Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Homeschooling Moms Homeschooling Moms

Read this and give me your opinions..... International Test Rankings.....

Posted by   + Show Post

Poor ranking on international test misleading about U.S. student performance, Stanford researcher finds

Kris_PBG
Posted by  on Jan. 20, 2013 at 9:35 PM
  • 41 Replies
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/january/test-scores-ranking-011513.html




Poor ranking on international test misleading about U.S. student performance, Stanford researcher finds

A comprehensive analysis of international tests by Stanford and the Economic Policy Institute shows that U.S. schools aren't being outpaced by international competition.

BY JONATHAN RABINOVITZ

Socioeconomic inequality among U.S. students skews international comparisons of test scores, finds a new report released today by the Stanford Graduate School of Education and the Economic Policy Institute. When differences in countries' social class compositions are adequately taken into account, the performance of U.S. students in relation to students in other countries improves markedly.

Shutterstock.com

An accurate comparison of nations' test scores must include a look at the social class characteristics of the students who take the test in each country, says Stanford education Professor Martin Carnoy.
The report, What do international tests really show about U.S. student performance?, also details how errors in selecting sample populations of test-takers and arbitrary choices regarding test content contribute to results that appear to show U.S. students lagging.

In conducting the research, report co-authors Martin Carnoy, a professor of education at Stanford, and Richard Rothstein, a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute, examined adolescent reading and mathematics results from four test series over the last decade, sorting scores by social class for the Program on International Student Assessment (PISA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and two forms of the domestic National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Based on their analysis, the co-authors found that average U.S. scores in reading and math on the PISA are low partly because a disproportionately greater share of U.S. students comes from disadvantaged social class groups, whose performance is relatively low in every country.

As part of the study, Carnoy and Rothstein calculated how international rankings on the most recent PISA might change if the United States had a social class composition similar to that of top-ranking nations: U.S. rankings would rise to fourth from 14th in reading and to 10th from 25th in math. The gap between U.S. students and those from the highest-achieving countries would be cut in half in reading and by at least a third in math.

"You can't compare nations' test scores without looking at the social class characteristics of students who take the test in different countries," said Carnoy. "Nations with more lower social class students will have lower overall scores, because these students don't perform as well academically, even in good schools. Policymakers should understand how our lower and higher social class students perform in comparison to similar students in other countries before recommending sweeping school reforms."

The report also found:

There is an achievement gap between more and less disadvantaged students in every country; surprisingly, that gap is smaller in the United States than in similar post-industrial countries, and not much larger than in the very highest scoring countries.
Achievement of U.S. disadvantaged students has been rising rapidly over time, while achievement of disadvantaged students in countries to which the United States is frequently unfavorably compared – Canada, Finland and Korea, for example – has been falling rapidly.
But the highest social class students in United States do worse than their peers in other nations, and this gap widened from 2000 to 2009 on the PISA.
U.S. PISA scores are depressed partly because of a sampling flaw resulting in a disproportionate number of students from high-poverty schools among the test-takers. About 40 percent of the PISA sample in the United States was drawn from schools where half or more of the students are eligible for the free lunch program, though only 23 percent of students nationwide attend such schools.
With each release of international test scores, many education leaders assert that American students are unprepared to compete in the new global economy, largely because of U.S. schools' shortcomings in educating disadvantaged students.

"Such conclusions are oversimplified, frequently exaggerated and misleading," said Rothstein, who is also senior fellow at the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute of Law and Social Policy at the University of California – Berkeley School of Law. "They ignore the complexity of test results and may lead policymakers to pursue inappropriate and even harmful reforms."

Carnoy and Rothstein examined test results in detail from the United States and six other nations: three of the highest scorers (Canada, Finland and South Korea) and three economically comparable nations (France, Germany and the United Kingdom). In cases where U.S. states voluntarily participated in the TIMSS for 8th grade mathematics, the researchers compared trends in these states' scores with trends in 8th grade mathematics on the NAEP.

The researchers show that score trends on these different tests can be very inconsistent, suggesting need for greater caution in interpreting any single test. For example, declining trends in U.S. average PISA math scores do not track with trends in TIMSS and NAEP, which show substantial math improvements for all U.S. social classes.

Carnoy and Rothstein say that the differences in average scores on these tests reflect arbitrary decisions about content by the designers of the tests. For example, although it has been widely reported that U.S. 15-year-olds perform worse on average than students in Finland in mathematics, U.S. students perform better than students in Finland in algebra but worse in number properties (e.g., fractions). If algebra had greater weight in tests, and numbers less weight, test scores could show that U.S. overall performance was superior to that of Finland. 

The report comes as the administrators of TIMSS are preparing to make public more detailed data underlying 2011 test results, following last month's release of average national scores. PISA plans to release detailed data on its 2012 test in December 2013. Carnoy said that he and Rothstein will then be able to supplement their present report by comparing the most recent TIMSS and PISA results by social class across countries. He invites other researchers to conduct similar analyses, to see if their findings confirm those of the present report.

