Education Statistics

[Ox]

So something recently prompted a longstanding question for me: exactly how shitty are America's schools? We see national rankings fairly often, suggesting we're sliding down the rankings against the nations we see as our peers. But rankings are not, in my mind, a particularly relevant evaluation. After all, if all OECD nations perform almost equally as well as each other in education, then whether we're 1st or 18th in that group is of only minor significance; but even being #2 is bad if, say, the #1 ranked country's students are two grade levels ahead of ours. In international comparisons, the achievement gap between our students and those of other countries is much more interesting than the simple ordinal ranking.

It's interesting that I really had no idea what the achievement gap was, and it's not an easy statistic to find: although the rankings are done by a set of tests given to students in various nations, the students' raw scores are almost impossible to find. I did, however, discover something useful (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/international/table-library.asp): data from the PIRLS and TIMSS exams for various countries. I thought I'd snatch some interesting data and see how bad our performance really is.

A note on the data: both exams are scored from 0 to 1,000 and graded on a curve with the international average as 500.I've included the US score along with the highest-scoring large European nation and the highest-scoring large OECD nation for comparison. I selected comparison years by the year in which the test was most widely administered, provided the US also participated. I found it a little difficult to think of this as meaningful, however, so I've arbitrarily decided to include a rescaled version. In my version, a score of 450 (well below the average) counts as an F; 451-465 is a D; 466-480 is a C; 481-495 is a C+; 496-510 is a B; 511-525 is a B+; 526-540 is an A; and 541+ is an A+. This is entirely arbitrary.

And now, DATA:
http://i1021.photobucket.com/albums/af337/oxonian/Capture-7.jpg

My conclusion: we don't suck nearly as bad as we think. Most large Western nations are in our ballpark. Also, I can't believe we won the Cold War.

[Ink Asylum]

It seems like we do worse the older the kids get. Elementary and Middle Schools aren't failing as much as High Schools are. I doubt there's one simple answer to that problem, though.

[Ox]

I agree. Please also note that I've only selected a small fraction of the data available. One possible explanation I've noticed: we tend to have an unusually large fraction of very poor performers. For example: in eighth-grade science on the PISA (a test I didn't show above), the 10th percentile in the US is only 349. That's worse than everyone in the OECD except Turkey and Mexico. We also have a lot of very good performers, however -- our cutoff to be in the 90th percentile is 628, better than France, Sweden, and many other countries.

[VerseD]

My conclusion: we don't suck nearly as bad as we think. Most large Western nations are in our ballpark. Also, I can't believe we won the Cold War.

The success of Eastern Europe is curious, but I knew there must be an explanation: grades 10 and 11 were optional in Russia until a 2007 law made them compulsory. I don't know about Latvia, but it would mean that less serious students leave for employment, and without those outliers the average test scores go up. My father teaches at a rural school where a lot of the kids are farmers' sons who know they will only ever be farmers, and so do not take school seriously at all and just ride a wave of fail because they are required to attend.

Educational systems, and the cultures behind them, are so complex and so different from country to country that it's very hard to make direct comparisons, especially based on test scores. I would argue that standardized test scores in America are unfit for qualitative assessment: those scores are tied to funding in public schools, and teachers have an interest in making their students fit for nothing but passing math and science tests.

What the American educational system can excel at is teaching self-worth, teamwork, and innovation, which is more useful than what is learned by rote memorization. I heard over and over in Chinese schools that the students can memorize pages of English, but they are too ashamed to speak out or have a conversation (whereas the Turks don't know shit but can babble about it for hours). There are areas for improvement here -- especially technology, math and science, and languages, and I would say history and literature, but let's be realistic: this is a country of commerce.

So I agree with your conclusion. We don't suck too bad, and our schools and teachers are far from irredeemable.

[BigJonno]

I've found that a lot of educational problems that people worry about don't actually exist. People complain about falling standards, but exam results get better every year. The response is that the tests are becoming less rigorous, however studies have shown that they're actually more difficult. The genuine issues (like too many kids dumping maths and the sciences at the earliest opportunity and the consistent poor performance of boys relative to girls) then get obscured.

