…and this is a 
This is a very interesting analysis of Unscientific America: the authors weren't only shallow in identifying solutions to the problems they identified, they completely missed the big one. This is an informative chart.
We've got a large number of science-literate students in the top-performing category (which is good), but the average is relatively low (not good). I know this is really obvious, but I have to say it anyway, since I'm afraid many Americans will read this: the only way that can happen is if there is a huge number of students who are also really, really bad at science. Our country has an educated/ignorant divide to match our ugly rich/poor divide.
Here's a personal story to make the abstract real. It's back-to-school time in Florida, and the budget isn't there.
Science teachers are feeling the pinch at Journeys Academy, Seminole's new alternative school.
"My science teachers handed me three pages of things they'd like to have, but because of the hard budget times, we weren't given an opening budget for science," Principal Michael Icardi said.
That means a big need for "microscopes and balances and those types of things." His team, Icardi said, will have to be "creative."
If you don't have the basics, if science teachers are told by their administrators that they have to replace essential tools with their imagination, it's only going to get worse. If you want to fix science literacy in America, the answer isn't going to come from the top with the training of a thousand Carl Sagans — we need to give a few tens of millions of students a decent lab experience, a little knowledge of critical thinking, and the intellectual tools to aspire to something better.
Education
Comments
Posted by: Rolf Andreassen | August 24, 2009 6:35 PM
I think you are misinterpreting the graph (or else you are looking at some picture which you didn't post). There is no 'average' shown here, there is only an absolute number and a percentage in the top group. The red points are rather misleading; they are just the population of the nation, multiplied by the percentage shown by the blue point. Naturally the US, with three times the population of any other nation shown, comes out as a huge spike in this metric; but all it's saying is, when you multiply 300 million by 2 percent, you get a bigger number than multiplying the Netherlands' 30 million (or whatever it is) by 2 percent. This tells you nothing about the distribution of skills within the US group, which is what you're trying to read out of the numbers.
So, discarding the misleading red points, the US doesn't look so bad as all that. It's right between the Netherlands and Switzerland, which doesn't sound so bad, and right in the middle of the low-scoring group of nations. It's Finland and New Zealand that are the outliers, not the US.
Now, it may be that the US does in fact have a bad average, and that, say, 80% of its students fall into the bottom-scoring group compared to 20% of Swiss students, or something. But this graph doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort.
Posted by: Chris P | August 24, 2009 6:35 PM
You can do quite well with almost no funding. My daughter has got grants for computers, glass ware and muscle models. There are some "wish list" sites - she got a set of 12 lab stools. I go to auctions and get weighing stuff and furniture items for next to nothing. You can also be constructive with neighbors trash.
You have to go around with your eyes open. There is stuff out there. It's not the best way.
Chris P
Posted by: Blake | August 24, 2009 6:37 PM
Hey way to make your graphs simultaneously cutesy and unreadable Nature! Good job! BTW do the stupid incessant word play puns in Nature headlines irritate any one else? Maybe I'm just cranky today.....
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 24, 2009 6:37 PM
I really don't know that such information would change M&K's rationale in the book. It fails for more prosaic reasons, and while they'd have looked better if they'd mentioned the divide, well, it's kind of obvious that with the US still at the top there have to be very good science students, while the prevalence of creationism in the US indicates that a lot of truly science-ignorant clods there are.
Of course the many divides in this country, from rich-poor to educated-ignorant (at least partly related to the former), may very well breed resentments that lead to religious claims that supposedly equalize the ignorant and the educated.
Unfortunately, however, just those resentments and idiotic illusions that ignorance is strength likely narcotizes generation after generation to the possibilities for learning and leaving stupidity behind.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 24, 2009 6:40 PM
As Chris P (#2) points out, what matters is the quality of the education. A good science education with few resources does more good than a bad science education with good resources. First get a good teacher, then worry about the equipment he will have to use. Spend all your money on equipment and leave yourself with none to pay the teacher, and your kids will be the worse off.
Posted by: Yubal | August 24, 2009 6:43 PM
@ Rolf Andreassen
Finnland might be an outlier in the statistics, in reality it is rather the gold-standard for reasonable budgeted public education with maximum output.
Posted by: kyoseki | August 24, 2009 6:44 PM
Mooney's in the LA Times again;
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sciw-mooneyqa22-2009aug22,0,7621929.story
Posted by: truthspeaker | August 24, 2009 6:49 PM
I suspect that to many of the powerful, the educated/ignorant divide is as desirable as the rich/poor divide. They know they need a small intelligentsia class to design their computers, weapons, bridges, and buildings, but they also need a large, easily manipulated ignorant class to fall prey to their advertising, vote the way they want, and volunteer for their wars.
Posted by: Michael | August 24, 2009 6:49 PM
I agree that a good, quality education is a great thing. I myself am currently in college pursuing a Education Degree to teach high school science.
I'm sure we can make arguments for not throwing money at it, and for doing just that. It's the Nation's priorities that matter in the end. Look at the fiscal budget for 09, you can see where this countries priorities are at, and where they are firmly rooted.
Department of Defense 654 billion.
Department of Education 46.2 billion.
Im not looking to start a discussion about the wars. Just the priorities. And yes...like stated above throwing money at a problem doesnt always fix it. The discrepancy is just too disgusting to ignore really.
Posted by: jj | August 24, 2009 6:50 PM
RE:Science Class Materials
I always wondered if schools were better off using computer simulations for things that require expensive hardware. Granted computers and software are not cheap, but they do work as multi-function. Schools need to jump on the server-based computing model, but that's an entire infrastructure overhaul that is not feasible it seems (licensing can be a bitch). Get a few servers to host the lot, employ thin clients. Use open source / cloud based whenever possible. I'll set it up for you for a small fee.
Then again, we always used computer simulation in my old physics class and it was never as fun (and therefore not as effective) as doing the real experiments. We did dissect a frog in my HS Bio class, but that was before they handed us the real deal...
Posted by: Hinemoana | August 24, 2009 6:51 PM
Wow, I never knew science teaching was so (comparatively) good here in NZ.
Posted by: Arabiflora | August 24, 2009 6:52 PM
Speaking of scientific illiteracy-- Why are these data presented as scatter plots? Can I expect to interpolate between, say, the US and the Netherlands to infer values for Icelandic students?
Sheesh
Posted by: Hammurabi | August 24, 2009 6:55 PM
I agree with Rolf Andreassen @#1, from my interpretation the graph isn't saying what PZ is saying. The USA has a very large population and therefore even small percentages translate into large numbers. Put China on that graph and I'm sure you'd see a similar spike.
Posted by: Crux Australis | August 24, 2009 6:56 PM
As a science teacher in NZ, I can only say:
WOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am so going to hug a student today. Probably my son. Also, that graph is going up on my lab wall.
