U.S. can't crack top 10 in student skills

Parents Forum
321

<p>“dispassionately reflecting on the additional data provided in the VDARE link, irrespective of personal biases on the part of the link’s author”</p>

<p>If you are an educator you should be ashamed of that sentence.</p>

<p>You cannot dispassionately reflect on the ontological bias which the author brings to his own data. The presentation of the data IS the bias. You are accepting Sailor’s composition and presentation of this ‘data’ without any regard for his agenda or his motivation.</p>

<p>Naive or intellectually lazy?
It can’t be much else because you are obviously not stupid.</p>

322

<p>You forgot the obvious choice, LaContra: racist.
Although most racists are stupid, not all are.</p>

<p>I am always amused by white racists who “prove” that white america is being dragged down by the groups they disparage by showing that a favored metric is so much better without those groups included in the analysis, but they conveniently include high performing groups that do not self-classify as “white american.” In the US the two obvious ones are Jews and Asians, and the less obvious one are highly motivated immigrants from all over the world.</p>

<p>One might say that the fallacious reasoning is proof itself of the decline of education in america, since these are the ‘smart’ whites.</p>

<p>As for the topic, I recommend that parents review the standardized tests themselves that the students are taking, in particular the tests used for NCLB. To be brief, the level required for competent is pathetic. It is a joke. And ‘white’ kids as a group fail that standard around half the time overall if my memory is correct. Why **** and moan about PISA methods, when the obvious is a couple blocks away for any interested parent ?</p>

323

<p>

</p>

<p>If you are a critical thinker, you can:</p>

<p>(1) stop with the ad hominems, because this is NOT a political discussion. The Parent Cafe Election & Politics forum is closed. I’m not interested in your rants, or in your opinion of a blogger, whether he be PC or racist.</p>

<p>(2) The data itself, on the blog in question, is informative. Only people who cannot divorce data from opinion believe that data is corrupted by opinion which surrounds it. It is data. If you’re affected by who presents a piece or a group of data, deciding to reject the data out of hand because of your hatred (even if deserved) of the messenger, then you’re going to have a significant problem in life. If you’re saying that you simply do not trust the numbers whatsoever – the numbers outside of the commentary, then that’s a different matter.</p>

<p>

</p>

<h1>1- inappropriate context for the word ‘ontological.’</h1>

<h1>2- Do not tell me what I can and cannot do. Unlike you, I am able to separate numbers from the person reporting numbers.</h1>

<h1>3- Unlike you, I don’t care about his opinion of the data. I care about the data. You, however, consider his opinion of the data as a compromise to the data itself. Again, if you’re challenging data, that’s a different thing.</h1>

324

<p>

</p>

<p>No one on this thread is claiming that. If you’re claiming that this Sailor guy is stating that, it is you, and anyone fascinated by him, who is captivated by his opinion. Stop caring about him. His opinion of the statistics do not alter the statistics. </p>

<p>It is up to a critical analyst to dissect the data and to understand what it does and doesn’t say. Reacting to data, rather than further exploring it, is an emotional way to look at information.</p>

325

<p>The statistics you wish to discuss are hogwash, because the racist fool who concocted them grouped data illogically to serve his intended propaganda agenda.</p>

326

<p>Eric, believe me I understand your objection to the grouping. The difference is, I have a lifetime of looking at groupings and being able to separate nevertheless. I do appreciate where you’re coming from, truly. But the interesting thing is, that’s exactly my point about bias vs. non-bias. You see, I had never heard of this guy until LaContra’s rants about him. The proof that he did not and does not bias me to accept whatever supposed point of view he had, is that, while LaContra objected viscerally to his remarks (and later his groupings), I used my own brain to draw very different conclusions about the groupings, and in some cases to form no conclusions at all. </p>

<p>Because something is juxtaposed with or against something else (whether or not a comment is made about that by the juxtaposer) does not necessarily urge me to keep the two pieces of data paired. Rather, it would tend to want me to investigate further (which the graphs did), rather than come to any invidious conclusion about the groupings. </p>

<p>Wonderful things, our brains are. ;)</p>

327

<p>Just a correction, Eric. It isn’t I who “wish to discuss [these]statistics.” I wish to discuss the thread subject. Another poster additionally offered the link to all debaters. LaContra then went ballistic about it, and used other poster’s lack of particular passion about the author of the link to spew venom at those posters for her own personal reasons. Again, I’m able to separate data and recollate it without feeling threatened by the data or someone else’s agendaized interpretation of it.</p>