[Ox]

Educational systems, and the cultures behind them, are so complex and so different from country to country that it's very hard to make direct comparisons, especially based on test scores. I would argue that standardized test scores in America are unfit for qualitative assessment: those scores are tied to funding in public schools, and teachers have an interest in making their students fit for nothing but passing math and science tests.
The PIRLS and TIMSS tests aren't the ones the American schools are evaluated on. I suppose that time spent learning how to take the evaluation tests develops skills that are transferable to PIRLS and TIMSS, but that raises the question I've always had: how can you learn how to succeed on a test without learning the source material? If there were some trick to passing an exam without knowing the material to be examined, I wish I had known about it when I was studying for the bar.

[BigJonno]

How can you learn how to succeed on a test without learning the source material?

The obvious one is learning by rote without understanding. The classic example of this is history lessons where kids learn to recite lists of dates or monarchs or presidents without knowing the significance of any of it. Even if this knowledge is being assessed via essay questions, a lot of marks can be scored just by regurgitating facts that tick the right boxes on the marker's guidelines.

Here are couple of examples that I encountered working with eleven year olds just before the tests they take at that age in the UK.

There is almost always a question about light on one of the science papers that requires the child to draw an arrow from a light source to an object and then another arrow from the object to a person's eye. It would be much easier to teach children to just draw those arrows whenever they see that picture than to get them to understand the principles that would lead to them figuring out what to draw on their own. This highlights the problem with the over-reliance on these test scores in the UK; better results can be achieved with poor teaching.

One year we noticed that a large number of the children could handle calculations involving the four basic mathematical operations with ease, but struggled with any kind of word problem or investigation. We realised that this was because they could apply the methods they had been taught, but had very little understanding of what they represented. It was purely abstract to them. We had to break out the unit cubes and all that junk and go right back to basics so that they could make the connection between the calculations they were performing and physical reality.

[MagGnome]

The obvious one is learning by rote without understanding. The classic example of this is history lessons where kids learn to recite lists of dates or monarchs or presidents without knowing the significance of any of it. Even if this knowledge is being assessed via essay questions, a lot of marks can be scored just by regurgitating facts that tick the right boxes on the marker's guidelines.

Exactly. Memorizing something is not the same as truly understanding it.

For example, in my watchmaking class we have to memorize a lot of material for the big certification exam coming at the end of this year. The written part of the exam will consist of ten questions chosen from a possible pool of a few hundred. Many students in the class (myself included) have been memorizing the answers without actually understanding why certain things are the way they are.

Another example that popped into my mind is the Gettysburg Address. Lots of students memorize it for school, but how many of them really understand it?

[Dorkandproudofit]

What about knowledge of our own history and government? Any statistics on that?

[fitbabits]

What about knowledge of our own history and government? Any statistics on that?

There's a long-standing belief that those who study (and pass) their citizenship exam in the US will be able to answer correctly more US history-related questions that a decent percentage of US-born citizens.

[burger]

There's a long-standing belief that those who study (and pass) their citizenship exam in the US will be able to answer correctly more US history-related questions that a decent percentage of US-born citizens.

Most likely because the rest of us learned that stuff at a very young age and have filed it away under 'useless and have therefore long since forgotten it

[fitbabits]

Most likely because the rest of us learned that stuff at a very young age and have filed it away under 'useless and have therefore long since forgotten it

Perhaps. Still, it would be interesting to put the belief to the test some time. :)

[MagGnome]

It doesn't help that we are taught many flat-out lies about history when we are kids. Christopher Columbus, anyone?

[burger]

It doesn't help that we are taught many flat-out lies about history when we are kids. Christopher Columbus, anyone?

True...when I found out he wasn't real like santa and the easter bunny I nearly cried :p

[MagGnome]

You're quite the comedian. :p

[burger]

I typically provide little insight in the P&R threads so lame jokes become my only commodity

[TheFlyingOrc]

It doesn't help that we are taught many flat-out lies about history when we are kids. Christopher Columbus, anyone?