Posted by: Nova | August 24, 2009 7:04 PM
Like #1 and #13, I don't see how this graph shows that the US has a particularly large ignorant/educated divide. America has a large spike in the number of top scoring students purely because it has a large population.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 24, 2009 7:09 PM
For decades anyone who wants to fund schools adequately has been shouted down with accusations of wanting to "throw money at the problem."
It turns out that practically all of our modern social problems are caused by being unwilling to use any money to solve any problem. If we funded our schools and paid for rehab instead of incarceration, we could probably half our expenditures on such simple things as food stamps and Medicaid.
Luckily, community police and fire departments were invented before Reagan, or we'd never be allowed to even admire such "socialist" innovations.
Thank you, Bill Gates. (If we enforced our antitrust laws, we'd save a lot of money, too.)
Posted by: fcmk | August 24, 2009 7:16 PM
@ Yubal
That might be the reason why there were teachers and principals and what-not from all around the world (btw, never from the USA) visiting our school and getting to know how things went on here in Finland. I remember the biggest thing was when people from China came to the school. We had a whole "China week" for that.
If the school in US is even a little bit like the after-school series on TV (which I really doubt and hope for), then I see at least one major difference: there are no cliques of "nerds" and "popular ones" or anything like that. Everybody gets along with each other and bullying is taken very seriously.
Another thing I have noticed in the news is that the schools in US seem to suspend kids a lot from school. Is this really true or are the news skewing things? I remember one person getting suspended in all of my years in school. I can't recall reading or hearing anything about a suspension of a student in the Finnish news.
Posted by: miller | August 24, 2009 7:18 PM
Gosh, that graph is horrible. Either the axes are mislabeled, or it's saying something completely different from what you're trying to say.
It's comparing numbers to percentages, which only really tells you about the relative populations of the different countries. And I just don't see anything in there about averages or about an educated/ignorant divide. If there is such a divide, it's not shown clearly in the graph.
Posted by: Richard | August 24, 2009 7:21 PM
@#17,
The US is big. Like, really big. Finland has a population of almost 6 million. New York City _alone_ has a population of over 8 million.
Yeah, a kid being suspended in the US isn't terribly uncommon. They usually just get moved to another school with 3,000 students 5 miles away.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 24, 2009 7:28 PM
*sigh* I am reminded of the old protest placard I saw the AFSCME folks carrying during the marches in the 70's:
"It'll be a good day when teachers have all the money they need and the pentagon has to have a bake sale to buy new nukes."
But, hey, something's gotta pay for the useless war in Iraq.
Posted by: Tony | August 24, 2009 7:30 PM
ARRRRGH. Pet peeve alert! A connected line graph representing data that should be presented as a 2-category bar graph! What sort of trend is he trying to show by doing that?! It's amazing how terrible some people are at presenting data.
Posted by: Yubal | August 24, 2009 7:44 PM
#19
Two questions:
When the US has so many high-scoring "home made" individuals, why do they have to brain-drain Europe to fill up their ranks of scientist, doctors and engineers?
Do the Americans all end up in law school?
Posted by: Morgan | August 24, 2009 7:46 PM
Agree with the others who say the graph is being misinterpreted. I think you'd need to know the average score and probably the standard deviation to be able to say we have lots of smart kids but also lots of very stupid kids. Or maybe just the average and the percentage in the top bracket? Either way, not what's shown here.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 24, 2009 7:51 PM
Evidence that we do, at least in science? I know plenty of foreign doctors and engineers holding American jobs; I don't know that many scientists.
Posted by: Ellie
|
August 24, 2009 7:56 PM
It's also worth noting that here in the UK there is a lot of controversy over grade inflation. I don't know enough to have a strong opinion on what the causes are, but it is quite clearly happening. It is possible that our apparent good showing is actually due to the exams getting easier! Then there's the method of grading. If an education system marks on a curve, the % of students with a top score is always going to be the same, regardless of the quality of education. Basically, the take-home message would seem to be this graph is meaningless in every way.
Posted by: Dire Lobo | August 24, 2009 7:56 PM
PZ - care to comment on the graph and respond to comments (#1 #13 for example)? I found the graph very confusing and after starting at it for 5 minutes, I too was unable to see how you reached your conclusions.
One thing I am still unclear on - perhaps someone can comment - is the percentage supposed to be the percent of world-wide top-performing students from that country, or, the percent of top-performing students within that country out of that country's total population of students?
I'm reading the nature.com article now in the hope I will figure this out myself.
Posted by: Rolf Andreassen | August 24, 2009 7:57 PM
Anecdotal, but in my (physics) department, roughly 75% of the graduate students (including myself) are not American citizens.
Posted by: Denis Loubet | August 24, 2009 8:09 PM
I'll bet you any money the football team got its jerseys.
Do I sound bitter?
Posted by: Cujo359 | August 24, 2009 8:09 PM
re: Rolf Andreassen @ 1
It looks to me like national population is a good predictor of where each country will be on the red graph. Japan has a little less than half our population, Canada about an eighth, England a quarter, etc. The blue graph is the one I find interesting, for reasons already noted by several people.
I'm also inclined to agree with Blake @ 3 - that graph is close to unreadable, and they don't provide a larger version of it anywhere that I can see.
Posted by: Jonathan Smith | August 24, 2009 8:13 PM
Florida Citizens for Science asks everyone who cares about science education across the state to pitch in. Through the nonprofit online organization DonorsChoose.org, we have identified seven Florida teachers who have asked for help in funding science education projects. We are asking concerned citizens to donate money to help these fundamental science projects become reality. Additionally, Florida Citizens for Science will match contributions dollar for dollar up to $600. So, if donators raise at least $600, we will double that to a total of $1,200. Of course, we encourage everyone to shoot past the $600 mark!
All donations are accepted and appreciated, regardless of the amount. Just visit our “giving page” at DonorsChoose to make your donation. The money raised stays right here in our state, benefiting our students’ science education. We hope to wrap up this fund raising project by Sept 1.
Jonathan Smith VP Florida Citizens for Science
Posted by: g | August 24, 2009 8:17 PM
Comparing the budgets of the Departments of Defense and Education is not useful. Most education funding comes from the state and local level, unlike defense.
Posted by: ThirdMonkey | August 24, 2009 8:23 PM
Really?
I hand-drawn graph on college rule?
Really!?!
Posted by: ThirdMonkey | August 24, 2009 8:28 PM
*A* hand-drawn graph...
sigh
Posted by: H.H. | August 24, 2009 8:28 PM
There is a science literacy gap, as this pew research science quiz indicates:
http://pewresearch.org/sciencequiz/quiz/index.php
Less than 10% get all 12 questions correct, even though this is basic, basic stuff. I'd be surprised if anyone on this site got less than perfect. But that means there are some very stupid people out there.
HT Greg Laden: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/08/i_am_like_really_smart_and_stu.php
Posted by: Bueller_007
|
August 24, 2009 8:31 PM
New Zealand? WTF?
Those drongos can barely string a sentence together.
