澳门跑狗论坛

Kathleen Kennedy Manzo: Hi everyone. Thanks for joining us. Let鈥檚 begin the chat.

Why don鈥檛 our guests, Hal Salzman and Gary Phillips, introduce themselves first, and then they鈥檒l start answering your questions.

Hal Salzman:

This is Hal Salzman 鈥� I鈥檓 Professor of Public Policy and sociologist at the Bloustein School of Public Policy and the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University. With colleagues, I have been examining the science and engineering workforce 鈥渄emand鈥� and 鈥渟upply鈥�, which led us to look closely at the education performance of U.S. students, finding that our best students are actually doing quite well, contrary to the widely-cited proclamations of poor performance.

Gary W. Phillips:

I am Gary W. Phillips the Vice President & Chief Scientist at the American Institutes for Research (AIR). I direct a team of psychometricians and statisticians on large scale assessment projects. I recently published several reports that involve statistically linking NAEP to TIMSS. The first report compared U.S. state-NAEP results to TIMSS in math and science (Chance Favors the Prepared Mind, 2007), the second compared U.S. School District results to TIMSS (Counting on the Future, 2008) and a new report is about to be released that compares states and school district to TIMSS using letter grades A, B, C, D and F. (International Benchmarks in Mathematics, 2009). Prior to coming to AIR, I was the Acting Commissioner at the National Center for Education Statistics.

Hal Salzman:

There is certainly value in comparing schools and education systems to learn from others. However, the conclusions often drawn from these results go far beyond what the actual data support. U.S. academic performance at the top is actually quite good comparatively, as the most recent tests show.

Gary W. Phillips:

I think we do not have a final answer to this question. But it seems to me to be related to how well education is respected and valued within the society. Those countries that care the most about education achieve the highest.

Hal Salzman:

I would agree and we鈥檝e argued that we have more to learn from high performing districts and states (e.g., Massachusetts and Minnesota) than from Finland -- if only beause of greater transferrability to US context.

Kathleen Kennedy Manzo:

Just some background on these tests and the results, from my colleague Sean Cavanagh:

American students have fared much better on one international test, the TIMSS, than on another PISA. There鈥檚 a lot of speculation about why. The TIMSS, like the domestic NAEP test, measures school-based curriculum. The PISA measures 鈥測ield,鈥� or the skills that students have picked up in and out of school, and their ability to apply them to real-world contexts.

For PISA results:

And TIMSS:

Hal Salzman:

As additional follow up to Jerry鈥檚 earlier question, it is also worth noting that the U.S. tops the scale on reading and other subjects. It is arguable that only math and science are the most important subjects.

Gary W. Phillips:

This observation is an artifact of how the two surveys calculate the international average to which we compare the United States. PISA uses the 30 OECD countries so our standaing relative to them is lower. That is why we appear to do less well on PISA than on TIMSS.

Kathleen Kennedy Manzo: This is a hot topic right now.

Two influential organizations, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, in December called for setting common state standards in reading and math and benchmarking standards in high-performing countries.( See Ed Week鈥檚 story on a report issued by the two organizations, at )

And just last week, representatives of 41 states convened at a conference in Chicago to explore those issues. The event was co-sponsored by the NGA and CCSSO. Efforts to promote national standards have been promoted, and fizzled, in the past. Will this new effort overcome that fate, and what role would international benchmarks play, if any?

Just yesterday the House Education and Labor Committee announced a hearing, set for April 29, on 鈥渢o examine how states can better prepare their students to compete in a global economy by using internationally benchmarked common standards.鈥�

Hal Salzman:

This, of course, raises the question about what we think is important for competing globally. Presumably it is performance after they leave school and not clear that the U.S. is at a disadvantage. We still lead the world in innovation, R&D, etc. Perhaps there is something about our education system that leads to the US being the world鈥檚 leaders in science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurship. Moreover, it is our universities that seem to produce the world鈥檚 best graduates.

Gary W. Phillips:

We do not know how the U.S. compares to these two countries. However, I believe PISA plans to include both countries (or at least a portion of both countries) in their next assessment.

Kathleen Kennedy Manzo: I have a better link for the article Karen is referring to, as well as all of 澳门跑狗论坛鈥檚 recent coverage of this issue over the last year, in commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the A Nation at Risk Report

Kathleen Kennedy Manzo:

Here鈥檚 some more background from Sean Cavanagh:

In a 2007 paper, Hal Salzman and Lindsay Lowell, of Georgetown University, argued that the United States K-12 system produces an ample number of students with skills necessary to compete in science and engineering fields, contrary to widespread belief. American students鈥� math and skills are equal and in some cases better than they were two decades ago, they conclude. The problem lies in graduate programs and science- and engineering-related companies, which are ineffective at recruiting talented students and convincing them to stay.

Gary W. Phillips:

Hal Salzman believes that in raw numbers, the U.S. produces many more top-tier students. This is only partially true. One example where it is not true is grade-8 mathematics. In an analysis of 2007 TIMSS grade-8 mathematics Korea had 40% advanced, Japan had 26% advanced while the United States only had 6% advanced. If you look to see how many students that represents in the population, both counties still out rank the United States in absolute numbers. That is because they have such a huge percentage of high achieving students.

Hal Salzman:

It raises the question of what are we measuring and why. I鈥檓 not sure that Japan鈥檚 economy has benefitted from its production of high performing math students. Maybe the reason the US is the world鈥檚 leading innovator is because of its diversity and produces broadly educated students?

Kathleen Kennedy Manzo: Louise, I want to refer you to my story this week about Australia鈥檚 effort to create a national curriculum. It has a lot of traction after a very similar history as ours with national standards development

Hal Salzman:

The recent TIMSS showed the two states that paid for larger samples so they could be compared internationally came out at the top. There are sampling issues in these small sample comparisons such as AP only students. Also question about who takes the tests, etc. Interpreting small differences goes far beyond what the international testing methods will reasonably support.

Gary W. Phillips:

Let me repeat my statement from before. As I stated above Dr Salzman believes that in raw numbers, the U.S. produces many more top-tier students. This is only partially true. One example where it is not true is grade-8 mathematics. In an analysis of 2007 TIMSS grade-8 mathematics Korea had 40% advanced, Japan had 26% advanced while the United States only had 6% advanced. If you look to see how many students that represents in the population, both counties still out rank the United States in absolute numbers. That is because they have such a huge percentage of high achieving students.

Even if Dr. Salzman were right, we all know how the story of David and Goliath turned out. The lesson from that story is that brains trump brawn and we cannot rely on size.

Hal Salzman: Economic performance is not closely linked to education performance at the top. A broadly educated poplus is the most important we contend, so problems in education at the bottom are much larger worry. For more on this,

One short overview article appeared last year in Nature:

Salzman, Harold and Lindsay Lowell. (2008). 鈥�.鈥� Nature. 453, 28-30.

and
Lynn, Leonard and Harold Salzman.(2007). 鈥�.鈥� Change. July/August 2007, 9-13.

Gary W. Phillips:

Lack of participation by the U.S. is a chronic problem. We are a large and wealthy nation so we should participate in just all of these suevys.

Hal Salzman:

As you note, Singapore has a large creativity initiative in which the US is the focus. Silicon Valley is the goal of about every nation in the world. The iPod another example of US advantage. So, yes, there are many distinct US advantages and it would be a shame to lose those advantages through too much emphasis on test scores that probably don鈥檛 capture what have been the unique US competitive advantages.