Are America’s schools OK?

Jay Matthews has a long, solid essay in the Boston Globe about the alleged gap between American primary and seconday schools and the rest of the world:  The widespread feeling that our schools are losing out to the rest of the world, that we are not producing enough scientists and engineers, is a misunderstanding fueled ...

By , a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast.

Jay Matthews has a long, solid essay in the Boston Globe about the alleged gap between American primary and seconday schools and the rest of the world:  The widespread feeling that our schools are losing out to the rest of the world, that we are not producing enough scientists and engineers, is a misunderstanding fueled by misleading statistics. Reports regularly conclude that the United States is falling behind other countries - in the number of engineers it produces, in the performance of its students in reading or in mathematics. But closer examinations of these reports are showing that they do not always compare comparable students, skewing the results. For those who look carefully at the performance of our schools, the real problem is not that the United States is falling behind, or that the entire system is failing. It is the sorry shape of the bottom 30 percent of US schools, those in urban and rural communities full of low-income children. We have seen enough successful schools in such areas to know that these children are just as capable of being great scientists, doctors, and executives as suburban children. But most low-income schools in the United States are simply bad. He's got some persuasive evidence, but I'm not sure about everything in this paragraph:  The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) of 1999, for instance, seemed to show that American high school students were far behind in advanced math. But the alarming news accounts that followed the study's release - and the politicians who echoed them - failed to note an important caveat. A significant portion of the US test takers, unlike the overseas students, had not yet gotten beyond precalculus. When the TIMMS experts later reanalyzed the data, comparing overseas students only with American high schoolers who had taken Advanced Placement calculus, the United States did much better. Perhaps more American students should be taking calculus, but when they did, they did well in comparison to foreign calculus students. Bracey found other differences that distorted international comparisons. In Europe, many teenagers who hold jobs are tracked into technical schools, but American youngsters commonly combine traditional school and work. Many of the European students on this track were not tested, but their American counterparts were, warping the comparisons. Now the point about vocational schools is well-taken.  The point about calc vs. pre-calc students, on the other hand, does not.  You can't say that a study showing Americans are behind in 12th grade math is biased because lots of foreign students have already taken calculus but American students have not -- and you sure as hell can't then alter the results by selecting on students smart enough to take calculus in high school.  That caveat aside, do read the whole thing.   

Jay Matthews has a long, solid essay in the Boston Globe about the alleged gap between American primary and seconday schools and the rest of the world: 

The widespread feeling that our schools are losing out to the rest of the world, that we are not producing enough scientists and engineers, is a misunderstanding fueled by misleading statistics. Reports regularly conclude that the United States is falling behind other countries – in the number of engineers it produces, in the performance of its students in reading or in mathematics. But closer examinations of these reports are showing that they do not always compare comparable students, skewing the results.

For those who look carefully at the performance of our schools, the real problem is not that the United States is falling behind, or that the entire system is failing. It is the sorry shape of the bottom 30 percent of US schools, those in urban and rural communities full of low-income children. We have seen enough successful schools in such areas to know that these children are just as capable of being great scientists, doctors, and executives as suburban children. But most low-income schools in the United States are simply bad.

He’s got some persuasive evidence, but I’m not sure about everything in this paragraph: 

The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) of 1999, for instance, seemed to show that American high school students were far behind in advanced math. But the alarming news accounts that followed the study’s release – and the politicians who echoed them – failed to note an important caveat. A significant portion of the US test takers, unlike the overseas students, had not yet gotten beyond precalculus. When the TIMMS experts later reanalyzed the data, comparing overseas students only with American high schoolers who had taken Advanced Placement calculus, the United States did much better. Perhaps more American students should be taking calculus, but when they did, they did well in comparison to foreign calculus students. Bracey found other differences that distorted international comparisons. In Europe, many teenagers who hold jobs are tracked into technical schools, but American youngsters commonly combine traditional school and work. Many of the European students on this track were not tested, but their American counterparts were, warping the comparisons.

Now the point about vocational schools is well-taken.  The point about calc vs. pre-calc students, on the other hand, does not.  You can’t say that a study showing Americans are behind in 12th grade math is biased because lots of foreign students have already taken calculus but American students have not — and you sure as hell can’t then alter the results by selecting on students smart enough to take calculus in high school.  That caveat aside, do read the whole thing. 

 

Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner

More from Foreign Policy

Newspapers in Tehran feature on their front page news about the China-brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore ties, signed in Beijing the previous day, on March, 11 2023.
Newspapers in Tehran feature on their front page news about the China-brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore ties, signed in Beijing the previous day, on March, 11 2023.

Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America

The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

Austin and Gallant stand at podiums side by side next to each others' national flags.
Austin and Gallant stand at podiums side by side next to each others' national flags.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense

If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

Russian President Vladimir Putin lays flowers at the Moscow Kremlin Wall in the Alexander Garden during an event marking Defender of the Fatherland Day in Moscow.
Russian President Vladimir Putin lays flowers at the Moscow Kremlin Wall in the Alexander Garden during an event marking Defender of the Fatherland Day in Moscow.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War

Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

An Iranian man holds a newspaper reporting the China-brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore ties, in Tehran on March 11.
An Iranian man holds a newspaper reporting the China-brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore ties, in Tehran on March 11.

How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests

And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.