Archives for category: International

On Tuesday, the results of the international test called PISA will be released.

Years ago, no one paid much attention to the release of international test scores, but now they have become an occasion for official moaning, groaning, and hyperventilating. It is time to remember the story about “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” Will we hear more declarations that the latest results are “our Sputnik moment”? Will we hear more predictions that our economy is headed for disaster because some other nation has higher test scores? You can count on it.

Richard Rothstein and Martin Carnoy write here that the U.S. Department of Education released early copies of the PISA results only to organizations that can be counted on to echo the Obama administration’s official line that American schools are failing and declining and unable to compete in the global competition.

They write:

Typically, The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is given an advance look at test score data by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and issues press releases with conclusions based on its preliminary review of the results. The OECD itself also provides a publicized interpretation of the results. This year, ED and the OECD are planning a highly orchestrated event, “PISA Day,” to manipulate coverage of this release.

It is usual practice for research organizations (and in some cases, the government) to provide advance copies of their reports to objective journalists. That way, journalists have an opportunity to review the data and can write about them in a more informed fashion. Sometimes, journalists are permitted to share this embargoed information with diverse experts who can help the journalists understand possibly alternative interpretations.

In this case, however, the OECD and ED have instead given their PISA report to selected advocacy groups that can be counted on, for the most part, to echo official interpretations and participate as a chorus in the official release.1 These are groups whose interpretation of the data has typically been aligned with that of the OECD and ED—that American schools are in decline and that international test scores portend an economic disaster for the United States, unless the school reform programs favored by the administration are followed.

The Department’s co-optation of these organizations in its official release is not an attempt to inform but rather to manipulate public opinion. Those with different interpretations of international test scores will see the reports only after the headlines have become history.

Which organizations got early copies of the PISA data? The organizations who have been provided with advance copies of this government report, and that are participating in the public release are: The Alliance for Excellent Education, Achieve, ACT, America Achieves, the Asia Society, the Business Roundtable, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the College Board, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and the National Center on Education and the Economy. These organizations and their leaders have a history of bemoaning Americans’ performance on international tests and predicting tragic consequences for the nation that will follow.

Rothstein and Carnoy remind us that thirty years ago a federal government report called “A Nation at Risk” warned of our dire peril, and that report has since been proven wrong:

Advocates participating in Tuesday’s staged PISA Day release include several who, a quarter century ago, warned that America’s inadequate education system and workforce skills imperiled our competitiveness and future. Their warnings were followed by a substantial acceleration of American productivity growth in the mid-1990s, and by an American economy whose growth rate surpassed the growth rates of countries that were alleged to have better prepared and more highly skilled workers.

Today, threats to the nation’s future prosperity come much less from flaws in our education system than from insufficiently stimulative fiscal policies which tolerate excessive unemployment, wasting much of the education our young people have acquired; an outdated infrastructure: regulatory and tax policies that reward speculation more than productivity; an over-extended military; declining public investment in research and innovation; a wasteful and inefficient health care system; and the fact that typical workers and their families, no matter how well educated, do not share in the fruits of productivity growth as they once did. The best education system we can imagine can’t succeed if we ignore these other problems.

We don’t plan to comment on tomorrow’s release, except to caution that any conclusions drawn quickly from such complex data should not be relied upon. We urge commentators to await our and other careful analyses of the new PISA results before accepting the headline-generating assertions by government officials and their allies upon the release of the national summary report.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing if some of these organizations asked the obvious question: Why does the United States continue to thrive and prosper even though our scores on international tests are not at the top? Why was “A Nation at Risk” so terribly wrong in its predictions of doom and gloom to come if we didn’t raise those international test scores?

– See more at: http://www.epi.org/blog/pisa-day-ideological-hyperventilated-exercise/#sthash.mlTQYkwp.dpuf

Last January, Richard Rothstein and Martin Carnoy released a report on international test scores, arguing that American students perform better than is generally believes. Since many people are deeply invested in the conventional claim that American students lag the world on international tests, their report led to a flurry of controversy. This post by Rothstein and Carnoy responds to Tucker’s criticism of their report.

On the other hand, Marc Tucker wrote an excellent article on his blog in which he made some important points.

First, he reviewed Eric Hanushek, Paul Peterson, and Ludger Woessman’s book Endangering Prosperity. He agrees with them that American performance on international tests is terrible, even among our best students. But he disagrees with their solutions: reliance on market forces via charters and vouchers, smashing teachers’ unions, test-based evaluation of teachers. He sees no evidence that these strategies have worked anywhere in the world.