Posted by: g | August 24, 2009 8:31 PM
PZ, that chart provides no evidence for or against an "educated/ignorant divide" and says nothing about any students who are "really, really bad" at science. Please advise.
Posted by: Travis | August 24, 2009 8:40 PM
H.H,
I saw that poll some time ago, it does not really seem to test much science though, it is all just trivial little facts.
On the other hand I think it is sad that so few people know 12 rather well known facts. I find many people simply do not remember these things even though they have been talked about on many, many news reports over the years. These should just be things people know.
Posted by: Crux Australis | August 24, 2009 8:40 PM
@ Bueller_007: evidence, please.
Posted by: Travis | August 24, 2009 8:43 PM
Err, though the Pew page does just say it is a science knowledge test. So perhaps it is accurate. But I do not think it tests scientific literacy very well.
Posted by: gf | August 24, 2009 8:48 PM
Add another who deosn't think the graph shows what the post says it shows.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 24, 2009 8:53 PM
Those drongos can barely string a sentence together.
assuming you for some odd reason meant that seriously...
drongos like Alan Wilson?
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Allan_Wilson
(*psst* Wilson was perhaps the greatest innovator in molecular and PCR techniques in the 80's, a vanguard in theories of human evolution, and probably would have won the Nobel if he hadn't died relatively young).
O.o
Posted by: RC | August 24, 2009 8:56 PM
Well said @1. Since it doesn't take into account variation for population size, the red line means nothing.
Sorry PZ, love you normally, but since I called T. Estes on an outright error and he took it back (have stopped reading his blog now, though), for fairness I'll call you out to!
Posted by: Marc | August 24, 2009 9:13 PM
PZ, I am sorry but your interpretation of this graph is confusing.
Yes, as you point out, the absolute number of students who are "very bad at science" in the US is much higher than that of other countries - just as the absolute number of students who are very good at sience is much higher, because the overall number of students is much higher.
That's a rather trivial point, though, isn't it? Why is that remarkable? What is that supposed to tell us about differences in educational strategies between the countries?
To my mind, the only number relevant in comparisons like this are the percentages.
As #1, #13, #15 and #18 have already pointed out, relating these graphs to one another is complete nonsense without taking into account the size of the overall (student) population.
Now, maybe I am overlooking something here or am misinterpreting what you said; and I will grant you that as some others have pointed out, this graph is VERY poorly made if your intent is to inform (Nature, WTF!?), but I would like to politely urge to clarify what point you are trying to make.
Posted by: Adam Jarvis | August 24, 2009 9:25 PM
What a horrendous graph. Small, unavailable in higher resolutions. A misleading and pointless data set only describing the relative populations of the countries involved. The data is presented in a continuous data set when clearly countries are discrete entities.
Lastly, it ranks New Zealand as the highest preforming country in terms of percentage of top scoring students (presumably with respect to the number of students in a given year, though this is far from clear). I find this statistic particularly hard to credit, given the recent outbreak of stupidity, vis-à-vis the recent smacking referendum, our 10%-20% emission reduction target, faith healing, Maori representation and the list goes on.
*sigh*
Posted by: Marc | August 24, 2009 9:26 PM
PZ,
I guess I have to apologize somewhat. What you are saying is of course true, but has very little to do with this graph you posted.
Guess I concentrated too much on that.
And, contrary to what you said, this graph is NOT very informative. In this particular comparison, that is the top performing percentages - not the averages that you then talk about - the US doesn't stand out in any way.
I guess I was more irritated with Nature's graph than anything else - it is such a terrible idea to set absolutes and percentages against each other in this context.
Posted by: Fil | August 24, 2009 9:30 PM
Both in private and public schools where I taught in Australia I never had to worry about lack of equipment, not once. I think that's a terrible situation for America, the so-called richest nation on Earth, to be in.
Indeed, there was always a lot of standard issue clobber in my labs that went largely unused, or was used for maybe one demonstration. Sadly, it was always the (usually crappy 4inch reflecting) telescope that was never put to use by other teachers. As a keen amateur astronomer, I always put that right by hauling it out and showing the kids sunspots during the day, over a period of days. Watching their faces was worth every second of fooling around with the bad mountings etc as they plotted how the spots develop and move.
The more senior kids were invited to my home observatory for some proper observing of the moon, planets, globular clusters etc. "WOW!!" was the usual response when they saw Saturn or Jupiter for the first time through a biggish 'scope.
Still, as others have said, it's not so much the gear, but the teacher and the course he/she is using.
I do remember one place I taught, the junior kids were using this self-teaching formulaic set of texts. It was the most boring load of shite I have ever seen, really disheartening to "teach" and watch the kids plod through it day after day. I spat the dummy and went against the dpt head and threw it out and went back to explosions, stinks and some good old teacher led enthusiasm. The kids went from grinding apathy to looking forward to class (mind you it was also not a good idea to sit in the front row in my classes, unless you liked getting wet or blown up or whatever).
Science (at junior high school level especially) is fun, so it should be taught that way.
Posted by: Heidi | August 24, 2009 9:35 PM
@Crux Australis (#14): Congratulations, and thanks for making sure there are smart kids somewhere in the world.
@Yubal (#17): Sadly, the cliques shown on TV are accurate. As is the bullying. Earlier this year a boy in my state committed suicide over being bullied at school. I think he was 11 or 12. And then there was Megan Meier who killed herself after another kid's PARENT (Lori Drew) told her the world would be better off without her. With parents like Lori Drew, it's no wonder kids think it's ok to bully. Google the names if you want the full story. It's disgusting.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 24, 2009 9:40 PM
Getting blown up is exciting the first time, but deadly dull after that.
Posted by: Lyle | August 24, 2009 9:55 PM
Did the author's 10 year-old child make the graph with colored pencils? Buy some graph paper! Also, learn when to use the different types of graphs. This data should not be in a line graph. It's not like there is a continuum between Australia and Japan. This data would be much better suited to a bar chart or a histogram. The lack of production quality in the graph and poor choice of graph types does not lead me to think the authors are very science (or math) oriented.
Posted by: Carlie | August 24, 2009 9:58 PM
You never, never, never compare straight numbers when the comparative populations are different sizes. I learned this in Stats 100. What is wrong with people???
Posted by: VegeBrain | August 24, 2009 10:02 PM
I'll chime in with the critics of this graph with my standard complaint I remember from statistics class: the data needs to be normalized to the population before it's useful.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 24, 2009 10:07 PM
I start teaching again next week. Seriously considering using this as an example of how not to use or graphically depict statistics...
Posted by: ej | August 24, 2009 10:15 PM
Bless your heart (ahem) for displaying these data. As a science teacher I am trying my damnednest (ahem) to model science properly, with limited materials. Am thankful that you are bringing this issue to light. The money has to be right in the classroom, spent on/by the right teachers
PS I am not yet tenured and dying to find out if there is a way to combat an on-campus Bible Club with a Humanism/Secularist club?! I don't know where to start attacking the issue. The Science Club, run by another science teacher, does jack shit, so do I start a new club or what? Do any of you have experience with this situation?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 24, 2009 10:16 PM
It's such a bummer to be a sheep-like minion when the Fearless Leader drops the ball like this.