A copy of the report is available to download at http://www.epi.org/publication/us-student-performance-testing/.

Jonathan Rabinovitz is director of communications at the Stanford Graduate School of Education.

Media Contact
Martin Carnoy, Graduate School of Education: (650) 906-7469, carnoy@stanford.edu

Jonathan Rabinovitz, Graduate School of Education: (650) 724-9440, (415) 601-1811, jrabin@stanford.edu


by on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:43 PM
Replies (11-16):
kirbymom
by Sonja on Mar. 20, 2013 at 2:40 PM

I did walk away though knowing that you can use words to fit a meaning anyway you want to "put" it.  Words are definitely a tricky business. :) 

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 No.  I'm  re-reading it.... I see where one could get that.  Having a backgroud in education I get the reasoning behind what they are saying.  Here:


 

Quote:

Based on their analysis, the co-authors found that average U.S. scores in reading and math on the PISA are low partly because a disproportionately greater share of U.S. students comes from disadvantaged social class groups, whose performance is relatively low in every country


In say Finland, they (the government) make sure that everyone has adequate food and shelter, unlike America.  So I know as someone inside the system that when they say stuff like this, they mean that we have many kids who are not properly fed.  They are at a disadvantage not because they are not intelligent, but because they are hungry or have inadequate housing or because the teens need to hold jobs in order to help the family finances.  They have also taken away much of the nutrition education necessary for the parents to make good choices with the small amount of funds they do have in order to give their kids the best possible chances in the school setting to begin with.


Quote:

calculated how international rankings on the most recent PISA might change if the United States had a social class composition similar to that of top-ranking nations: U.S. rankings would rise to fourth from 14th in reading and to 10th from 25th in math. The gap between U.S. students and those from the highest-achieving countries would be cut in half in reading and by at least a third in math.


If we narrowed the gap in our socio-economic composition (by paying living wages instead of minimum wages) then less kids would be relyin on SNAP and CHIP for their nutrition and healthcare.  They would be more able to concentrate in school, their schools would have the monetary funds necessary to pay their teachers adequately, have enough teachers altogether, and would be economically able to go without the vending machine contracts that give their kids sugar highs and then leave them flat halfway through the test.

But mostly I found this part to be the most important:

Quote:

 the differences in average scores on these tests reflect arbitrary decisions about content by the designers of the tests. For example, although it has been widely reported that U.S. 15-year-olds perform worse on average than students in Finland in mathematics, U.S. students perform better than students in Finland in algebra but worse in number properties (e.g., fractions). If algebra had greater weight in tests, and numbers less weight, test scores could show that U.S. overall performance was superior to that of Finland.

We have pushed the algebra lessons too low and had to remove some quality instruction that the rest of the world still embraces.  That part has nothingto do with the socio-economic status of our kids.


Sorry that was so long, but I wanted to explain it to the best of my ability.

Quoting kirbymom:

So you didn't "get" that from this article, then?  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 NO No No!  The poor school districts often do not have the funds to have resources available in order to improve their test scores, poorer students often did not have (any) proper breakfast in the mornings, etc, but NO the lower socio-economic schools are not having issues because poor kids are less intelligent. There are a LOT of factors that contribute to students in "poor class" schools having lower scores, but intelligence is not one of them. 

Quoting kirbymom:

I mean that there was an accusation of a sorts that the "poor class" wasn't smart enough to help pull up the numbers and therefore are to blame for the low er numbers.  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 Which do you mean? Blame as in "poor kids can't learn" or blame as in "the schools in poor neighborhoods are crappy" or blame as in "poor parents don't do enough for their kids"?

Quoting kirbymom:

Again, let me ask this one as well, did you find that there was any blame on the "poverty class" for the poor testing results?  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 YES!!

It's a bit beyond socio-economic scales.  I worked in 3 school districts in VA.  We found that if we fed the kids a good healthy breakfast (veggie omelets, whole grains, and whole fruit) on test days, the scores were MUCH higher.  Lunch did NOT change the scores AT ALL (we think it's because the kids are too tired by afternoon).  The richer school was able to spread out the testing enough to have it only in the mornings and to have breakfast for the kids each morning of the tests.  The poorer school had a smaller window because they had a bigger student/teacher ratio, so they couldn't accomadate the ESL and IEP students as easily.  So much of the testing issues were just out of the students' and even the schools' hands.

Same with my college, they found that students in the poorer local schools could come to the college a bit early and have lunch in the caf.  They were then more on par with the richer local schools.

Somethings that the DoE often doesn't even think about when they are spouting off on talk shows.  Those teachers cannot do enough about the empty bellies of the kids they are trying to teach.