Tucker writes:

My objection to these strategies has nothing to do with ideology. It is pragmatic. First, after years of implementation, as I have written elsewhere, there is still no evidence that market solutions will produce results superior to the results that we have been getting, certainly not the kind of results we would have to have to overcome the gigantic deficiencies that Hanushek, Peterson and Woessmann document in this book. The authors are correct in saying that teacher quality is the most important factor in improving the performance of our schools, but, as far as I know, they can point to no country in the world that has used the strategies they advocate to get decisive improvements in teacher quality. There is, in short, no evidence that the strategies they want the United States to bet on will work.

He points to Shanghai, visited recently by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, as a high-performing nation that uses none of these strategies. What works in Shanghai?

Shanghai did not get to where it is by creating charter schools or issuing vouchers. It did not get there by sorting out teachers by the scores their students get on standardized tests and then weeding out the worst. They have been more successful than any other country in the world at developing the teachers they already have, focusing relentlessly on teacher training, embracing the system and its teachers, rather than driving the best away with punitive accountability systems.

I find this an admirable statement.

My only disagreement with the debate about our international performance is that I am not persuaded that test scores on TIMSS or PISA predict what will happen to our economy 10 or 20 or 30 years from now. I recall that in 1983 “A Nation at Risk” said we were doomed because of our international test scores. Didn’t happen. The international tests show which nations have students who get the most right answers on multiple-choice tests. I fail to understand why that is a leading economic indicator. The Chinese-American scholar Yong Zhao has argued that the test-based education systems are least likely to promote creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship. I am inclined to agree with him.

You will enjoy this amazing slide show created by the great Finnish educator Pasi Sahlberg.

It explains why Finnish schools succeed: Not because they want to be first in the world, but because they want “a great school for each and every child.” Their goal is equity, not excellence. While striving for equity, excellence is the by-product.

His comparison of the stale paradigm of the Global Education Reform Movement (GERM), which features testing, competition, and choice, with the Finnish Way (collaboration, responsibility, trust, equity, and education as a human right) is stark and compelling.

Enjoy!

Among the nations of Europe, Sweden has taken the lead in imposing choice, competition, and high-stakes testing. Sweden has vouchers, so students can take their public money to any public or private school they want. Sweden also adopted a national curriculum.

The result: a falling quality of education, lower results on international tests, and increased social stratification. This is an example of what Finnish educator Pasi Sahlberg calls GERM (the Global Education Reform Movement), characterized by choice, competition, and testing.

Swedish educators await the release of the next PISA exam with trepidation, but the education minister of the conservative government is already prepared with excuses, ready to blame the Social Democrats, who were in power until 2006, or to blame teachers, whose profession has fallen into low esteem as a consequence of government policies.

Note that Sweden is demographically similar to Finland, yet its schools continue to decline as Finland attracts the admiration of the world.

What is Finland doing right? What is Sweden doing wrong? Should the Swedish people accept the minister’s assurances and wait “several more years” to see the promised success of vouchers, choice, competition, and other GERM policies?

The reader writes: “One thing I have repeated heard in this
‘Ed Reform’ talk is that American kids need to ‘catch up’ with kids
from other countries because we are behind in those international
tests. I grew up in China, where there is very rigorous curriculum;
where frequent testing and ranking of students is part of a
student’s life the moment the child walks into a school; where
students do perform well in internationally-benchmarked tests. “Is
that what some ed reformers here are going after? If so, I would
suggest that they take a look at how lost and uninspired to learn
college freshman year students are in China; how students, even at
very young ages, cheat on tests so that they can rank higher in
their class and consequently get to better schools; how many
people, like myself, still have nightmares about not being able to
finish all the questions on a test, even in our adulthood. “Go
visit a Chinese airport, or bus stop, or subway station. See if you
can spot people reading while waiting. Likely not – because
people’s desire to read, to explore, to think and keep learning was
killed long ago, inside the schools, by those tests…”

The Atlantic published a very interesting article about the latest international test scores by Julie Ryan, and the title is significant.

It says: “AMERICAN EDUCATION ISNT MEDIOCRE, ITS DEEPLY UNEQUAL.”

That’s an apt way of saying that poverty drags down test scores.

This is true of every standardized test, whether it is the state tests, the SAT, the ACT, the NAEP or international tests.

As I wrote in an earlier post, the tests ores don’t predict our economic future.

If we wanted higher scores, we would reduce poverty and foster greater equality.

Uh-oh! Another study has appeared warning that we are falling behind other nations on international standardized tests.