Posted by: Yubal | August 24, 2009 10:17 PM
@ josh (#24)
Well, there would be me and a significant number (roughly 60%) of my coworkers :)
To be a little more precise, about half of the foreigners in my institute are not Europeans, but that is the little graph all over again, with ~3 billion Asians around Europeans get outnumbered easily. On the other hand, every single higher educated person is missing in Europe (lower overall graduates/doctorates, declining birth rates etc.)
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | August 24, 2009 10:19 PM
More funding for basic science education? Bah! Forget that, it's an actual solution! Just get all those pesky atheists to shut up!
Posted by: SC, OM | August 24, 2009 10:23 PM
Er, or perhaps I could use it as a lesson in "at least skim the friggin' article before commenting to get the basic context":
*smacks self*
It's not bad (though the style of the graphs is cloying, they are related to actual arguments). I hate this national-competitiveness bullshit, but at least some of their arguments seem to make sense. I'll have to read it in full later.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 24, 2009 10:25 PM
Does anyone have links to sites that actually define "scientific literacy"? The words get bandied about but I have never seen a good definition.
(I know that in Canada, reading literacy is defined as having a grade 8, or higher, education.)
Posted by: Fil | August 24, 2009 10:29 PM
@ #48
Well, I was just being silly, of course. No one ever got hurt, certainly not blown up. Though I did make a mess of the old fire extinguisher demo a couple of times.
What I got up to as a kid with some mates though...that did end up with some injuries. One friend blew himself through a window making dynamite; lost an eye and his right thumb, amongst other damage. He was back at school in a few weeks. These days they probably would send him to gitmo.
Kids, hell. We used to screw two bolts to a central nut full of er, "something common" and throw it against a wall. The explosion would fire the bolts all over the place. Sheer lunacy and a miracle no one I know got hit.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 24, 2009 10:32 PM
Although I completely agree with:
Posted by: Margaret | August 24, 2009 10:36 PM
Yubal,
What could you possibly mean? Our trusted government insists there is no brain drain. As did the Tories. Obviously. Homeopathic grads, crystal wavers, Unicorn healers, they are all here for the duration.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 24, 2009 10:51 PM
Oh, good grief. The last graph - unlabeled, so that's how I'll have to refer to it - is ridiculous. I can't even read it.
Posted by: ej | August 24, 2009 10:54 PM
"Scientific literacy", as some of us more principled science teachers aim for, is the ability of an individual to pick up a newspaper (or click on a link) and understand the essence of what they read. Not just to understand the terms: that is the basic idea. They should also be able to critically think through what is being reported: how were the data collected, or what sources the reporter used...how this new information fits into the existing model, etc. So this would include the ability of the reader to critique what he or she reads in order to evaluate the material he or she is reading.
This would follow with any information he or she is given by a health care professional. So, when all is said and done, the individual would be able to QUESTION like a scientists, using the content knowledge he or she developed in high school, if not college.
http://www.newsless.org/2009/08/the-3-key-parts-of-news-stories-you-usually-dont-get/ is a pretty good article I intend to implement in my biology classroom next week in this light.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 24, 2009 11:16 PM
Well, M&K have thus far refused to define "scientific literacy," though they seem to throw average-performance statistics around. Nor have they shown any major changes in the level of "scientific literacy" in the US over the past several decades (by any of the measures for their undefined concept). Given their arguments about how to fix the unspecified problem, which emphasize maintaining empiricism-prohibited regions and focus on some vague appreciation of the importance of science, they wouldn't seem to rank informed critical thinking or practice very high as elements of scientific literacy.
[ej, I'm just using your discussion of critical thinking skills (which I agree are crucial to develop) as a jumping-off point.]
Posted by: ej | August 24, 2009 11:26 PM
It IS difficult to assess scientific literacy (the state mandated end of course exam doesnt seem to cut it)...So the "driven" teachers, let's call them. have a difficult time showing improvement.
At this point I think critical thinking skills are the essence of science education, with benchmarks of content knowledge being met along the way. Maybe I'm going in the wrong direction, but it certainly implies more importance in the "science" in "scientific literacy", in which literacy implies simply being able to read.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 24, 2009 11:39 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you about applied critical thinking and skills being what's important and largely not captured in these tests.
Again, I was using your definition as a contrast to M&K*'s vague-to-nonexistent one (the absence of which of course makes any sort of measurement impossible). They've been pressed to provide their definition of the concept - ostensibly what their book is about - and AFAIK have yet to do so. Sorry if that was confusing. :/
*(whom PZ referred to in his post)
Posted by: ej | August 24, 2009 11:53 PM
Not confusing at all. Just sort of relived to be able to contrast my *working* definition vs M&K, whose book I leafed through this summer and refused to bother with, after a few sample pages, while teaching other science teachers (if that's not a daunting task I don't know what is!)
Would hope more science teachers show up on this blog, we need the most help bc I feel like we are on the front lines!
Posted by: SC, OM | August 25, 2009 12:03 AM
You are!
I just noticed this:
Here's a list of SSA affiliates:
http://www.secularstudents.org/affiliates
Maybe you could contact the one(s) closest to you or the national organization and they could help you with starting up a group on your campus. Best of luck.
And now I'm off to sleep...
Posted by: Nathaniel | August 25, 2009 12:05 AM
From Chris P (#2):
You have to go around with your eyes open. There is stuff out there. It's not the best way.
Yes, this can be done. But speaking as an educator who does it, it is costly, mostly in the instructor's time. It's far better to spend a few bucks on equipment, and free up that time for even BETTER teaching, rather than having to scrounge grants or equipment or cobble together things.
There are also costs in student attention. "Today we're going to crudely measure this phenomenon using string, scotch tape, and cardboard toilet paper tubes. Did everyone bring a tube?" This is a surefire way to make what you're doing sound unprofessional, boring, and irrelevant, much like glueing macaroni.
Posted by: windy | August 25, 2009 12:12 AM
I agree, the graphs are crappy but they are used appropriately in the Nature article.
If the point is simply to counter the panicky claims about US falling behind economically, then the Nature article does a good job, but I think it goes too far in the other direction.
"However, before we send teams of educators to discover the educational secrets of Finland, Singapore, New Zealand, South Korea or Japan, we should do more study into the nature and context of their education systems."
Er, why not do both? They make visiting another country's school system sound like the quest for the Northwest Passage.
"It will be far more effective to take the best that America has to offer before seeking elusive and poorly understood practices found in a diverse collection of small countries around the globe."
Yes, god forbid Americans look at what other countries are doing except as the absolute last resort! Works great for healthcare reform, right?
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 25, 2009 12:16 AM
In the field of table top roleplaying games there is a saying, "No matter how carefully you explain a rule there's always somebody who just doesn't get it."