Columbus was a douche, but I'm struggling to think of what part of his standardly taught voyage is a "lie" per se.

Except for the bit about everyone else thinking the world was flat, which is flat-out untrue.

[MagGnome]

Everyone else thinking the world was flat, Columbus "discovering" America...the fact that he's treated as some sort of hero instead of the complete racist prick that he was, etc.

[burger]

"Discovering America" is more of a simplification than a lie. As for him being a racist I don't recall being taught that he was a color blind saint.

[Ox]

History doesn't really lend itself to international comparisons: a Brit who doesn't know what happened in 1861 is not nearly as ignorant as an American who can't name an important event in that year. Civics is similar: those with complicated governments, like ours, are automatically at a disadvantage.

I apply a Turing test to students: if they can answer sophisticated word problems and essay questions, they understand the issue enough to satisfy any reasonable objection. If there are no word problems or essay questions on the test, it's a poorly-designed test, not a problem with testing in general.

[burger]

1861....the year that germany bombed us at pearl harbor

[TheFlyingOrc]

Everyone else thinking the world was flat, Columbus "discovering" America...the fact that he's treated as some sort of hero instead of the complete racist prick that he was, etc.

Well, we gloss over the bad person stuff of anyone who changes the world like crazy, which Columbus did. The World is Flat bit is a really stupidly repeated bit of idiocy, but he did "discover" America - if I tell someone I discovered a useful website, it isn't an inaccurate statement because other people have been there before. He went on an expedition that radically impacted history - he made Europe aware that another continent existed across the ocean. As to his being a huge racist dickbag, it doesn't really change the historical significance of the journey, which is what we teach in history. Things of historical significance.

[burger]

What he said^^^^

[Ox]

I also question whether it's 'inaccurate' to treat Columbus as a hero instead of a 'racist prick.' Virtually everyone whose name is remembered centuries after his death was impressive in some way, and absolutely everyone is evil in some way. It's all interpretation from there.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I also question whether it's 'inaccurate' to treat Columbus as a hero instead of a 'racist prick.' Virtually everyone whose name is remembered centuries after his death was impressive in some way, and absolutely everyone is evil in some way. It's all interpretation from there.

Well, Columbus is also a lucky, lucky bastard. He miscalculated the size of the earth by a huge factor - remember, his destination was INDIA, and he had nearly run out of food, and his crew was preparing to mutiny. If there hadn't happened to be a big ol' continent in the way (well, he actually missed the continent and hit a large island), he would be remembered as "that guy who sailed out and never came back". I don't think Columbus was particularly noteworthy as a person, but his first journey certainly was.

[VerseD]

But you know the real discoverer was Voyager Zheng He, who reached British Columbia a century before. The Chinese eunuch captained a huge fleet of two hundred ships, each of which dwarfed those of that Genoese idiot Cristoforo Colombo. And Zheng He knew immediately what he had found, but the Chinese did not care one way or another for that empty and barbarous land, nor have they every cared for any land far removed at any distance from their own.

Colombo proved to the Spanish that a trans-Pacific journey was possible, but it took Amerigo Vespucci of Florence to realize the discovery of the New World, a German map-maker to name it, and the religious plagues and chilly climes of Europe to populate it.

[J Arcane]

Says one amateur historian no one's ever heard of . . .

[MagGnome]

"Discovering America" is more of a simplification than a lie. As for him being a racist I don't recall being taught that he was a color blind saint.

I don't recall being taught about what a terrible person he was either. Instead he's treated like a hero. He has his own holiday for crying out loud.

Then again this is the same country that put Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill.

[burger]

But you know the real discoverer was Voyager Zheng He, who reached British Columbia a century before. The Chinese eunuch captained a huge fleet of two hundred ships, each of which dwarfed those of that Genoese idiot Cristoforo Colombo. And Zheng He knew immediately what he had found, but the Chinese did not care one way or another for that empty and barbarous land, nor have they every cared for any land far removed at any distance from their own.