Quoting kirbymom:

Let meas you, did you find that there were references to the poverty class was an indicator in these test scores?   

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 I do believe that American kids are being judged harshly in comparison to other countries.  Others are very selective about who gets tested, and of the ones tested, who exactly gets reported.

However, I think that we as Americans have gotten laxidasical about what our kids are learning.  When my mom went to school, her algebra class didnt begin until 10th grade so that they could have "consumer math" in 8th grade... they learned to balance a checkbook, calculate sales tax, file their taxes, make change, calculate percentages on "sale" items, etc.  Most schools have moved algebra down to 8th grade, and now a much higher percentage of kids have to retake algebra in college.  Some of that is just more kids going to college, but my alma stated that even calculating for that increase, more kids are insufficient in math.

And working vocabulary (lexicon) is pitifully lower than days' past.

We should stop competing with other countries IMO and compete with our own past a bit.


 


 


 


 


bluerooffarm
by Gold Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 2:49 PM
1 mom liked this

 I'm glad I could explain it.  :-)  Definately no offense taken at all.  If I thought someone was saying poor people are unintelligent I'd be very angry about it!  I'm from a poor rural community myself.  We "poor stock" have every reason to get the most we can out of our education, I would put us up against the richest kids and out of pure drive we would outdo them.

No offense to any "rich kids" out there.  :-)

Quoting kirbymom:

That was an AWESOME explanation! THANK YOU! VERY Much!!!  Now I understand it a bit better. It helps if you have had experience in the jargon of these types of articles. Now I understand why "teachers" have a different view point. No offense intended to you though.  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 No.  I'm  re-reading it.... I see where one could get that.  Having a backgroud in education I get the reasoning behind what they are saying.  Here:


 

Quote:

Based on their analysis, the co-authors found that average U.S. scores in reading and math on the PISA are low partly because a disproportionately greater share of U.S. students comes from disadvantaged social class groups, whose performance is relatively low in every country


In say Finland, they (the government) make sure that everyone has adequate food and shelter, unlike America.  So I know as someone inside the system that when they say stuff like this, they mean that we have many kids who are not properly fed.  They are at a disadvantage not because they are not intelligent, but because they are hungry or have inadequate housing or because the teens need to hold jobs in order to help the family finances.  They have also taken away much of the nutrition education necessary for the parents to make good choices with the small amount of funds they do have in order to give their kids the best possible chances in the school setting to begin with.

 

Quote:

calculated how international rankings on the most recent PISA might change if the United States had a social class composition similar to that of top-ranking nations: U.S. rankings would rise to fourth from 14th in reading and to 10th from 25th in math. The gap between U.S. students and those from the highest-achieving countries would be cut in half in reading and by at least a third in math.


If we narrowed the gap in our socio-economic composition (by paying living wages instead of minimum wages) then less kids would be relyin on SNAP and CHIP for their nutrition and healthcare.  They would be more able to concentrate in school, their schools would have the monetary funds necessary to pay their teachers adequately, have enough teachers altogether, and would be economically able to go without the vending machine contracts that give their kids sugar highs and then leave them flat halfway through the test.

But mostly I found this part to be the most important:

Quote:

 the differences in average scores on these tests reflect arbitrary decisions about content by the designers of the tests. For example, although it has been widely reported that U.S. 15-year-olds perform worse on average than students in Finland in mathematics, U.S. students perform better than students in Finland in algebra but worse in number properties (e.g., fractions). If algebra had greater weight in tests, and numbers less weight, test scores could show that U.S. overall performance was superior to that of Finland.

We have pushed the algebra lessons too low and had to remove some quality instruction that the rest of the world still embraces.  That part has nothingto do with the socio-economic status of our kids.

 

Sorry that was so long, but I wanted to explain it to the best of my ability.

Quoting kirbymom:

So you didn't "get" that from this article, then?  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 NO No No!  The poor school districts often do not have the funds to have resources available in order to improve their test scores, poorer students often did not have (any) proper breakfast in the mornings, etc, but NO the lower socio-economic schools are not having issues because poor kids are less intelligent. There are a LOT of factors that contribute to students in "poor class" schools having lower scores, but intelligence is not one of them. 

Quoting kirbymom:

I mean that there was an accusation of a sorts that the "poor class" wasn't smart enough to help pull up the numbers and therefore are to blame for the low er numbers.  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 Which do you mean? Blame as in "poor kids can't learn" or blame as in "the schools in poor neighborhoods are crappy" or blame as in "poor parents don't do enough for their kids"?

Quoting kirbymom:

Again, let me ask this one as well, did you find that there was any blame on the "poverty class" for the poor testing results?  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 YES!!