It applies in teaching. No matter how carefully you explain something there's always somebody who just won't get it. It happens all around the world, in every aspect of society. Some people just don't get it, regardless of how well you explain it.
American education placed a huge burden upon itself when it enacted the No Child Left Behind legislation. Legislation that starts with the assumption that children are, each and every one of them, capable of understanding what you teach them. And when they're not, then you're either teaching them wrong, or you're making the job of learning too hard. You end up working towards the lowest common denominator, and smarter children suffer for it.
That's right, I said smarter. I said smarter because there are dumb people out there who are not going to do as well in school as others. By lowering our standards so the dull can eek through the grades we do harm to the smarter kids, and to the dumber kids who all too soon find themselves expected to cover subjects at a complexity and detail they simply cannot handle.
We lump people together, that's our problem. We don't make allowances for innate differences, and we insist that everybody has to advance at the same pace when some will work faster than others. We're reluctant to let some children advance beyond their peers, because it gives us more work at a time when the resources just aren't there to cover the extra effort.
Extra money would help. As would additional equipment. But even more important is the desire to make the extra effort, and the willingness to admit that some children at any age are going to fall behind their contemporaries. That some children will be left behind. We accept that, and adapt to it, American kids will do so much better in school.
Posted by: Robert Thille
|
August 25, 2009 12:18 AM
That Pew research poll is a horrible science _knowledge_ quiz, though it seems a decent science _news_ quiz.
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | August 25, 2009 12:27 AM
Several points here...
So far as I can see the graph is mostly meaningless. The one data point in terms of some vague percentage of something might be interesting if we knew what it represented.
Most students in the US pre-college are only required to take one course in science as far as I know, so how do you sort out what that percentage actually means? Very ambiguous.
Although it is important to have the correct apparatus for teaching certain kinds of things, it is also possible to teach some things with virtually no apparatus, or instead, nothing at all but the natural world in which we all live. So, while I might agree in a broader sense that under-funded education is a cause for concern, I think also that educators should in fact be creative. You work with what you have for the most part. That is not to say that there is not a justifyable complaint to be made when so called standards are being imposed without the resources to meet them, but the point really is do the kids get an idea of what it is to learn or not? To me that is the bigger problem and one that is hardly ever addressed by anyone.
Learning is not something you do before you get a free pass as an adult to turn into a slug. If you once figure it out, it should go on until you die. The problem seems to me to be that most people never figure that out, they have the erroneous impression that there is some magic threshold past which they know everything they will ever need to know and then stop trying to learn anything at all.
We ought to ask ourselves, if we think we are proponents of science, just how important it really is in the lives of most people. Off hand all I can say is not very important. They are too involved in just surviving from week to week to be concerned about whether or not science makes any difference in their lives. Even though it actually does.
Why is that? Why in the age of science do we live in an unscientific age? If I had the answer to that one I guess I would be king of the world. But I don't.
Pick up any newspaper and you will find a horoscope in it. But will you find anything even remotely related to actual science? No. Perhaps some hype about swine flu vaccine, or the latest and greatest hardware for playing computer games, or something scarey, like we are all going to be genetically engineered to be drones for the evil government to dispatch into their heinous schemes.
And think for a bit about what it all means to the kids who are growing up, learning that in fact the natural universe is a thing governed by immutable laws which we do not completely understand, but which still prevail, such as the impossibility of perpetual motion, or the mutability of species, and then guess how they feel, how they react, how they make their own deeply personal decisions about what to try to do in the world, when someone who believes in fairies, becomes the head of the whole national infrastructure for health sciences. Does that inspire them to be good scientists? No. It gives them an excuse to adopt the same kind of self serving patronage of bullshit.
After all, in the end, all that matters is how we spend our time when we are alive. Isn't it easier and better to be fed and nurtured and fattened on the largess of the commonplace certainties? Only fools would risk being wrong.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | August 25, 2009 12:44 AM
Alan Kellog, you might like the German High-School system. it has 3 tiers (basic, average and advanced); only the top two are geared towards future college attendance, whereas the basic is for those who will go into apprenticeships.
Now, that system is a bit outmoded since it was designed some 100 years ago, to separate farmers' children, future apprentices, and future college students, and I think in should be reduced to a two-tiered system for those who will go to college and those who don't (it's possible to switch between tiers in the later years, but it's a bit complicated, so it's not exactly sealing one's future early on).
Similarly, didn't there used to be a two-track system in the U.S. that had to be dumped because all the difficult students were dumped into the non-academic track? What a way to waste a good idea...
Posted by: Stripe
|
August 25, 2009 12:52 AM
Is this post for real?
That graph is horrendous! Please tell me this is some kind of joke and I've missed the punchline?
Posted by: Zen Druid | August 25, 2009 12:57 AM
Re the graph, lose the red data set. Superfluous. [That's a good word, and bears repeating. Superfluous...].
Having read the comments and links (M&K specifically), it occurred to me that what this generation lacks is some good old-fashioned Walt Disney, i.e. his "Math Magic Land" and his excellent spaceflight collaboration with von Braun. History of Flight, from da Vinci to the 1950s... much more, of course. That kind of infotainment is delicious fodder for young intellects.
Posted by: Sigmund | August 25, 2009 1:06 AM
#7
"Mooney's in the LA Times again.
Oh dear, after all that trouble the last time....
http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/2009/08/downfall-of-scientific-america.html
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | August 25, 2009 1:15 AM
Zen (and others wondering what the red graph is for):
read the Nature article it's from. it makes a lot more sense in that context than in the context of critiquing M&K
Posted by: Roameo
|
August 25, 2009 1:58 AM
OK, yeah terrible graph. But as jadehawk said it makes sense in the context of the article.
What bugs me about the Nature article however is that it lumps New Zealand, Japan and Finland together as high stress - strict academic environments.
Now my attendance rate towards the end of highschool in nz was dropping to around 60%, and I still managed to complete my last two years in a single year. Sure, this coincided with the introduction of a new national highschool certificate, but I thought the whole system was a joke. As long as you occasionally turned up to class, you could graduate and go to pretty much any university you wanted.
So not exactly a high stress experience. I have no idea why we're "at the higher end" in terms of suicide rates, but I'm even more puzzled by our high test scores... maybe we cheated off Finland's paper.
In any case it does not bode well for the rest of the world.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
August 25, 2009 2:09 AM
Jadehawk is correct, the Nature article uses the graph to show that the US produces the greatest quantity of top students for the (western?) world. Why no India, China or Russia, though?
Any way, what I make of the data presented in the red graph is that the US has 65,000 students vs 10,000 for Canada. Based on the CIA World Factbook, the US/Canada population ratio is 9.2 : 1.
Looking only at these top performing students, I therefore calculate that there should have been 92,000 such US students, rather than 65,000. I conclude that 27,000 students fell below the line that shouldn't have. That's 42% more that should have but were cheated, as I see it.