Colombo proved to the Spanish that a trans-Pacific journey was possible, but it took Amerigo Vespucci of Florence to realize the discovery of the New World, a German map-maker to name it, and the religious plagues and chilly climes of Europe to populate it.

Meh....The Norse beat zheng by a few centuries

[VerseD]

The Norse were impressive sailors, but so were the Phoenicians, the first to circle Africa. My history professor is waiting for the day when they find a Phoenician ship off the coast of Mexico.

Says one amateur historian no one's ever heard of . . .

Here is a map from 1418:

http://www.china-history.net/1421/images/0206BK1.jpg

This was a copy drawn in 1763, but the five academic experts who studied it believed it to be authentic, using information that would have been available piecemeal in China at the time. The same inaccuracies on this map, such as California as an island, were common in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and appear on a map found in Portugal and dated to before 1420, which includes the Americas and was likely a copy of Chinese maps.

But you're right when you say that not many people hear of this. It raises a good question: is American education too Western-centric? Should we spend more time discussing Islam and China, and less on Ronald Reagan and the Mayflower?

[MagGnome]

How about we all agree that NONE of the above "discovered" America, as there were already lots of people here when the Norse, Zheng-he, and Columbus landed.

[TheFlyingOrc]

But you're right when you say that not many people hear of this. It raises a good question: is American education too Western-centric? Should we spend more time discussing Islam and China, and less on Ronald Reagan and the Mayflower?

Possibly, due to the rise of China as a world power we need to know about. However, we must remember that we only have 12 years of school to teach history, and we should teach the stuff that is most relevant to understanding the world as you interact with it, not strive for "fairness" of all cultures and time periods.

@Mags - His poor treatment of the Indians isn't really that significant to history compared with the importance of his voyage. Besides, you hear enough about poor indian treatment (and you should!) during the part of US history where Manifest Destiny is discussed.

edit: Discovered doesn't mean that. There's no definition of the word discover where all of those people didn't discover it. Columbus is the most important one in terms of history by a long shot, though.

[burger]

I don't recall being taught about what a terrible person he was either. Instead he's treated like a hero. He has his own holiday for crying out loud.

Then again this is the same country that put Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill.

To me he's a notable historical figure whose actions are directly linked to the history of this country.

What did he did that was so bad that he should be overlooked?

[MagGnome]

edit: Discovered doesn't mean that. There's no definition of the word discover where all of those people didn't discover it. Columbus is the most important one in terms of history by a long shot, though.

In terms of our history, possibly yes. I still don't think we should have a holiday celebrating the guy. Stalin was important in the history of Russia, but I'm sure we'd all agree that he shouldn't be celebrated either.

Yes I know I just made a somewhat awkward comparison. This is COG, so I figured it was par for the course. :p


To me he's a notable historical figure whose actions are directly linked to the history of this country.

What did he did that was so bad that he should be overlooked?

Honestly, the sources I found with a quick Google search online all seemed shady or tenuous to me, so I'll drop the argument about Columbus. Instead I will share this rather odd fact I found on Wikipedia:

A candidate for sainthood in the Catholic Church in 1866, celebration of Columbus's legacy perhaps reached a zenith in 1892 when the 400th anniversary of his first arrival in the Americas occurred.

Saint Columbus?

[burger]

It was a groupon day for sainthood

[VerseD]

Possibly, due to the rise of China as a world power we need to know about. However, we must remember that we only have 12 years of school to teach history, and we should teach the stuff that is most relevant to understanding the world as you interact with it, not strive for "fairness" of all cultures and time periods.

That's true, but I think China and Islam are very relevant, given America's economic commitment to the first and military obligations in the realm of the latter -- more relevant than Columbus, I think, although the significant issues of contemporary foreign policy are probably less interesting to a third grader than an adventurous sea captain.

To me he's a notable historical figure whose actions are directly linked to the history of this country.

What did he did that was so bad that he should be overlooked?