It's a bit beyond socio-economic scales.  I worked in 3 school districts in VA.  We found that if we fed the kids a good healthy breakfast (veggie omelets, whole grains, and whole fruit) on test days, the scores were MUCH higher.  Lunch did NOT change the scores AT ALL (we think it's because the kids are too tired by afternoon).  The richer school was able to spread out the testing enough to have it only in the mornings and to have breakfast for the kids each morning of the tests.  The poorer school had a smaller window because they had a bigger student/teacher ratio, so they couldn't accomadate the ESL and IEP students as easily.  So much of the testing issues were just out of the students' and even the schools' hands.

Same with my college, they found that students in the poorer local schools could come to the college a bit early and have lunch in the caf.  They were then more on par with the richer local schools.

Somethings that the DoE often doesn't even think about when they are spouting off on talk shows.  Those teachers cannot do enough about the empty bellies of the kids they are trying to teach.

Quoting kirbymom:

Let meas you, did you find that there were references to the poverty class was an indicator in these test scores?   

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 I do believe that American kids are being judged harshly in comparison to other countries.  Others are very selective about who gets tested, and of the ones tested, who exactly gets reported.

However, I think that we as Americans have gotten laxidasical about what our kids are learning.  When my mom went to school, her algebra class didnt begin until 10th grade so that they could have "consumer math" in 8th grade... they learned to balance a checkbook, calculate sales tax, file their taxes, make change, calculate percentages on "sale" items, etc.  Most schools have moved algebra down to 8th grade, and now a much higher percentage of kids have to retake algebra in college.  Some of that is just more kids going to college, but my alma stated that even calculating for that increase, more kids are insufficient in math.

And working vocabulary (lexicon) is pitifully lower than days' past.

We should stop competing with other countries IMO and compete with our own past a bit.


 


 


 


 


 

bluerooffarm
by Gold Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 2:50 PM
1 mom liked this

 Same with statistics.  You can really skew things if ya want to!

Quoting kirbymom:

I did walk away though knowing that you can use words to fit a meaning anyway you want to "put" it.  Words are definitely a tricky business. :) 

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 No.  I'm  re-reading it.... I see where one could get that.  Having a backgroud in education I get the reasoning behind what they are saying.  Here:


 

Quote:

Based on their analysis, the co-authors found that average U.S. scores in reading and math on the PISA are low partly because a disproportionately greater share of U.S. students comes from disadvantaged social class groups, whose performance is relatively low in every country


In say Finland, they (the government) make sure that everyone has adequate food and shelter, unlike America.  So I know as someone inside the system that when they say stuff like this, they mean that we have many kids who are not properly fed.  They are at a disadvantage not because they are not intelligent, but because they are hungry or have inadequate housing or because the teens need to hold jobs in order to help the family finances.  They have also taken away much of the nutrition education necessary for the parents to make good choices with the small amount of funds they do have in order to give their kids the best possible chances in the school setting to begin with.

 

Quote:

calculated how international rankings on the most recent PISA might change if the United States had a social class composition similar to that of top-ranking nations: U.S. rankings would rise to fourth from 14th in reading and to 10th from 25th in math. The gap between U.S. students and those from the highest-achieving countries would be cut in half in reading and by at least a third in math.


If we narrowed the gap in our socio-economic composition (by paying living wages instead of minimum wages) then less kids would be relyin on SNAP and CHIP for their nutrition and healthcare.  They would be more able to concentrate in school, their schools would have the monetary funds necessary to pay their teachers adequately, have enough teachers altogether, and would be economically able to go without the vending machine contracts that give their kids sugar highs and then leave them flat halfway through the test.

But mostly I found this part to be the most important:

Quote:

 the differences in average scores on these tests reflect arbitrary decisions about content by the designers of the tests. For example, although it has been widely reported that U.S. 15-year-olds perform worse on average than students in Finland in mathematics, U.S. students perform better than students in Finland in algebra but worse in number properties (e.g., fractions). If algebra had greater weight in tests, and numbers less weight, test scores could show that U.S. overall performance was superior to that of Finland.

We have pushed the algebra lessons too low and had to remove some quality instruction that the rest of the world still embraces.  That part has nothingto do with the socio-economic status of our kids.

 

Sorry that was so long, but I wanted to explain it to the best of my ability.

Quoting kirbymom:

So you didn't "get" that from this article, then?  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 NO No No!  The poor school districts often do not have the funds to have resources available in order to improve their test scores, poorer students often did not have (any) proper breakfast in the mornings, etc, but NO the lower socio-economic schools are not having issues because poor kids are less intelligent. There are a LOT of factors that contribute to students in "poor class" schools having lower scores, but intelligence is not one of them. 

Quoting kirbymom:

I mean that there was an accusation of a sorts that the "poor class" wasn't smart enough to help pull up the numbers and therefore are to blame for the low er numbers.  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 Which do you mean? Blame as in "poor kids can't learn" or blame as in "the schools in poor neighborhoods are crappy" or blame as in "poor parents don't do enough for their kids"?

