Just hours ago, the latest round of data from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) was released to great fanfare. Under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA has been assessing 15-year-olds in reading, math, and science every three years since 2000. This year over 60 “education systems,” almost all of them countries, participated.
In each new round of PISA results, the U.S. has been squarely in the middle of the pack. Our overall scores are statistically indistinguishable from the average of all OECD countries. But some of our economic competitors, including Japan, Korea, and Germany, have scored much higher. Korea’s math score this year was 554, Japan’s 536, and Germany’s 514, compared to 481 for the U.S. Science literacy and reading follow similar patterns.
While much of the press coverage will no doubt zero in on our middling performance and the bleak economic future it foretells, a far more disturbing pattern in the data is more likely to hurt us in the long run than will our mediocre average scores. What should scare us is the low percentage of students in the highest levels of performance (PISA level 5 and above).
Even a quick look at these numbers shows how far below some of our major economic competitors the U.S. is. Having such a small percentage of super-performers poses a far greater threat to our economic security and future than being “average” overall does. And it signals the need to reconsider some of the nation’s basic priorities in education policy.
For many years, the U.S. has worked hard to fulfill the promise that no child will be left behind. And the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) shows that we have made great progress in fulfilling that promise. The scores of African Americans, Hispanics, and low-income fourth and eighth graders in reading and math have leaped upward. And in the past 15 years or so, NAEP scores, especially in math, have too. But, at the same time, the percentage of students who score at NAEP’s advanced level has stagnated.
Yes, we must honor our commitment to disadvantaged students. But that’s only part of the best way forward. Our economy’s future depends as much on expanding the number and percentage of our most proficient students as it does on closing achievement gaps. Like NAEP data, this year’s PISA results bid us to revisit our educational priorities and find ways to nurture the next generation of high performers.
This post originally appeared on The Quick and the Ed.
The new PISA results are out and education charlatans of every stripe are finding proof of their own preferred policy solution.
According to a front page article in the New York Times, school districts across the country are cutting back on their use of suspensions, expulsions, and arrests as disciplinary tools.
The edtech market consists of numerous niche solutions that fail to provide educators with integrated solutions.
In the Washington Post, Jay Mathews argues that smart students will probably do just fine attending regular schools. Warren Buffett did! A study published in Education Next found that attending a gifted and talented program did little to accelerate the progress of high-achieving students.
A front-page article in the New York Times looks at efforts to enroll more minority students in Advanced Placement classes. Andy Mollison wrote for Ed Next about the explosive growth of the AP program and at whether the high academic standards of the program are being maintained.
Tom Loveless on NAEP, Emily Richmond on class size, Rick Hess and Mike McShane on the Common Core, and more
The U.S. Department of Education is partnering with the NEA, the AFT, Teach for America, Microsoft, and other organizations to launch a public service campaign aimed at attracting high-achieving college graduates to a career in teaching.
We’ve taken care of policy in lots of places but implementation is a major challenge
In team-based models, schools add new paraprofessionals to teaching teams to do teachers’ administrative paperwork and oversee skill practice, project work, and digital instruction at school.
Posts by Authors
- Achieve, Inc.
- Alliance for Excellent Education
- Alliance for School Choice
- American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence
- American Institutes For Research
- American Legislative Exchange Council
- Annie E. Casey Foundation
- Aspen Institute
- Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
- Broad Foundation
- Brookings Institution
- Building Excellent Schools
- Center for American Progress
- Center for Education Reform
- Center for Educational Achievement
- Center on Reinventing Public Education
- Citizens Commission On Civil Rights
- Common Core
- Consortium for Policy Research in Education
- Core Knowledge Foundation
- Data Quality Campaign
- Democrats for Education Reform
- Education Sector
- Education Trust
- Foundation for Excellence in Education
- Friedman Foundation
- Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media
- National Alliance for Public Charter Schools
- National Association of Charter School Authorizers
- National Charter School Research Project
- National Council on Teacher Quality
- National Education Writers Association
- National Governors Association
- National Institute for Excellence in Teaching
- New Leaders for New Schools
- New Schools Venture Fund
- Program on Education Policy and Governance
- Progressive Policy Institute
- Public Impact
- Teach for America
- The New Teacher Project
- Thomas B. Fordham Institute
- United States Department of Education
About the Blog
The Ed Next blog aims to provide lively commentary on education news and research and to bring evidence to bear on current education policy debates.
Our bloggers include editors at Education Next magazine and others who have written for the magazine. Education Next is a quarterly journal of opinion and research about education policy published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and additionally sponsored by the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
The opinions expressed by the Ed Next bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of Educationnext.org, Education Next magazine, or its sponsors. Educationnext.org is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the bloggers.