The National Assessment Governing Board released the results of a study comparing the performance of U.S. states to nations that participated in the 2011 TIMSS.

Students in most US states were above the international average but the nations known for their test-taking culture dominated the results. That is, the top performing nations were Singapore, Korea, Chinese Taipei, and Japan.

The usual hand-wringers were wringing their hands about how awful we were, how terribly we compare to those at the top.

The reporters from the New York Times and the Washington Post tried to reach me but I was at an all-day event in Vermont-New Hampshire and did not see their messages.

If I had responded, I would have said this: International test scores do not predict the economic future. Once a nation is above a basic threshold of literacy, the numbers reflect how good that nation is at test-taking. They are meaningless as economic predictors.

In 1964, when the first international test was offered in two grades to twelve nations, we came in last and next to last in the two grades but went on to have a stronger economy in the next half century than the other 11 nations that were tested.

In 1983, a federal report called “A Nation at Risk” warned that our international test scores were a symbol of a “rising tide of mediocrity” and that we were losing our major industries to Japan and Germany because of our terrible schools. As it happened, we lost our automobile industry to Japan not because of our schools or test scores but because of our short-sighted auto executives, who did not anticipate the demand for fuel-efficient cars.

Meanwhile, despite those test scores, our country continued to grow its economy, to be the most militarily powerful and technologically innovative nation in the world, and Japan went into a prolonged period of economic stagnation.

In the latest round of international test scores, Japan outscored us. So what? Singapore, Korea, and the other Asian tigers have cultures that put incredible pressure on young people to get high test scores.

The Washington Post had a sensible comment by someone who studies labor markets:

“Hal Salzman, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University, said hand-wringing over international tests is misguided.

“What’s really peculiar about the whole test-score hysteria is that they use it as a proxy for the U.S. ‘competitiveness and innovation’ as though we don’t have actual measurements,” said Salzman, an expert in science and engineering labor markets and the globalization of innovation. “The country continues to lead on innovation, economic performance and all the results that these things are supposed to indicate.”

There are more than enough strong math and science students in U.S. classrooms to fill future jobs in this country, he said.

“It doesn’t mean we don’t want to improve education,” Salzman said. “But the fear that’s driving it is unfounded. The problem we have is not at the top or at the middle. It’s at the bottom. That’s what gets lost in averages and rankings.”

Professor Salzman is right.

The international test scores are poor economic barometers.

What matters most in the decades ahead is the extent to which we cultivate creativity, ingenuity, curiosity, innovation, and thinking differently. These qualities have been the genius of American culture. These traits are not measured by standardized tests.

The students who learn to select the correct box on a multiple-choice question are not the inventors and innovators of the future. They are the clerks of the future.

A reader who works for an international agency sent me this essay about a pressing problem. For obvious reasons, he will remain anonymous, but his sources are cited.

Learning Metrics Taskforce: If you can’t teach the students of poor countries, just test them!

 

Much has been written about testing problems and corporate interests in the US. Could similar forces be operating outside the US? Here is a story that few readers probably know.

In poor countries education is mainly for the middle class. Most citizens of countries such as Rwanda, Congo, or Papua New Guinea have traditionally remained illiterate. In 1990 a worldwide initiative was launched, called “Education for All”. It was led by the World Bank and has evolved into a multi-billion dollar fund. About 55 low-income governments have received grants to build schools, buy books, and recruit teachers. Parents desperately want to send children to school, so when schools open, they quickly fill up. But there is a glitch: In very poor circumstances, children fail to learn. A World Bank study estimated in 2012 that only 67% of students in Subsaharan Africa finish primary school and of those who finish, 25% are illiterate.

The ‘learning crisis’, as it is called, has multiple causes. My partner and I spent about 12 years teaching for a charity organization, and we witnessed them first hand. Urban classes have 60-120 students with children seated on the floor. Teachers are often absent, may not know how to teach, and they are never supervised. Corrupt officials often demand bribes, and textbooks are stolen before they get to schools. Children are malnourished and hungry. Not much is taught under these conditions.

Donors such as the World Bank ought to have a good handle on this reality. But their staff hardly visit classrooms. They prefer the company of high officials who send their children to private schools and have private agendas. Most world bankers are economists, so they love the virtual reality of datasets and glossy publications. Incredibly, the donors’ response to scant instruction is not better teaching but better testing. Governments are encouraged to develop learning benchmarks, test students against them, and then figure out how to teach children to achieve the benchmarks.