Quoting kirbymom:

Again, let me ask this one as well, did you find that there was any blame on the "poverty class" for the poor testing results?  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 YES!!

It's a bit beyond socio-economic scales.  I worked in 3 school districts in VA.  We found that if we fed the kids a good healthy breakfast (veggie omelets, whole grains, and whole fruit) on test days, the scores were MUCH higher.  Lunch did NOT change the scores AT ALL (we think it's because the kids are too tired by afternoon).  The richer school was able to spread out the testing enough to have it only in the mornings and to have breakfast for the kids each morning of the tests.  The poorer school had a smaller window because they had a bigger student/teacher ratio, so they couldn't accomadate the ESL and IEP students as easily.  So much of the testing issues were just out of the students' and even the schools' hands.

Same with my college, they found that students in the poorer local schools could come to the college a bit early and have lunch in the caf.  They were then more on par with the richer local schools.

Somethings that the DoE often doesn't even think about when they are spouting off on talk shows.  Those teachers cannot do enough about the empty bellies of the kids they are trying to teach.

Quoting kirbymom:

Let meas you, did you find that there were references to the poverty class was an indicator in these test scores?   

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 I do believe that American kids are being judged harshly in comparison to other countries.  Others are very selective about who gets tested, and of the ones tested, who exactly gets reported.

However, I think that we as Americans have gotten laxidasical about what our kids are learning.  When my mom went to school, her algebra class didnt begin until 10th grade so that they could have "consumer math" in 8th grade... they learned to balance a checkbook, calculate sales tax, file their taxes, make change, calculate percentages on "sale" items, etc.  Most schools have moved algebra down to 8th grade, and now a much higher percentage of kids have to retake algebra in college.  Some of that is just more kids going to college, but my alma stated that even calculating for that increase, more kids are insufficient in math.

And working vocabulary (lexicon) is pitifully lower than days' past.

We should stop competing with other countries IMO and compete with our own past a bit.


 


 


 


 


 

kirbymom
by Sonja on Mar. 20, 2013 at 3:05 PM

I actually took the article this way. lol   I read funny as it is and when I caught a wiff of this, it set me off. :)  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 I'm glad I could explain it.  :-)  Definately no offense taken at all.  If I thought someone was saying poor people are unintelligent I'd be very angry about it!  I'm from a poor rural community myself.  We "poor stock" have every reason to get the most we can out of our education, I would put us up against the richest kids and out of pure drive we would outdo them.

No offense to any "rich kids" out there.  :-)  

Quoting kirbymom:

That was an AWESOME explanation! THANK YOU! VERY Much!!!  Now I understand it a bit better. It helps if you have had experience in the jargon of these types of articles. Now I understand why "teachers" have a different view point. No offense intended to you though.  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 No.  I'm  re-reading it.... I see where one could get that.  Having a backgroud in education I get the reasoning behind what they are saying.  Here:


 

Quote:

Based on their analysis, the co-authors found that average U.S. scores in reading and math on the PISA are low partly because a disproportionately greater share of U.S. students comes from disadvantaged social class groups, whose performance is relatively low in every country


In say Finland, they (the government) make sure that everyone has adequate food and shelter, unlike America.  So I know as someone inside the system that when they say stuff like this, they mean that we have many kids who are not properly fed.  They are at a disadvantage not because they are not intelligent, but because they are hungry or have inadequate housing or because the teens need to hold jobs in order to help the family finances.  They have also taken away much of the nutrition education necessary for the parents to make good choices with the small amount of funds they do have in order to give their kids the best possible chances in the school setting to begin with.


Quote:

calculated how international rankings on the most recent PISA might change if the United States had a social class composition similar to that of top-ranking nations: U.S. rankings would rise to fourth from 14th in reading and to 10th from 25th in math. The gap between U.S. students and those from the highest-achieving countries would be cut in half in reading and by at least a third in math.


If we narrowed the gap in our socio-economic composition (by paying living wages instead of minimum wages) then less kids would be relyin on SNAP and CHIP for their nutrition and healthcare.  They would be more able to concentrate in school, their schools would have the monetary funds necessary to pay their teachers adequately, have enough teachers altogether, and would be economically able to go without the vending machine contracts that give their kids sugar highs and then leave them flat halfway through the test.

But mostly I found this part to be the most important:

Quote:

 the differences in average scores on these tests reflect arbitrary decisions about content by the designers of the tests. For example, although it has been widely reported that U.S. 15-year-olds perform worse on average than students in Finland in mathematics, U.S. students perform better than students in Finland in algebra but worse in number properties (e.g., fractions). If algebra had greater weight in tests, and numbers less weight, test scores could show that U.S. overall performance was superior to that of Finland.

We have pushed the algebra lessons too low and had to remove some quality instruction that the rest of the world still embraces.  That part has nothingto do with the socio-economic status of our kids.


Sorry that was so long, but I wanted to explain it to the best of my ability.

