Poverty, PISA, and the Myth About Public Schools in America and Around the World

Photo from Space Goddess

Recently in his Class Struggle blog, Jay Matthews has taken on two conventional myths about public education.  The first myth is that at one time, American schools were great and in recent years, they have greatly declined.  The truth is, as Matthews cites Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institute, is that we were never that great, nor are we now that bad.  American schools have always been mediocre.  We have based traditionally based the success of American schools on test scores like the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).  On such test scores, American students have always scored less than stellar on such comparative tests, even as far back as the 1960s.  While this is not really a good thing, this does not suggest that America, or American schools, are inferior to others around the world.

For the past 50 years, the United States has been one of the world's superpowers.  We have been the world's dominant country in both economics and military power.  While I would argue that there are better ways to measure the success and well-being of a country, it certainly can't be said that because we have never ranked that great on standardized tests, that we are are some how an inferior nation that struggles compared to the rest of the industrialized world. 

Picture from Finland Educational Guide 

The second myth that Matthew's looks at is that other countries around the world have superior schools because they test better.  These countries include schools such as China, India, and the country many consider to have the top education system in the world, Finland.  While there is certainly a lot to laud about Finnish schools, their superiority in test scores is actually something that is of great debate currently in Finland.  

Loveless is less dismissive of Finland, which has been scoring well for several years. But he says Americans who love the Finnish model of paying teachers higher salaries, decentralizing authority over educational decisions and eschewing high-stakes standardized testing should tune into the debate the Finns are having about their schools. 

Finnish children were doing well on international tests before those reforms were adopted. That suggests that cultural and societal factors might be the more likely reason for their success. Many Finnish mathematicians say that the country is catering too much to PISA, which emphasizes word problems and practical applications of math, and neglecting to prepare students for college math. 

Loveless says more than 200 university mathematicians in Finland petitioned the education ministry to complain of students increasingly arriving in their classrooms poorly prepared. "Knowledge of fractions and algebra were singled out as particularly weak areas," Loveless says. 

 So the reason that Finland tests so well on international scores is because there education system is geared towards testing well.  That alone doesn't make their schools more superior than other countries, and in point of fact, is the topic of great debate in Finland.  This same point was made by both Diane Ravitch and the Wall Street Journal a month ago about China's schools.  As Ravitch writes:

In The Wall Street Journal, Jiang Xueqin, the deputy principal of Peking University High School, lamented that those high scores were purchased by sacrificing such qualities as independence, curiosity, and individuality. Even educators in Shanghai, he wrote, recognize that the singular devotion to test scores was "producing competent mediocrity."  

 In the quote from Matthews above on Finnish schools, I highlighted a sentence that he wrote, but really didn't explain.  That being about "cultural and societal factors" as one explanation why Finland does so well in schools.  What are those factors exactly?  Well, I believe Ravitch stumbled upon the problem in her piece:

The other salient factor about U.S. performance on international tests is that we have an exceptional and shameful rate of child poverty. Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution says that more than 20 percent of our children live in poverty, and she expects that proportion to increase to nearly 25 percent by 2014. As poverty deepens, Sawhill writes, we should be strengthening the safety net that protects the lives of the poorest. Robert Reich, the former treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, says that income inequality is higher now than it has been in many decades. Most of the nations (and cities) that compete on PISA have far lower child-poverty rates. 

In recent years, we have become accustomed to hearing prominent reformers like Secretary Duncan, Michelle Rhee, and Joel Klein say that reference to poverty is just making excuses for bad teachers and bad schools. But there is plenty of evidence that poverty affects students' readiness to learn. It affects their health, their nutrition, their attendance, and their motivation. Being hungry and homeless distracts students and injures their health; living in an environment where drugs and violence are commonplace affects children's interest in academics. Living in communities where many stores and homes are boarded up, and where incarceration rates are very high, affects children's sense of possibility and their willingness to plan for the future. 

Researchers for the National Association for Secondary School Principals disaggregated the PISA results by income and made some stunning discoveries. Take a look at this link ("PISA: It's Poverty Not Stupid"). It shows that American students in schools with low poverty rates were first in the world when they were compared with students in nations with comparably low poverty levels. Thus, the picture painted by doomsayers about American education is false in this respect. We have many outstanding schools and students, but our overall performance is dragged down by the persistence of poverty. Poverty depresses school achievement because it hurts children, families, and communities.

Picture from China Smack 

 The truth of the matter is that, all things considered, American schools are no worse than most countries around the world.  If anything, our schools as they exist in many neighborhoods are just as capable of outperforming schools in Finland, China, or any other industrialized nation.  There certainly are things that our country can do better to improve the quality of schools and education as a whole.  But the main reason that a school district usually struggles to begin with is poverty.  The reason that inner-city school districts struggles with lower test scores, higher drop-out rates, violence, increased teen pregnancy, and so on is because of the poverty that most of the students and their parents live in.  Everyone knows this is the case, and has known it for years.  For all of the well-being and economic success our country has had compared to the rest of the world, poverty (and all of the societal problems that are linked to it) is the great albatross around America's neck.

I find it interesting that so-called education reformers believe the key to fighting poverty in inner-cities today is battling teacher unions, funding charter schools over public schools, and narrowing the curriculum to focus mainly on reading and math test scores.  While I am sure most of them have good intentions in their actions, their policies will only make things worse for our country.  They are hurting public schools in inner cities, and treating them as if they are the source of so many problems.  True, inner city schools have serious issues, but it is not public schools as a whole that is the source.  Wealthier, suburban districts with low poverty rates don't seem to have the same problems that these school districts have, and those schools have teacher unions, and government regulation.  It seems that so much money and energy that the reformers spend on fighting unions and opening charter schools could go to the root of the problem to begin with.  There are better ways to improve public schools and fight poverty than the current conventional thinking by reformers.