Andrew Jackson was a bastard who dueled thirteen men in his life and killed one of them, but I think the biggest controversy was his support for the Indian Removal Act, which led to the Trail of Tears and later accusations of genocide and ethnic cleansing. O American history!

[burger]

That's true, but I think China and Islam are very relevant, given America's economic commitment to the first and military obligations in the realm of the latter -- more relevant than Columbus, I think, although the significant issues of contemporary foreign policy are probably less interesting to a third grader than an adventurous sea captain.



Andrew Jackson was a bastard who dueled thirteen men in his life and killed one of them, but I think the biggest controversy was his support for the Indian Removal Act, which led to the Trail of Tears and later accusations of genocide and ethnic cleansing. O American history!

I was referring to columbus ;)

And I think you meant "O human history!"

[VerseD]

Well then that's the wrong answer I gave!

[Krispy]

In terms of our history, possibly yes. I still don't think we should have a holiday celebrating the guy. Stalin was important in the history of Russia, but I'm sure we'd all agree that he shouldn't be celebrated either.

Yes I know I just made a somewhat awkward comparison. This is COG, so I figured it was par for the course. :p

I'm normally sympathetic to this line of reasoning, but you can't deny that Colombus was not only important but pivotal to us being in America right now regardless of if he was first to "discover" America or not.

You might think we should de-emphasize Colombus and instead celebrate the event in history and its causal historical relevance, but I don't think the two concepts really come apart. If you were to give a description of events that pivotally led to us being in America and left out Colombus you would be giving a bad description. Like him or not, he's an important figure that deserves recognition for his positive contributions and ambitions.

And yes I agree our schooling is perhaps too Western centric, but that's not something only history is guilty of. Many of our teachings, including literature and philosophy are entirely Western centric. History just heavy handedly highlights the bias.

[J Arcane]

The Norse were impressive sailors, but so were the Phoenicians, the first to circle Africa. My history professor is waiting for the day when they find a Phoenician ship off the coast of Mexico.



Here is a map from 1418:

http://www.china-history.net/1421/images/0206BK1.jpg

This was a copy drawn in 1763, but the five academic experts who studied it believed it to be authentic, using information that would have been available piecemeal in China at the time. The same inaccuracies on this map, such as California as an island, were common in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and appear on a map found in Portugal and dated to before 1420, which includes the Americas and was likely a copy of Chinese maps.

But you're right when you say that not many people hear of this. It raises a good question: is American education too Western-centric? Should we spend more time discussing Islam and China, and less on Ronald Reagan and the Mayflower?

I think you're sweeping under the rug a lot of serious issues with the theories of Mr. Menzies from an evidential basis or a historical consensus basis. Similarly, there are disputes as to the veracity of the map in question. The issue here is not that people haven't heard of Zhang He, but that there's a dearth of evidence to support the mans claims and much of it is circumstantial and not without contention.

I understand your disdain for Western ethnocentrism, but I think you're allowing it to could your judgement of the wider picture and the actual established reality.

I have no particular attachment to the Columbus myth either, but that doesn't mean I should leap to accepting another myth in it's place.

[burger]

Stalin killed 20 million of his own people and was the leader of an incredible repressive government.

Let's not reference him in a conversation regarding Columbus Day please. :p

[MagGnome]

Stalin killed 20 million of his own people and was the leader of an incredible repressive government.

Let's not reference him in a conversation regarding Columbus Day please. :p

Would you prefer that I use Pol Pot instead? :p

[burger]

Would you prefer that I use Pol Pot instead? :p

I've always found humor in his name...I literally envision a cooking appliance when ever he's mentioned.

[Vigil80]

So what historical figure can one like? Bonus points if he/she has a holiday and/or is an American historical figure.

It isn't going to be difficult to find some reason to feel morally superior to someone whose heyday was over five centuries ago.

[MagGnome]

How about Rosa Parks? Did she secretly kill hundreds of thousands of people when someone wasn't looking? 0_o

[TheFlyingOrc]

How about Rosa Parks? Did she secretly kill hundreds of thousands of people when someone wasn't looking? 0_o

She's an arrogant bitch.