Quoting kirbymom:

So you didn't "get" that from this article, then?  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 NO No No!  The poor school districts often do not have the funds to have resources available in order to improve their test scores, poorer students often did not have (any) proper breakfast in the mornings, etc, but NO the lower socio-economic schools are not having issues because poor kids are less intelligent. There are a LOT of factors that contribute to students in "poor class" schools having lower scores, but intelligence is not one of them. 

Quoting kirbymom:

I mean that there was an accusation of a sorts that the "poor class" wasn't smart enough to help pull up the numbers and therefore are to blame for the low er numbers.  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 Which do you mean? Blame as in "poor kids can't learn" or blame as in "the schools in poor neighborhoods are crappy" or blame as in "poor parents don't do enough for their kids"?

Quoting kirbymom:

Again, let me ask this one as well, did you find that there was any blame on the "poverty class" for the poor testing results?  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 YES!!

It's a bit beyond socio-economic scales.  I worked in 3 school districts in VA.  We found that if we fed the kids a good healthy breakfast (veggie omelets, whole grains, and whole fruit) on test days, the scores were MUCH higher.  Lunch did NOT change the scores AT ALL (we think it's because the kids are too tired by afternoon).  The richer school was able to spread out the testing enough to have it only in the mornings and to have breakfast for the kids each morning of the tests.  The poorer school had a smaller window because they had a bigger student/teacher ratio, so they couldn't accomadate the ESL and IEP students as easily.  So much of the testing issues were just out of the students' and even the schools' hands.

Same with my college, they found that students in the poorer local schools could come to the college a bit early and have lunch in the caf.  They were then more on par with the richer local schools.

Somethings that the DoE often doesn't even think about when they are spouting off on talk shows.  Those teachers cannot do enough about the empty bellies of the kids they are trying to teach.

Quoting kirbymom:

Let meas you, did you find that there were references to the poverty class was an indicator in these test scores?   

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 I do believe that American kids are being judged harshly in comparison to other countries.  Others are very selective about who gets tested, and of the ones tested, who exactly gets reported.

However, I think that we as Americans have gotten laxidasical about what our kids are learning.  When my mom went to school, her algebra class didnt begin until 10th grade so that they could have "consumer math" in 8th grade... they learned to balance a checkbook, calculate sales tax, file their taxes, make change, calculate percentages on "sale" items, etc.  Most schools have moved algebra down to 8th grade, and now a much higher percentage of kids have to retake algebra in college.  Some of that is just more kids going to college, but my alma stated that even calculating for that increase, more kids are insufficient in math.

And working vocabulary (lexicon) is pitifully lower than days' past.

We should stop competing with other countries IMO and compete with our own past a bit.


 


 


 


 


 


bluerooffarm
by Gold Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 3:13 PM

 I wonder if the people who wrote it realized that it could be construed that way?  They would probably be very embarassed!

Quoting kirbymom:

I actually took the article this way. lol   I read funny as it is and when I caught a wiff of this, it set me off. :)  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 I'm glad I could explain it.  :-)  Definately no offense taken at all.  If I thought someone was saying poor people are unintelligent I'd be very angry about it!  I'm from a poor rural community myself.  We "poor stock" have every reason to get the most we can out of our education, I would put us up against the richest kids and out of pure drive we would outdo them.

No offense to any "rich kids" out there.  :-)  

Quoting kirbymom:

That was an AWESOME explanation! THANK YOU! VERY Much!!!  Now I understand it a bit better. It helps if you have had experience in the jargon of these types of articles. Now I understand why "teachers" have a different view point. No offense intended to you though.  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 No.  I'm  re-reading it.... I see where one could get that.  Having a backgroud in education I get the reasoning behind what they are saying.  Here:


 

Quote:

Based on their analysis, the co-authors found that average U.S. scores in reading and math on the PISA are low partly because a disproportionately greater share of U.S. students comes from disadvantaged social class groups, whose performance is relatively low in every country


In say Finland, they (the government) make sure that everyone has adequate food and shelter, unlike America.  So I know as someone inside the system that when they say stuff like this, they mean that we have many kids who are not properly fed.  They are at a disadvantage not because they are not intelligent, but because they are hungry or have inadequate housing or because the teens need to hold jobs in order to help the family finances.  They have also taken away much of the nutrition education necessary for the parents to make good choices with the small amount of funds they do have in order to give their kids the best possible chances in the school setting to begin with.

 

Quote:

calculated how international rankings on the most recent PISA might change if the United States had a social class composition similar to that of top-ranking nations: U.S. rankings would rise to fourth from 14th in reading and to 10th from 25th in math. The gap between U.S. students and those from the highest-achieving countries would be cut in half in reading and by at least a third in math.