This is not an apples and oranges comparison. Canada and the US are very similar, culturally and demographically. There's none so desperate as Canadians trying to differentiate between ourselves and Americans.
Also from the Factbook, the US spends, 5.3% of its GDP on Education, ranking at 57th in the world. Canada spends 5.2% and ranks 63rd.
Canada gets a much, much better bang for its buck, based on these figures. It would be instructive to find out which countries do produce the greatest number of top performers per capita, but I'd rather start from the actual data and stop looking at such an awful chart.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | August 25, 2009 2:12 AM
incidentally, linking finland's education with its suicide rate is a bit odd, too... all of scandinavia had very high rates of suicide until relatively recently (linked to the extremely long and dark winters, if I remember correctly), and finland is the only one who hasn't been able to correct that problem; but does that have anything to do with education? or is the finnish government just not handing out free Infrared lamps, unlike its neighbors?
also, isn't suicide still more socially acceptable in Japan than in western nations? that would certainly have an influence on suicide-raters, I'd say...
Posted by: Tassie Devil | August 25, 2009 2:22 AM
ej sez:
PS I am not yet tenured and dying to find out if there is a way to combat an on-campus Bible Club with a Humanism/Secularist club?! I don't know where to start attacking the issue. The Science Club, run by another science teacher, does jack shit, so do I start a new club or what? Do any of you have experience with this situation?
Start a group called The Exciting Science Club.
Really, sometimes you just have to go for it. I've now got the educational job I really wanted because I saw that the previous holder of the post did essentially jack shit, so I started nibbling away by starting some educational sessions - suddenly the people who came to my teaching wanted me to take over...sometimes the only way is to demonstrate that you can do a better job, though if you can get the other person on board that's a bonus. Always remember as well that things may have got 'boring' because they got tired carrying the load alone.
Posted by: efrique | August 25, 2009 2:25 AM
The graph doesn't show what you say it shows - it is displaying the same information twice (performers in top group) - once by numbers and once by percentage. The raw numbers (being population-dependent) are of little use in comparisons across countries.
All it shows is that the US
(i) has a big population; and
(ii) ranks about tenth in "top performer" percenatge
Averages would have been useful to know, but they don't give them in the graph.
Don't blame yourself though - the graph was confusing, because I made exactly the same error at first glance. Fortunately, my repeated exposure to bad graphs (I'm a statistician by trade) means I didn't just have a first glance...
Posted by: JosherK | August 25, 2009 2:34 AM
I'm trying to figure out why Mexico is missing from the first Graph, but present in the second graph... They both come from the same source...
I'm curious if they kept Mexico out of the first graph because it looked too much like the US - with a significant number of top-performers even though they comprise a small percentage. (If that were true, then their argument on US competitiveness would fall apart.) I suppose that's just speculation, but I'm still curious why the discrepancy?
Posted by: Roameo
|
August 25, 2009 2:35 AM
I'm pretty sure he got it the first time
Posted by: Patrick Julius | August 25, 2009 2:36 AM
Really, the goals of a thousand Carl Sagans and a billion minimally-educated laymen aren't mutually exclusive; indeed, they are probably mutually-reinforcing. The more really really smart people we have, the better we can figure out how to solve the problems that are inhibiting us from educating everyone.
Posted by: Paul Murray | August 25, 2009 2:41 AM
Yup, that graph is horrible.
I'd much rather see how the best students compare with the worst: students in each country ranked according to their score, divided into percentiles, and their score plotted (perhaps each percentile scaled by the average score for that percentile).
I'd also like to see, for each country, a plot of how each percentile correlates with student *wealth*.
Wouldn't mind playing with the data.
Posted by: Roameo
|
August 25, 2009 2:42 AM
Also, I'm no font-geek, but it sure looks like they drew up this "hand drawn" graph on a computer. Why would you go to that effort unless you were intentionally trying to misrepresent the data?
Posted by: windy | August 25, 2009 2:42 AM
Ahem! "Finland has finally shed a bleak record as one of the world’s suicide capitals after the number of people taking their own lives in this Nordic state has dropped by 40 percent in the past 15 years"
And yeah, the connection to the public school system seems a little tenuous, since "The typical profile of a Finnish suicide victim is a man in his 40s, divorced and unemployed, alcoholic and in poor health"
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 25, 2009 3:00 AM
JohnnieCanuck,
As having lived both in Canada and the US I agree they are overall very similar. When I speak with my (literal) American cousins we've seen the same movies, watch the same TV shows, and live similar life styles. Some Americans may even identify more with Canadians than with their fellow Americans. I remember reading an article a while ago (too tired to look it up) that showed in many ways the North Eastern US had more in common with Southern Ontario (where a big chunk of the Canadian population lives) than with the (American) South.
Going back to the article, I'm not sure why the authors scoff at the idea of looking to see what other countries are going to improve education in the US. If Canada, or any other country for that matter, produces a higher average and/or a larger percentage of students in the "top score group" why not try to learn from us? This can be done in addition to looking at what different states in the US are doing.
The article does make some good points, however some of the claims are quite suspicious. As Jadehawk@#81 noted the high suicide rate in Finland probably has more to do with high latitude than education or stress.
As for the graph, as others have mentioned it makes more sense if you read the Nature article. The low resolution, trend line, and design however.....
Posted by: Buffybot | August 25, 2009 3:07 AM
One possibility regarding the NZ results - when I was at high school in the late 80s the sciences were all electives at the higher levels, with no compulsory science classes beyond the fifth form (year 10). If this is still the case, the NZ sample could be self-selected for scientific interest and aptitude.
Posted by: David Richardson | August 25, 2009 3:44 AM
You might find the OECD's PISA site useful as a source of information about the methodology they use: http://www.pisa.oecd.org
Posted by: Heraclides | August 25, 2009 4:00 AM
@5: "First get a good teacher" ... which brings us back to how the teachers are trained and their qualifications. Yes, I know I keep banging on about this, but I am still startled at the idea that you can teach high school science without a basic science degree. (Ditto for other subjects.)
@44 (Adam Jarvis): NZ science teachers are trained and their is a national curriculum. Sure, later on in live some people seem to throw it all away...!
@Everyone: look at the second graph in the linked paper, the percentage of lowest-performing students. USA is just pipped by Mexico for the bottom position and Turkey outdoes the USA.
Posted by: Heraclides | August 25, 2009 4:03 AM
*Sigh*. 'there' for 'their' on line 5. Duh.
Posted by: XD | August 25, 2009 4:29 AM
How do we know that the "percentage of children in the top score group" is a good way of comparing nations?
Perhaps if Belgian students took the same tests as NZ students are given, and were marked in the same way, four percent of them would end up in the "top score group", instead of one percent.
This graph doesn't actually show anything.
Posted by: XD | August 25, 2009 4:34 AM
#91
I think this is something people forget when they talk of the ever increasing amount of UK students passing a-levels. If the student doesn't have the aptitude for such studies, they shouldn't be doing them. Pass rates should ideally be 100%. What's the point of wasting a couple years of a kids life doing something that they are going to fail?
