes. It puts the cutoff at $530,000 per tax return in 2011. Even by that gauge, though, $380,000 would still put a family well above the 95th percentile. There is little current data that would allow a measurement of the 1 percent by wealth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/b...portrait-of-the-rich.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/files/2007_scf09.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
30,068
Reputation
4,736
Daps
66,974
@Serious

That doesn't mean anything, if just proves my point and it reinforces and article I posted up two months ago that most people perceive themselves as middle class even those who are affluent and many of those who are lower middle class and on the boundary of being poor. That's an American perception problem. I posted a good article about that. I don't get why you keep referencing stuff I responded to, I'm starting think that you thoroughly read the data I provide bro.
the inference you're trying to make.

I sat down and mathematically broke this down once using New York City. Just because people believe that are not well off, doesn't mean they aren't, it just means they have a skewed perspective. It's like how rich people's self-esteem is higher when they live among middle class people than when they live among other rich people according to stats. I know a lot of people from Nassau County, we considered them all well off when we were in college, and they BMWs while being 19.

I don't get the point, everything you just posted up has been accounted for in everyone of our debates. What you just posted amounts to saying that a millionaire is middle income in a communities of other millionaires and that goes to show that he is not wealthy compared to everyone else. Look at the numbers you provided, and then to take into account that most are surviving off of significantly less than that. You cannot cite Nassau County as an example, you just can't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Serious

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
79,927
Reputation
14,208
Daps
190,262
Reppin
1st Round Playoff Exits
That doesn't mean anything, if just proves my point and it reinforces and article I posted up two months ago that most people perceive themselves as middle class even those who are affluent and many of those who are lower middle class and on the boundary of being poor. That's an American perception problem.
I gotta re-read that :ohhh:

I sat down and mathematically broke this down once using New York City. Just because people believe that are not well off, doesn't mean they aren't, it just means they have a skewed perspective. It's like how rich people's self-esteem is higher when they live among middle class people than when they live among other rich people according to stats.
interesting...

I know a lot of people from Nassau County, we considered them all well off when we were in college, and they BMWs while being 19.

Man I knew too many cats doing this as well, through credit cards, loans,working and fasfa...

Funny thing most of friends who were well off (1%), drove beat up cars and what not...
 

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
88,201
Reputation
3,616
Daps
157,252
Reppin
Brooklyn
@Serious

That doesn't mean anything, if just proves my point and it reinforces and article I posted up two months ago that most people perceive themselves as middle class even those who are affluent and many of those who are lower middle class and on the boundary of being poor. That's an American perception problem. I posted a good article about that. I don't get why you keep referencing stuff I responded to, I'm starting think that you thoroughly read the data I provide bro.
the inference you're trying to make.

I sat down and mathematically broke this down once using New York City. Just because people believe that are not well off, doesn't mean they aren't, it just means they have a skewed perspective. It's like how rich people's self-esteem is higher when they live among middle class people than when they live among other rich people according to stats. I know a lot of people from Nassau County, we considered them all well off when we were in college, and they BMWs while being 19.

I don't get the point, everything you just posted up has been accounted for in everyone of our debates. What you just posted amounts to saying that a millionaire is middle income in a communities of other millionaires and that goes to show that he is not wealthy compared to everyone else. Look at the numbers you provided, and then to take into account that most are surviving off of significantly less than that. You cannot cite Nassau County as an example, you just can't.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AG6ubkSIn4"]Shinehead-Jamaican in new york - YouTube[/ame]



what nikka
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top