If we narrowed the gap in our socio-economic composition (by paying living wages instead of minimum wages) then less kids would be relyin on SNAP and CHIP for their nutrition and healthcare.  They would be more able to concentrate in school, their schools would have the monetary funds necessary to pay their teachers adequately, have enough teachers altogether, and would be economically able to go without the vending machine contracts that give their kids sugar highs and then leave them flat halfway through the test.

But mostly I found this part to be the most important:

Quote:

 the differences in average scores on these tests reflect arbitrary decisions about content by the designers of the tests. For example, although it has been widely reported that U.S. 15-year-olds perform worse on average than students in Finland in mathematics, U.S. students perform better than students in Finland in algebra but worse in number properties (e.g., fractions). If algebra had greater weight in tests, and numbers less weight, test scores could show that U.S. overall performance was superior to that of Finland.

We have pushed the algebra lessons too low and had to remove some quality instruction that the rest of the world still embraces.  That part has nothingto do with the socio-economic status of our kids.

 

Sorry that was so long, but I wanted to explain it to the best of my ability.

Quoting kirbymom:

So you didn't "get" that from this article, then?  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 NO No No!  The poor school districts often do not have the funds to have resources available in order to improve their test scores, poorer students often did not have (any) proper breakfast in the mornings, etc, but NO the lower socio-economic schools are not having issues because poor kids are less intelligent. There are a LOT of factors that contribute to students in "poor class" schools having lower scores, but intelligence is not one of them. 

Quoting kirbymom:

I mean that there was an accusation of a sorts that the "poor class" wasn't smart enough to help pull up the numbers and therefore are to blame for the low er numbers.  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 Which do you mean? Blame as in "poor kids can't learn" or blame as in "the schools in poor neighborhoods are crappy" or blame as in "poor parents don't do enough for their kids"?

Quoting kirbymom:

Again, let me ask this one as well, did you find that there was any blame on the "poverty class" for the poor testing results?  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 YES!!

It's a bit beyond socio-economic scales.  I worked in 3 school districts in VA.  We found that if we fed the kids a good healthy breakfast (veggie omelets, whole grains, and whole fruit) on test days, the scores were MUCH higher.  Lunch did NOT change the scores AT ALL (we think it's because the kids are too tired by afternoon).  The richer school was able to spread out the testing enough to have it only in the mornings and to have breakfast for the kids each morning of the tests.  The poorer school had a smaller window because they had a bigger student/teacher ratio, so they couldn't accomadate the ESL and IEP students as easily.  So much of the testing issues were just out of the students' and even the schools' hands.

Same with my college, they found that students in the poorer local schools could come to the college a bit early and have lunch in the caf.  They were then more on par with the richer local schools.

Somethings that the DoE often doesn't even think about when they are spouting off on talk shows.  Those teachers cannot do enough about the empty bellies of the kids they are trying to teach.

Quoting kirbymom:

Let meas you, did you find that there were references to the poverty class was an indicator in these test scores?   

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 I do believe that American kids are being judged harshly in comparison to other countries.  Others are very selective about who gets tested, and of the ones tested, who exactly gets reported.

However, I think that we as Americans have gotten laxidasical about what our kids are learning.  When my mom went to school, her algebra class didnt begin until 10th grade so that they could have "consumer math" in 8th grade... they learned to balance a checkbook, calculate sales tax, file their taxes, make change, calculate percentages on "sale" items, etc.  Most schools have moved algebra down to 8th grade, and now a much higher percentage of kids have to retake algebra in college.  Some of that is just more kids going to college, but my alma stated that even calculating for that increase, more kids are insufficient in math.

And working vocabulary (lexicon) is pitifully lower than days' past.

We should stop competing with other countries IMO and compete with our own past a bit.


 


 


 


 


 


 

kirbymom
by Sonja on Mar. 20, 2013 at 3:27 PM
1 mom liked this

I don't know, but in my opinion, this is probably why there are so many debates over some rather hot topic articles. lol   Perception is 90% of people's reasons and their beliefs of why and or how on almost every single decision they make.  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 I wonder if the people who wrote it realized that it could be construed that way?  They would probably be very embarassed!

Quoting kirbymom:

I actually took the article this way. lol   I read funny as it is and when I caught a wiff of this, it set me off. :)  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 I'm glad I could explain it.  :-)  Definately no offense taken at all.  If I thought someone was saying poor people are unintelligent I'd be very angry about it!  I'm from a poor rural community myself.  We "poor stock" have every reason to get the most we can out of our education, I would put us up against the richest kids and out of pure drive we would outdo them.