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 25, 2009 5:04 AM
Jadehawk, #74
When I was a child we had advanced classes for the smart kids, and remedial classes for the slow. There was also the philosophy of little a kid advance at his own rate. But then the goal of keeping the students on the same page began being bruited about, largely because some teachers were complaining about all the extra work they had to do because some children were ahead of the others.
Then too there seems to be an emphasis on how to teach, instead of on what you're teaching. With a further emphasis on what the child knows, instead of helping the child to a better understanding of the subject in question.
In my considered opinion a lot of the problem lies in the fact we think educating our kids can be done cheaply. Not only in terms of money spent, but in terms of effort expended and resources utilized. We want to make teaching easy on the teacher, when it really should be a hard job requiring a lot of hard work. We have let the desire to please bureaucracy become more important that the desire to prepare children for life as adults, and our education suffers because of it.
So here's my radical proposal. All those eligible to vote in local, state, or federal elections shall have the right to vote on bureaucratic regulations at the local, state, and federal level; and should they agree that said regulation is onerous and worthy of worthy of repeal, said regulation shall be overturned and shall no longer apply. I'm sure the above could be better worded, but right now my brain isn't up to the task. How to get such a proposal enacted at any level of government is another question I'm not ready to answer, again because my brain is really up to it. Hopefully smarter and/or better educated people than I will have ideas.
Posted by: cartologist | August 25, 2009 6:06 AM
I read in USA today that a recent poll indicated that 50% of our citizens do not know that the earth revolves around the sun once a year. It's a coincidence because last week I just happened to have told both of my grandchildren this fact. They are three and five years old and already have a leg up on half the population....kewl.
Posted by: ollie | August 25, 2009 6:20 AM
The only thing that this chart says (percent versus number) is that we have a larger population than the other countries.
The chart for India and China would have huge spikes in the red graph as well.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | August 25, 2009 6:23 AM
What the graph does seem to show (assuming top students are assessed similarly) is that there is no correlation between national population and % of top students. So there is no excuse for the US poor ranking as the world's most powerful country. I bet that what the well performing country's share is strong national curriculums along with supported and valued teachers.
I agree with the value of demonstrations. The teacher's bench in the Chem lab at my school had a small dish shaped depression in it after the teacher added too much magnesium powder to a demonstration causing a hyper exothermic reaction which cracked the crucible and caused a cloud of green vapour/powder to ascend to the ceiling. We all repaired outside while the air cleared (fume hood? pah! that was for wimps). I also greatly remember the fun of adding concentrated sulphuric acid to sugar in a glass beaker. My memory of the 'Vesuvius' even overwhelms the fact that since I was the lab monitor (paid) i had to clean the beakers afterwards. Bio camp in the last year when we transepted and differently sampled an estuary, a beach/sand dune transition and a rocky shore (all 2min walk from the surf life saving station we were bunking in) followed by measurement, analysis and stats. Science should be doing at least as much as learning.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 25, 2009 6:53 AM
Once again, a large part of the answer (not all of it) lies in income inequality. Wilkinson and Pickett in Ch. 5 of The Spirit Level graph the mean of maths and literacy scores in 15-year-olds against income inequality: while there's some scatter, the overall trend is clear: more income inequality goes with lower scores. Same across states of the USA, and also, more children drop out of high school in more unequal US states. They also look at literacy scores in relation to parents' education in the US, UK, Belgium and Finland. While these countries score in that order at every level of parents' education(US lowest, Finland highest), the differences are greatest where parents had least education - so the existence of an "educated/ignorant divide" is confirmed.
Posted by: Mig Hein | August 25, 2009 7:12 AM
There is some information that can be taken from this admittedly horrible graph. It would have been better if the hi-performing student counts were shown as bars and the percentages with connected dots (used here for visual continuity NOT to indicate a series so I guess it's forgiveable).
What CAN be learned from the raw numbers in the chart is each nation's potential contribution to the world 'science pool'. So the US and Korea are still putting out candidates to be scientists (assuming a reasonable correlation between high-performing students and eventual entry into a scientific field).
As to the percentages, I'm not sure the differences shown here are that significant. Take 1,000 students and see how many are in the top scoring group. In NZ & Finland, it's around 40 and in the US it's around 17. It's a statistically significant difference but maybe not between Japan's 19 and the US's 17. Things may not be as bad as the crappy scale of the picture shows.
Regards,
Posted by: Heraclides | August 25, 2009 7:27 AM
I would strongly suggest that people check out the second graph in the linked paper, which shows the USA coming second-best on the percentage of lowest-performing students. USA is just pipped by Mexico, has a higher percentage of lowest-performing students that Turkey. These three are the front-runners for "highest percentage of lowest-performing students" by a sizeable margin.
Here's the link to the article again so you don't need to complain you can't find it ;-)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/453028a.html
Posted by: windy | August 25, 2009 8:02 AM
But it doesn't show that, it shows that USA has a large *total* number of lowest performing students, which is not surprising because it's not corrected for population size!
The "percentage of lowest performing students" y axis is just silly and misleading. For example, Japan has a much larger population than Germany or Italy, so if they have about the same number of lowest-performing students, you would expect Japan to have a lower percentage. Instead the bars are about the same size - they are only showing the total number of "lowest performing" students in each country.
Posted by: Sigmund | August 25, 2009 8:12 AM
There's something else that's not mentioned here, which is that the students who do best at science don't necessarily end up as scientists. The career structure in the US means that the top biology and chemistry students are pretty much forced into medicine - as that is the only career guaranteed to give them a decent income. Almost 19 out of 20 qualified researchers will fail to secure tenure in the US so an alternative income source is a necessity.
The worrying thing for American science (employers) would be that China eventually stops sending over their scientists to take up the slack.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 25, 2009 8:14 AM
The article does seem to contain a considerable amount of complete crap. For example:
With South Korea are Finland and New Zealand at the higher end of the global rankings of test scores and suicide rates.
According to WHO NZ's rates are very similar to the USA, and while Finland and South Korea are quite high, they are by no means at the top - a distinction held by Lithuania, with Belarus and the Russian Federation next. They also come in below many other eastern European states. (It should be noted that suicide statistics are notoriously difficult to compare internationally, because the degree to which it is a social taboo varies greatly, and where this is high, many suicides are likely to be misreported as accidents.)
The future educational path for the United States should come from looking within the country rather than lionizing faraway test-score champions... In America, little about the nation's condition can be gleaned from averages, whether by assessments of income or education. Our great opportunities as well as our great limitations seem to be accompanied by great disparities... As advocates of evidence-based policy, we argue that competitiveness and education policy should use the best available evidence as a guide and not be driven by impressions and rhetoric.
If they were really keen on evidence-based policy, they would not be ignoring the evidence - both international and from within the USA - that income inequality lowers educational performance. Oh, and if by "our great opportunities" they mean opportunities for individuals, they would know that US social mobility is low.
