
Why Americans Think So Poorly of the Country's Schools - zwieback
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/the-education-perception-gap/533898/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAtlantic+%28The+Atlantic+-+Master+Feed%29&amp;single_page=true
======
slededit
The thesis seems to be "School's are really not that bad". But the article
compares only from within the same system. If you look at other countries it's
clear the USA is falling behind and public perception is correct.

~~~
gpawl
What are some external comparisons?

~~~
gumby
PISA is the best, administered by the OECD:

Examining the US results:
[http://www.compareyourcountry.org/pisa/country/USA?lg=en](http://www.compareyourcountry.org/pisa/country/USA?lg=en)

The PISA site: [http://www.oecd.org/pisa/](http://www.oecd.org/pisa/)

Just an example: my son went from a California school to Berlin -- he needed
tutoring in English to catch up. He went back to a highly ranked competitive
private ("college prep") school in Silicon Valley and found the math he was
given in grade 8 was stuff he'd had in German in grade 6.

History was much rote and dogma, just like my mother's Asian education. True
questioning got in the way of meeting the all-important UC curriculum
requirements.

And it's worse in the Palo Alto public schools (which are, shockingly,
considered some of the best): from talking to my friends and their kids, it's
all "teach to the test".

If I wanted that I'd have sent my kid to school in Singapore.

~~~
wahern

      > PISA is the best, administered by the OECD:
    

"PISA uses multiple-choice testing as the primary feature of its
assessments...".
[http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisafaq/](http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisafaq/)

    
    
      > If I wanted [teaching to the test] I'd have sent my kid to school in Singapore.
    

AFAIU kids in Singapore also score better than Americans in both math and
English.

Perhaps curriculums in both Germany and Singapore are tailored toward better
PISA scores. Perhaps PISA testing is more segregated or those countries have
less income inequality such that their PISA test-takers are generally more
relatively wealthy.

And I've yet to see any evidence that more advanced curriculums ultimately
result in a smarter, more efficient workforce. (What with diminishing returns
and all.) Even within a country, elders always lament how the current
curriculum is easier or less strict then when they were in school. Never do
they provide data showing a worse work force; merely data showing a difference
in scores for a very narrow and specific set of skills.

AFAIK, kids in Switzerland don't start a normal academic curriculum until age
7, as opposed to age 5 in the U.S. Yet the initial skills gap (such as it is)
is quickly erased. That to me suggests the only reason to worry about how
advanced is a curriculum is if you have a particular reason to believe it
would result in a serious impediment that couldn't be easily overcome. When
might that be a real issue? By your account, certainly when changing schools
between jurisdictions with significantly different curriculums, like when
moving to a different country. Otherwise, it's really quite hard to tell.
Americans always lament how kids are unprepared for college, but that cry
often sounds like the typical cry of the older generation. Certainly I don't
think I've ever heard a professor praise his foreign students over similarly
situated native students, particularly by the 4th year.

~~~
cbhl
> I've yet to see any evidence that more advanced curriculums ultimately
> result in a smarter, better workforce.

Nobody is going to do a study where they change something for a 5-year-old and
see the impact twenty or thirty years later. Studies on education focus on
specific, measurable outcomes at most three to five years out -- for example,
seeing the impact on a cohort between Grade 3 and Grade 6, or measuring the
percentage of students that "go on to college", or "graduate with a
Bachelor's", or "had a job within 6 and 12 months of graduating".