The triumph of testing over teaching was definitively proclaimed through the “Learning Metrics Task Force” deliberations. The prestigious Brookings Institute conducted a large-scale consultation that involved 1700 staff members of 30 organizations. They were asked to define what children should learn in school and how the learning should be measured. Dozens of organizer staff flew to exotic destinations like Dubai and Bellagio, Italy to deliberate on the findings.

The report was formally launched on September 24, 2013 at the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly. [click here http://globaleducationfirst.org/2996.htm see entire report here http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/09/learning-metrics-task-force-universal-learning

The report affirms the need to take immediate action to ensure children’s right to quality education. Nevertheless, it says nothing about the practical obstacles to learning such as corruption, harassment, book thefts, and failure to teach. In fact the word “teach” is not mentioned even once. Students are somehow expected to learn through “opportunities to develop competencies across seven domains of learning, starting in early childhood through adolescence.” To achieve this, a small set of key learning indicators will be tracked globally, such as literacy and numeracy. Countries will obtain technical help to diagnose the quality of their assessment systems, convene stakeholders to determine priorities, identify inequities, and make the appropriate policy changes.

To justify this view, the task force introduces the concept that assessment is a Public Good (pp. 12, 32). No country should be denied the opportunity to test students just because they cannot afford to. Parents and other stakeholders should become advocates of testing (p. 15) and for increased funding for testing (p. 17).

To help children quickly there is not a moment to lose. The task force will meet in November 2013 and develop a plan for moving forward. Launch events will be held in at least 15 cities around the world from September through November 2013, to make stakeholders aware of the test benefits.

The “learning metrics” task force seems so out of touch with reality that its main recommendation is a “Global Paradigm Shift” – from mere investment in access to “access plus learning”. Really, in 2013? Over the last 20 years piles of studies have documented learning failures, while numerous UNESCO workshops have taken place on quality improvement. With the same surreal touch, the document omits references to the large-scale testing that has already taken place. Since the 1990s the kids have been fed alphabet-soup tests such as PASEC, SACMEC, TIMSS, EGRA, EGMA, ASER, Uwezo, and other tests (see www.eddataglobal.org). And practically no cases are known of governments that put test results to good uses and improved outcomes.

So why did the Brookings Institution compromise its standards for this initiative? Why not form a teaching-for-poverty task force? Cynics point to money, but experience with poor schools leads to some sobering decisions. Donors mainly want to see activities and feel optimistic for the future. The most productive activity is to help schools teach students, but it is time-consuming, sometimes dangerous and often frustrating. Donors may become disappointed and pull out. By contrast, testing is a winner. Field work takes just a few weeks, and analyses can be done from the comfort of air conditioned offices. The staff involved get invited to international conferences, pad their resumes, get promoted. It’s up to the host governments to use test results for policy improvement.

As the task force rushes into implementation, the only certain outcome is consultant welfare. Testing companies are asked to donate time (p. 35), but seven domains in all countries of the world amount to huge numbers of tests. USAID and other donors have spent millions on testing in the past, so consultant companies and associated nonprofits are preparing for a windfall. Our boss is also optimistic.

The smell of money may be one reason why no one has criticized the report publicly. The people who are building careers and retirement funds from money destined to educate poor kids will strongly argue that they are doing the very best they can for them. Anyway many countries are slowly rising out of poverty, and eventually the poor will turn up educated. It may not be exactly ‘Education for All’, but ‘Testing for All” is considered acceptable progress.

 

 

Pasi Sahlberg–the great scholar and expert on Finnish education– has been named a visiting professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, starting in January 2014. This is great news for Harvard but even greater news for the U.S. because it means more people will have a chance to hear him and learn from him.

I heard Pasi speak at the National Superintendents Roundtable in Washington, D.C., over this past weekend. He was outstanding. If you have a chance to invite him to a state or national conference, do so.

If you want to learn about Finland and how it transformed its educational system over a period of about 30 years, read Pasi’s Finnish Lessons. In his book, Pasi coined the term “Global Educational Reform Movement,” meaning testing, accountability, choice, and competition. He calls it GERM for short. Pasi is a GERM disinfectant.

I was inspired when I met Pasi in 2010 and made plans to visit Finland in the fall of 2011, with him as my guide.

Here is what I learned about Finland:

The goal of education is to make every student a healthy, happy, creative, responsible person. Finnish students take no standardized tests until the end of high school, when they take a test to qualify for higher education. Finnish schools place a high value on play and the arts. Finnish children do not begin school until age 7. Finnish teachers do not assign homework  in the early grades. The teachers and principals do not want children to feel anxious and stressed because of school.