Posted by: lordshipmayhem
|
August 25, 2009 8:43 AM
It's not just how much money is spent: it's how the limited money that they do have gets spent, as well.
All too often, tons of money that should be spent in the classroom - on teachers, textbooks, etc. etc. - gets spent on administration, especially on information technology.
For the price of the IT department's time, they can set up a complete school IT system from servers to workstations with Edubuntu, including free educational and classroom management software, which doesn't need the most modern high-end hardware to run. Being open-source, the software can be modified if needs be. Being open-source, there are no licenses to track. Instead, most school boards across North America (indeed, in most jurisdictions around the planet) send loadsadough to places like Redmond for pricey but inherently insecure operating systems and maybe-as-good-as-open-source but $$$ closed-source applications requiring massive reinvestment in their hardware in order to run all that eye candy.
Then they wonder why their constrained budgets can't afford new biology lab equipment.
Posted by: Epinephrine | August 25, 2009 9:26 AM
Lousy graphs. Sloppy statistics.
There is no good news there, it simply shows that the USA is producing a mediocre percentage of top level students. Trying to brighten the news by pointing out how MANY students the USA produces is pointless, while it is true that there is a big population, all it does is underline how many more children are being poorly educated.
Posted by: vespera | August 25, 2009 10:21 AM
Yay for Rolf Andreassen (and other posters who said similar things). I was beginning to think, when PZ's interpretation of the graph didn't match mine AT ALL, that I'd become seriously ignorant or lost my mind.
Posted by: R. Schauer | August 25, 2009 12:05 PM
Oy vey, there is so much wrong with ALL education in the US and it starts here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education
...as you'll see and as some/most of you already know, the fracking CHURCH was in charge of education for a long, long, time. These bu-fuers fucked everything up, IMHO...and as is evident we are still dealing with the fallout and influence of their crapola to this day.
Throw the baby and the bathwater out...we need a total reboot and I hope education looks nothing like it currently does.
Some initial suggestions we might want to try:
-throw the church out of education!
-increase exposure to the sciences through video and live labs that are current.
-all learning competency based (no grade levels)
-hands-on learning as much as possible
-reduced tracking to apprenticeships or colleges...continued learner exposure to all knowledge, all the time.
-life-long learning based along desired skill-sets or interests
-student centered learning based on student interests
-greater overlap between all subject matter
-all school board members would have to demonstrate competency way beyond the current levels we're experiencing
-measure progress of learners and education programs pragmatically and scientifically.
-knock-out teacher training...teachers in this day and age must realize the rapid pace knowledge is accumulating and parse that knowledge more effectively for learners.
-be more experimental in education...realize how far off the mark we really are.
There is so much more we could and should be doing...but politics is stiffling any innovation in especially primary and secondary education through underfunding and under-appreciating the importance of education...will we ever learn?
Posted by: RickD | August 25, 2009 12:21 PM
Percentages! Counts!
Rolf is absolutely correct!
So much innumeracy, so little time.
Posted by: Peter G | August 25, 2009 12:51 PM
I hope everyone will forgive the comparison but the US is something of a Mecca for foreign students and immigrants seeking educational opportunities for their children. It is not clear to me from the data provided what the national origin of the top US students might be. That particular outlier may be skewed precisely because of the groups I cited.
Does taking a test in America make you American?
Posted by: IST | August 25, 2009 1:33 PM
My school's Sci dept. budget was reduced from $24,000 last year to $1400 this year... for 14 faculty with 6 sections of 30+ students each. The issue for lab equipment isn't things like stools, microscopes, and balances; The shortfall is going to hit things that are consu8mable supplies (chemicals, live specimens for bio, gloves, dissection specimens, etc). We're having to ask for lab fees for the first time, as those "donation sites" don't tend to sponsor those sorts of things (or if they do, you have to have enough points built up to request from outside their regular repetoire of catalogues.)
Posted by: AnonCoward | August 25, 2009 1:34 PM
Here's the whole PISA 2006 report for those who're interested, but found the graph way too uninformative...
Analysis (Vol 1): http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/17/39703267.pdf
Data (Vol 2): http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/18/39703566.pdf
Posted by: Govt. Bureaucrat | August 25, 2009 3:31 PM
Good going AnonCoward--you beat me to it.
In Volume 1, http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/17/39703267.pdf
see...
Page 51 (Fig 2.11a) for a better understanding of performance of USA 15 year olds in the PISA 2006 science study. Countries in black font are OECD members (i.e., richer) and those in blue font are non-OECD members (i.e., poorer.) We rank (as we have in the PISA math, and problem-solving studies) near the bottom of the OECD members (we do a bit better in reading.)
Page 62 (Fig 2.12b) How does our spending-per-student and science score compare to those of other nations. (We spend more than just about anybody.)
Page 61 (Fig 2.12a) Very thought provoking graph comparing science scores and national income. The USA is well below the trend line. The USA will likely "regress towards the mean" over time--but how? Increase the skills of our students, or decrease our national income?
Posted by: Govt. Bureaucrat | August 25, 2009 3:37 PM
Education spending in the USA...
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66
Posted by: Greg Peterson | August 25, 2009 4:59 PM
I'm glad someone mentioned DonorsChoose.org. I have had an extremely satisfying experience with that organization and urge everyone who cares about education and has a spare $20 to check it out. It's hard to feel that good with $20 without keeping an eye out for the cops.
Posted by: Dave Arthur | August 25, 2009 7:02 PM
New Zealand's at the top? REALLY? I'm a native, and basic scientific literacy is not that impressive here. There is plenty of unjustifiable bullsh*t being foisted for a buck here (including religion, of course), and plenty of willing consumers. It scares me that in the 21st century science education is going backwards. Will we see a generation with no tools for testing claims about reality? Do we already have one? We need a new enlightenment, science needs to be made sexy!
Posted by: Lycosid | August 25, 2009 8:09 PM
Coming from someone who teaches in a city, the top countries all have very homogenous populations. There's nothing like inner-city Philly or Baltimore in Finland.
Posted by: Lycosid | August 25, 2009 8:38 PM
Economically speaking!
Posted by: Govt. Bureaucrat | August 25, 2009 9:49 PM
>the top countries all have very homogenous populations...
Not universally true. Singapore has three distinct ethnic group with a long history of animosity and strife. They argued over whose language to use to teach school. The solution. NONE of the indigenous languages. They chose English. That would be equivalent to teaching all the kids in Baltimore in Japanese when they got to school.
James Fallows (of the Atlantic) who spent the last four years in China flat out says that China is a far, far more diverse place than the USA. Land in any city in China--drive 2-3 hours and when you get out the uneducated will be speaking another language, a few more hours and another language. All kids in school (are supposed to be) taught in Putonghua (Mandarin) so that different regions can speak to one another.
We have nothing to approach that level of diversity in the USA. "Their" diversity does not look like "our" diversity, but it is there.