No offense to any "rich kids" out there.  :-)  

Quoting kirbymom:

That was an AWESOME explanation! THANK YOU! VERY Much!!!  Now I understand it a bit better. It helps if you have had experience in the jargon of these types of articles. Now I understand why "teachers" have a different view point. No offense intended to you though.  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 No.  I'm  re-reading it.... I see where one could get that.  Having a backgroud in education I get the reasoning behind what they are saying.  Here:


 

Quote:

Based on their analysis, the co-authors found that average U.S. scores in reading and math on the PISA are low partly because a disproportionately greater share of U.S. students comes from disadvantaged social class groups, whose performance is relatively low in every country


In say Finland, they (the government) make sure that everyone has adequate food and shelter, unlike America.  So I know as someone inside the system that when they say stuff like this, they mean that we have many kids who are not properly fed.  They are at a disadvantage not because they are not intelligent, but because they are hungry or have inadequate housing or because the teens need to hold jobs in order to help the family finances.  They have also taken away much of the nutrition education necessary for the parents to make good choices with the small amount of funds they do have in order to give their kids the best possible chances in the school setting to begin with.


Quote:

calculated how international rankings on the most recent PISA might change if the United States had a social class composition similar to that of top-ranking nations: U.S. rankings would rise to fourth from 14th in reading and to 10th from 25th in math. The gap between U.S. students and those from the highest-achieving countries would be cut in half in reading and by at least a third in math.


If we narrowed the gap in our socio-economic composition (by paying living wages instead of minimum wages) then less kids would be relyin on SNAP and CHIP for their nutrition and healthcare.  They would be more able to concentrate in school, their schools would have the monetary funds necessary to pay their teachers adequately, have enough teachers altogether, and would be economically able to go without the vending machine contracts that give their kids sugar highs and then leave them flat halfway through the test.

But mostly I found this part to be the most important:

Quote:

 the differences in average scores on these tests reflect arbitrary decisions about content by the designers of the tests. For example, although it has been widely reported that U.S. 15-year-olds perform worse on average than students in Finland in mathematics, U.S. students perform better than students in Finland in algebra but worse in number properties (e.g., fractions). If algebra had greater weight in tests, and numbers less weight, test scores could show that U.S. overall performance was superior to that of Finland.

We have pushed the algebra lessons too low and had to remove some quality instruction that the rest of the world still embraces.  That part has nothingto do with the socio-economic status of our kids.


Sorry that was so long, but I wanted to explain it to the best of my ability.

Quoting kirbymom:

So you didn't "get" that from this article, then?  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 NO No No!  The poor school districts often do not have the funds to have resources available in order to improve their test scores, poorer students often did not have (any) proper breakfast in the mornings, etc, but NO the lower socio-economic schools are not having issues because poor kids are less intelligent. There are a LOT of factors that contribute to students in "poor class" schools having lower scores, but intelligence is not one of them. 

Quoting kirbymom:

I mean that there was an accusation of a sorts that the "poor class" wasn't smart enough to help pull up the numbers and therefore are to blame for the low er numbers.  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 Which do you mean? Blame as in "poor kids can't learn" or blame as in "the schools in poor neighborhoods are crappy" or blame as in "poor parents don't do enough for their kids"?

Quoting kirbymom:

Again, let me ask this one as well, did you find that there was any blame on the "poverty class" for the poor testing results?  

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 YES!!

It's a bit beyond socio-economic scales.  I worked in 3 school districts in VA.  We found that if we fed the kids a good healthy breakfast (veggie omelets, whole grains, and whole fruit) on test days, the scores were MUCH higher.  Lunch did NOT change the scores AT ALL (we think it's because the kids are too tired by afternoon).  The richer school was able to spread out the testing enough to have it only in the mornings and to have breakfast for the kids each morning of the tests.  The poorer school had a smaller window because they had a bigger student/teacher ratio, so they couldn't accomadate the ESL and IEP students as easily.  So much of the testing issues were just out of the students' and even the schools' hands.

Same with my college, they found that students in the poorer local schools could come to the college a bit early and have lunch in the caf.  They were then more on par with the richer local schools.

Somethings that the DoE often doesn't even think about when they are spouting off on talk shows.  Those teachers cannot do enough about the empty bellies of the kids they are trying to teach.

Quoting kirbymom:

Let meas you, did you find that there were references to the poverty class was an indicator in these test scores?   

Quoting bluerooffarm:

 I do believe that American kids are being judged harshly in comparison to other countries.  Others are very selective about who gets tested, and of the ones tested, who exactly gets reported.

However, I think that we as Americans have gotten laxidasical about what our kids are learning.  When my mom went to school, her algebra class didnt begin until 10th grade so that they could have "consumer math" in 8th grade... they learned to balance a checkbook, calculate sales tax, file their taxes, make change, calculate percentages on "sale" items, etc.  Most schools have moved algebra down to 8th grade, and now a much higher percentage of kids have to retake algebra in college.  Some of that is just more kids going to college, but my alma stated that even calculating for that increase, more kids are insufficient in math.

And working vocabulary (lexicon) is pitifully lower than days' past.

We should stop competing with other countries IMO and compete with our own past a bit.


 


 


 


 


 


 


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)