There are no charter schools or voucher schools in Finland. The national goal was to make every school a good school.

Nothing about Finnish education is standardized other than teacher education. There are only eight institutions of higher education that prepare teachers. Admission to them is highly selective. Students apply at the end of high school. Only one in ten is accepted. The teaching profession is highly respected, as much as any other profession. Young people must complete a course of five years of study before they can become teachers. All higher education is tuition-free.

Almost every teacher and principal in Finland belongs to the same union. There is no “Teach for Finland.” Although there is a national curriculum, it is not prescriptive. Teachers have wide latitude over what to teach and how to teach.

Finland has very little poverty, by choice and design. It does not have the extremes of wealth and poverty that are so common in the United States.

When I saw Pasi speak last weekend in Washington, I wrote down a few of his lines (he is a great speaker with a wonderful Powerpoint presentation).

Here are a few of his pithiest:

“Standardization is the enemy of creativity.”

“We do not experiment on our children, as you are experimenting with your Common Core.”

“Accountability is what is left when responsibility is taken away from teachers.”

“Excellence comes with equity, not choice.”

To those who say that Finland’s exceptional performance on international tests is solely the result of its well-prepared teachers, Pasi demurs. He offered a thought experiment. He said, suppose we exchange all the teachers in Finland with all the teachers in Indiana, which is about the same size. He believes the results would not differ. The Finnish teachers would be overwhelmed by the large numbers of children in poverty in Indiana. The Indiana teachers would be overjoyed by the conditions of teaching and learning in Finland.

His conclusion: Aim for equity, and you will get excellence. Prepare teachers to be professionals and trust them to act responsibly as professionals. Recognize that good education for all is not possible in a society where inequality is pervasive and deep.

I cannot do justice to his brilliant presentation. I hope you have a chance to meet this charismatic educator while he is living in Cambridge and traveling America with a message of hope for genuine change from the current status quo of GERM for all.

President Obama has often said that American workers are the most productive in the world. In his 2011 State of the Union address, he said: “Remember -– for all the hits we’ve taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world.  (Applause.)  No workers — no workers are more productive than ours.  No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs.

Others agree: This came from a UN organization in 2009:

American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year.

They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according to a U.N. report released Monday, which said the United States “leads the world in labor productivity.” Norway’s productivity is based on its vast oil wealth extracted from the sea.

Each U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, ahead of Luxembourg, $55,641; Belgium, $55,235; and France, $54,609.

Yet the OECD put out a report saying that our population is actually quite dumb and is losing ground to other nations. The OECD report garnered headlines across the nation, because it reinforced the common but erroneous narrative that we as a nation are entering into a steep economic decline, all of which can be blamed on our faltering public schools.

Let me point out that this is the same refrain we have heard since the days of the Puritans. The younger generation is no good, we are going to hell and damnation, and soon comes the apocalypse, all the result of our sins (or in modern terms, our public schools). Since neither voucher schools nor charter schools outperform our public schools, this refrain is getting tiresome yet it persists.

It is also false.

As I explain in “Reign of Error,” these scare reports are wrong. First, they say that our college graduation rates are falling behind those of other nations, and we should be very, very upset. They never point out that our college graduation rate is almost double the college graduation rate of Germany, which is the most dynamic economy in Europe.

Then, they say that the jobs of the future will demand a huge increase in college graduates, but that is not what our own Bureau of Labor Statistics projects. The BLS projected that two-thirds of the jobs available between 2008 and 2018 would not need any post-secondary training. Most would require on-the-job training. Jobs for computer engineers and nurses require college degrees. But the larger number of jobs for home health aides, customer service agents, fast-food workers, retail salesclerks, construction workers, and truck drivers do not require college diplomas. (See pp. 88-89 of “Reign of Error” for citations.)

If we really want more college graduates, we should make all community colleges free to students. Our society, if it truly cares, should shoulder the burden of college costs so that more students can get the education they want but can’t afford. Colleges won’t get cheaper for students by producing data about cost and outcomes. They will get cheaper if more of the cost of attending college is assumed by government, not students.

For many years, there were free community colleges. Now there are few. Why?

Don’t complain about the college graduation rate unless you are willing to make the cost far, far lower to students.

And don’t believe for a minute that standardized tests are accurate measures of productivity. In 1964, our students scored last on the world’s first international test of mathematics, and we went on to outperform the other 11 nations that took the same test.

What we need more of is independent thinking, divergent thinking, innovation, ingenuity, responsibility, dedication, creativity–none of which is measured by the ability to check the right box on a standardized test.