Not because of then, but because of more recent developments. I guess when everyone tells you you're a hero, you start to believe them. She got mad at Outkast, one of the most talented musical acts of the last...forever, really, for using her name as the title of a song. A song whose lyrics are a great critique of modern day racism.

Also, she's mythologized like crazy. She wasn't a tired old woman who just wanted to sit, the bus thing was a carefully calculated publicity stunt. Doesn't make it not heroic, but it annoys me that I was lied to.

To be completely honest, the only totally awesome American historical figures I know are George Washington and Teddy Roosevelt.

[J Arcane]

I think Ben Franklin got even more awesome once I learned more about what he was really like.

I mean, sure, he was a giant hypocrite, writing all about temperance and all this shit right before running off to drunken orgies.

But the dude was just so bugfuck insane. It's almost bizarre that he's such an iconic figure in an otherwise pretty conservative country.

what's really fun about his hypocrisy is that everyone thinks he's on their side, which is maybe why he's so famous. The right can point to all his conservative religious writings, while the left can point to him fucking barmaids at the Hellfire Club or whatever.

[VerseD]

My vote is for John Henry. He was born as a slave but he died an American, racing a steam-powered spike driver with the twenty-pound hammer he waved like nothing, and in the end he beat the machine and died in the dust of victory.

"Take this hammer and carrie it to the capt'n. You can tell him I'm gone. Boys, tell him I'm gone."

There is a man without fault! Of course, it always helps for the hero die before he has a chance at vanity.

I think you're sweeping under the rug a lot of serious issues with the theories of Mr. Menzies from an evidential basis or a historical consensus basis. Similarly, there are disputes as to the veracity of the map in question. The issue here is not that people haven't heard of Zhang He, but that there's a dearth of evidence to support the mans claims and much of it is circumstantial and not without contention.

I understand your disdain for Western ethnocentrism, but I think you're allowing it to could your judgement of the wider picture and the actual established reality.

I have no particular attachment to the Columbus myth either, but that doesn't mean I should leap to accepting another myth in it's place.

A lot of history is written like this, where you can call a historian stupid but you cannot call them wrong. History can sometimes be as open to interpretation as a work of art.

(In Zheng He's case, because you seem knowledgeable, the written records of the voyages were obscured behind a fabricated story that the intent was to track down a lost emperor, which would accommodate the new emperor's legitimacy and keep Confucian bureaucrats from complaining about the wasteful expense of the mission, in the same way that people in the US might complain about the NASA missions; and the history is made even more opaque, in the Chinese style, by a later emperor's abandonment of the whole enterprise, which meant discrediting it in the records and never referring to those voyages again. Evidence is so sparse that some later historians maintained that the entire thing was made up. There is reason to doubt Menzies, but also reason to shrug "maybe" because the records are subject to interpretation. Really, I just have a soft spot for amateur history hour.)

Anyway, there's no need to replace Columbus Day with one for Voyager Zheng He, and the question of who "discovered" a country that was already peopled and civilized is a silly exercise; but I think there's room for the Voyager in our pantheon of American myths, which otherwise tends to be very sparse.

[evilgoodwin]

John Wilkes Booth. Anti-Boothites have marred our history with stories on how he cowardly assassinated a president and was killed on a farm. The truth is that he traveled through time and took out the robot that had already assumed Lincoln's place, preventing him from colonizing England and starting a reverse-American-Revolutionary war! Then, that genius master of disguise blended into the ranks of pursuers, eventually killing his body-double himself before escaping through time again to stop the pyramids of Venice from being built.

And if this is actually all false.. well I went to public school.

[ShivaX]

Anyway, there's no need to replace Columbus Day with one for Voyager Zheng He, and the question of who "discovered" a country that was already peopled and civilized is a silly exercise; but I think there's room for the Voyager in our pantheon of American myths, which otherwise tends to be very sparse.

Well the whole thing with Columbus is what happened because of him, not neccessarily what he did. Others had "discovered" the Americas before, but not until Columbus did anyone care.