Basically, you measure things that you can measure, even if they're imperfect
measures of "I want to make the world a better place".

~~~
wahern

      > Basically, you measure things that you can measure, even if they're imperfect measures of "I want to make the world a better place".
    

Yes, of course. But the question is precisely about the significance of what
we're measuring, and the conclusions we can draw. The current derisive
narrative is that American schools teach to the test. The article points out
that despite test scores staying the same or getting stronger, the opinion of
American schools has stayed the same or dropped. Part of the narrative is that
the tests are too narrowly focused (which, as you point out, isn't a
coincidence or for lack of effort). This derision is echoed by the poster I
replied to.

At the same time, the poster points to PISA test scores. But as I pointed out,
the PISA is just another multiple-choice test and, AFAICT, fairly subject to
all the same criticisms as the American standardized test.

Basically, the whole debate--national and international--suffers from
confusion, ignorance, and in some cases outright irrationality. (I do not mean
to imply anything about the poster to whom I replied.) On the one hand we have
more data points than ever. On the other hand there's little data about what
all this new data is actually telling us, if anything, about the quality of
our citizenry and workforce.

But given what we do know, such as how quickly a skills gap can be bridged,
all other things equal, or how critical it is to develop both knowledge
acquisition skills and opportunity, there's reason to believe that a lot of
the data--particularly the standardized test data--is meaningless at the macro
scale and in isolation.

Much like nutritional science, I think we'd all do well to emphasize how
little we actually know. As it currently stands we're merely weaponizing data
in contexts where we have little reason to believe it has significant meaning.
That doesn't mean gathering that data is pointless; just that it might not be
as easily applied as we'd like.

------
cbanek
> As research indicates, out-of-school factors like family and neighborhood
> account for roughly 60 percent of the variance in student test scores;
> teachers, by contrast—the largest in-school influence—account for only about
> 10 percent.

> Current data systems, which consist primarily of standardized-test scores,
> misrepresent school quality. They say more about family income than they do
> about schools.

The article seems to say that schools are fine, but it's our perceptions that
are off. I don't doubt that our perceptions are off at all, when you know more
about a situation, there's less fear and random judgement. Especially when
it's about your children.

On the other hand, implying that out of school factors such as family income
aren't related to schooling leaves out what I consider the real crux of the
issue: funding.

Schools in the US are usually funded by local tax dollars, which is why school
funding can vary so much from district to district. If you are trying to
control for funding, then sure, I could see where you would say that where you
live makes up 60% of your child's education, and only 10% is the difference
between teachers. What I take this to mean is that 60% of the results come
from actually funding the system.

I'm not sure if this controls for the fact that better funded schools have
more teachers, which equates to smaller class size, and more time with the
teacher, etc.

I also think there's a link between having well paid families and parental
involvement in childhood activities, especially school. Involved parents also
get involved in the school activities as well, like PTA.

Let's also not forget about the poorest school districts many of the children
get free or reduced lunch programs. Comparing the test scores of children that
are struggling with the basics vs those who aren't is a pretty stark
difference.

~~~
SpikeDad
Sadly political and religious leanings shade both the quality of schools as
well as the perception of schools. Have a school district with good curriculum
- strong science, math, history. Good health hygiene (ie, sex education) and
then ask people in the district who are various degrees of left wing and right
wing as well as highly religions and you'll get plenty of "Our school stinks
because they teach ... [insert whatever historical or science which the
particular group opposes].

Not that I have any big solution - local school district regulations are
important. I think there needs to be more regulation and contribution from
other sources to balance out the issues.

~~~
Brockenstein
I agree. But I suspect many people would disagree because that sort of thing
would water down their local influence and mitigate whatever personal agendas
they have.

You just can't emphasis local influence and then still expect to meet national
or universal standards. And as long as we try to do both we'll always have
that tug of war battle over what matters more.

------
cpr
American schools are doing what they're designed to do--crank out standard
units of compliant citizens.

Cf "Underground History of American Education" by Gatto.

Or see some of PG's rants on the subject.

~~~
dragonwriter
> American schools are doing what they're designed to do--crank out standard
> units of compliant citizens.

No, even if that was the goal (I don't think it intentionally is, though
American schools were largely copied from a system where they was an
intentional goal), American schools are, by all evidence I can see, fairly bad
at that. It's not like compliance or social cohesion in the US are notably
high.

~~~
Brockenstein
It probably depends on what you think is compliant or how absolutely universal
things must be.

You're never going to get 100% of the population to be totally compliant.
However if the number of non-compliant citizens are a minority or can be
convinced to work entirely within the legal framework of the system they're
railing against that certainly smacks of compliance or at least superficial
non-compliance.

One should just look at voter participation, a majority of eligible voters
don't. One could argue they're so apathetic that they'll just go along with
whatever is foisted upon them by either political party, election after
election, decade after decade.

Somehow the status quo is largely maintained day in and day out, despite how
loud activists from any position are.