328

<p>

</p>

<p>Fair enough. That makes sense to me.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I can see that as an academic, you have every reason to be concerned. Is this a concern of the politicians though? Unless I completely miss the boat, the politicians will not look for a “technical” (ie, improve the quality of the students) but a political (how to keep foreign students at bay) solution to the problem. They will, with the elites, be pressured into redefining merit to suit those who are the most privileged. If it means lower standard and a lower quality of education, so be it. This is the result I am betting on.</p>

<p>Furthermore, how many North American parents would want their darlings to go head-to-head with those Shanghai kids? I know I would not. It is important to remember that China has the world’s first meritocracy, and Shanghai sits in “jiangnan”, an area that historically produce most of the successful candidates on the brutal imperial civil service exams. No, a political solution is what we will get. I can almost guarantee it.</p>

<p>I think you are more idealistic than I am. This is not a criticism but a statement of fact.</p>

<p>As far as the data goes, they are accurate all right; just too accurate and too painful for most to admit.</p>

329

<p>

</p>

<p>I emphatically agree that this approach is crucial, and it is one of education’s greatest failings. I feel that schools have not addressed the different between personal feelings and empirical data. I have always advocated a scientific approach to problem solving. Start with all the empirical data available and come up with a reasonable hypothesis. Test the hypothesis with new data. If the new data does not fit, examine the data for possible errors, and if necessary, adjust the hypothesis.</p>

<p>While this iterative process does not guarantee success, one is a hundred times more likely to be successful than responding emotionally or defensively. Why not more people adopting such is absolutely beyond me.</p>

330

<p>Canuckguy, I agree 100% with this fine post #333.</p>

<p>I also agree very much with the politicization of education, a point I made (I believe) much earlier as well. The irony, to me, is that the public educational establishment is far less interested in hard results, than in personal feelings. It’s not just that the responses (and overly defensive reactions to them) are emotional; it’s that emotions of students must be preserved at all costs, including costs to performance, fluency, mastery. “Self-esteem” (and threats to it) is Priority One, even if that results in illusion and dishonesty. That is one of the (many) rationales underlying the phenomenon of social promotion (grade to grade), despite lack of mastery. (There are others, including funding realities, class size, parental rage, & more.) It’s my view that the educational policymakers, locally and more centralized, are engaging in educational malpractice. I want my doctor telling me that I do have cancer, if I have it, instead of allowing me to proceed on an inevitable course toward extinction.</p>

<p>OTOH, as I have also brought up, the establishment has wonderful enablers in many parents who are extremely happy not to told the truthful bad news about their own children. Like you, I am without an explanation for the prolonged state of denial among so many parents (which i.m.o. is also parental malpractice).</p>

331

<p>I taught my kids grade inflation on report cards at a very young age:</p>

<p>A: you may know the material
B: bad, lets talk about the material not understood
C: crap, what happened ?
D: dog house.
F: Taught meaning when they were older.</p>

<p>The game continues, even as college freshmen:
Dad: How did O-Chem go ?
Son: Final was a 99
Dad: What was the grade before the curve ?
Song: I <em>knew</em> you were going to ask that!</p>

332

<p>There is an article [“Your</a> Child Left Behind”](<a href=“http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/your-child-left-behind/8310/]"Your”>Your Child Left Behind - The Atlantic) in the December issue of The Atlantic. </p>

<p>Some excerpts from the article: </p>

<p>

</p>

333

<p>^ and following this citation from NCL, I’ll track back to my earlier post about middle school/ Jr. High: I recall a pretty disciplined intro to scientific method , and rigorous attention to lab procedures (and write-ups) during my junior high. Math was similar. </p>

<p>I will say in both subjects resources were not nearly, however, what they are today, and while the math instruction (non-coordinated methodology and disparate curricula) limps along pathetically today, there is more of an interest in introducing all strands of math prior to high school (including early grades) than in previous times. But the approach(es) are not consistent or integrated; math teachers are few, and successful ones fewer. And the experimental approach to textbook adoption mirrors that sense of desperation.</p>

<p>For science, there is no excuse. Resources, curriculum, and interest are now superior to what was available in my excellent public jr. high school, which was very committed to making our graduating class ‘cutting-edge’ science-fluent for that time. But again, something “happens” in middle school now – that something being mostly regression. Students in grades 2 through 6 are being introduced to modern fields of science, current terminology, and being examined on it --and getting some (not enough) labs, but suddenly in 7th & 8th, the opportunities freeze.</p>

<p>Also, certain sciences are being stressed vs. others – heavy on environmental, earth science, marine science, astronomy, and computer science, barely adequate in bio, light or non-existent in physics and chemistry.</p>

<p>But again I will say, that improvements in instruction and curriculum are not adequate per se: the assignments (testing application of theory), have to follow, the discipline and grasp of scientific method have to be assessed. Otherwise, these are all just passive surveys and introductions. As with the critical reading I mentioned earlier, there is insufficient attention to student engagement. Just as with the verbal skills, students are beginning their high school years overwhelmed with scientific concepts that for many of them are brand new. At one of our local suburban middle-class high schools, no science at all is required in Grade 9. :rolleyes: With the regression in 7th/8th, this is like missing three years of science before college. They are often in a state of panic in Grade 10, when they might have bio for the first and only time. Right now, by far the heaviest demand in tutoring is in sciences and in advanced math, since classroom instruction is insufficient for so many of these average and more capable students.</p>

<p>I’m sure there’s a bifurcation going on, because I’m aware of exceptional opportunities in many demanding private schools. CC high school students often provide course lists of science & math in very advanced levels for secondary. But the vast majority of U.S. students are educated in publics.</p>

334

<p>Thanks, NCL. That article answered a number of questions I’ve been asking myself!</p>

<p>I found the interactive page at The Atlantic [url=&lt;a href=“Miseducation Nation - The Atlantic”&gt;Miseducation Nation - The Atlantic]here.[/url</a>]</p>

<p>Contrary to the Illinois and New York results mentioned in the article, my state, Massachusetts, would fit in fine in Scandinavia, with the “all student” category beating Denmark, Sweden, and Norway in Math, Science, and Reading, while getting knocked around like a rag doll by Finland, especially in Math.</p>

<p>In any event, other comparisons seem to indicate we’re doing better here in Reading and Science than Math. We beat Switzerland, Germany, and Netherlands in those two categories, but are behind, sometimes by a lot, in Math.</p>

<p>None of this changes my opinion, which is that the history curriculum my kids have encountered ranges from incoherent to nonexistent, and that my town’s elementary math curriculum is wrong for, at the very least, my son. Good teachers mean good years here, but it’s always a crap shoot and there’s not a lot of positive guidance from the administration.</p>

<p>Anyway, if these results indicate a crisis here, there’s a real problem in Italy, Louisiana, and France. :(</p>

335

<p>Most of Europe will continue fading away this century. Are you sure you want to use them as a benchmark?</p>

336

<p>No, I’m absolutely not, screw. All the other things that confound me about these tests aside, finding sensible benchmarks – for the US, for Massachusetts, for my town, whatever – is the one that drives me the most nuts.</p>

337

<p>[Children</a> from some ethnic backgrounds perform better](<a href=“Chinese students top the tests out of habit, not ethnicity, study shows”>Chinese students top the tests out of habit, not ethnicity, study shows)</p>

<p>

</p>

338

<p>To shift the tide of the thread a bit:
Was the US ever in the top 10 internationally within recent memory? I’d be inclined to doubt it.
In my opinion, it doesn’t really matter how our 15-year-olds compare on tests of relatively easy, established knowledge. It does matter how our 23- to 103-year-olds compare in the discovery of new knowledge and the development of new inventions.</p>

339

<p>Last time I checked, all 23 to 103 year-olds I know were 15 once. Maybe some 23 to 103 year-olds were born at 23 years old, of course.</p>

340

<p>Plenty true, screwitlah, but the “international rank order” is not fixed at age 15. It’s not really that hard to play catch-up ball. I think the US has been playing that for years. In part, I’m drawing on information from an official of the National Science Foundation–who should have been fairly knowledgeable about it. He remarked more than 35 years ago that Americans were behind when they graduated from high school, but they caught up. </p>

<p>For a person who has drive and the basic intellectual apparatus to learn, it is quite feasible to become internationally competitive by 23, starting from the “disadvantaged” position of an American 15-year-old.</p>