Page 1 of 2

It doesn't add up.

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 4:13 am
by Gob
I'm a fine one to talk, my maths skills are negligible.

The maths skills of teenagers in parts of the deep south of the United States are worse than in countries such as Turkey and barely above South American countries such as Chile and Mexico.

An international study of maths ability in the US shows how individual states would have performed if they were ranked against other countries, using the OECD's Pisa results as a benchmark.

The study also shows that privileged youngsters in the US, with highly-educated parents, are lagging behind similar youngsters in other developed countries.

This analysis, from academics at Harvard and Stanford in the US and Munich University in Germany, punctures the idea that middle-class US pupils are high achievers.

Southern states Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana are among the weakest performers, with results similar to developing countries such as Kazakhstan and Thailand.

West Virginia is also among the group of lowest performers, where maths levels are far below western European countries or high-performing Asian education systems in South Korea or Singapore.

The US has been a mediocre performer in international education tests, based on average performance across the country, but this study shows how this average conceals a remarkably wide range of successes and failures.

There is a band of high achieving states across the north of the US, where maths results would be as good as many successful European and Asian countries.

If Massachusetts had been considered as a separate entity it would have been the seventh best at maths in the world.

Minnesota, Vermont, New Jersey and Montana are all high performers.

But there is a long tail of underachievement that dips well below the levels of secondary school pupils in wealthier western European countries. It dips into levels closer to the second world than the first.

New York and California are similar in ability to countries such as Bulgaria, Rumania and Turkey, well below the averages for the US and OECD industrialised countries.

There are 23 US states which would be ranked below 30th place in an international ranking of 34 OECD countries at maths.

The study also overturns the idea that middle-class children in the US are as good as their international counterparts.

It shows that in the US, as in other countries, children from better educated, wealthier families will achieve better results than poorer children.

Among children of parents with a low level of education, only 17% were proficient in maths, compared with 43% of children from well-educated families.

But this standard of maths among well-educated families in US is well below their counterparts in other countries.

In Poland, 71% of children from well-educated families were likely to be proficient in maths. In Germany, 64% of better-off children were proficient at maths and 55% in France.

Even such a poor performance was unlikely to set off alarm bells, said Paul Peterson, report co-author and professor of government at Harvard University and director of the Program on Education Policy and Governance at the Harvard Kennedy School.

He said the tendency to make internal comparisons between different groups within the US had shielded the country from recognising how much they are being overtaken by international rivals.

"The American public has been trained to think about white versus minority, urban versus suburban, rich versus poor," he said.

The outcome was a misleading sense of complacency about middle-class education, which always appeared to be ahead, he said.

Report authors, Prof Peterson, Eric Hanushek at Stanford University and Ludger Woessmann at the University of Munich, wrote in Education Next magazine: "Lacking good information, it has been easy even for sophisticated Americans to be seduced by apologists who would have the public believe the problems are simply those of poor kids in central city schools. "

"Our results point in quite the opposite direction," .

The underachievement in some southern states was a reflection of deep-rooted historical divides and disadvantages, Prof Peterson said, such as slavery and segregation.

But the study raises questions about how other southern states can buck the trend, such as Texas.

Among the children of poorly educated families, Texas is a spectacularly strong performer, equivalent to sixth place in the OECD rankings, just behind Finland.

California raised another set of negative questions, said Prof Peterson, with a very low performance.

"California was historically thought to have a good education system, but it's plunged since the 1970s," he said.

It has an economy big enough to match many OECD countries, but in education comparisons it would be a lightweight, its maths performance weaker than in almost any other industrialised country.

"It's where the rubber hits the road," said Prof Peterson.

There were long-term implications from all this, he said. Industries were concentrating around areas with successful education systems. And success in education was linked to healthier and wealthier lives for individuals.

Rebecca Winthrop, director for the Center for Universal Education at the Brookings Institution, said the findings would "raise eyebrows". In particular, she thought it would be a wake-up call for well-educated parents who thought that worries about education were a problem for "other people's children".

But she said it was important to remember the great size of the country - and that even getting down to state level there were still huge underlying disparities and inequalities.

"California is in itself a huge place," she said. And any aggregate results are going to hide the gulf between schools serving the Silicon Valley super rich and the migrant poor.

Andreas Schleicher, responsible for the OECD's Pisa tests, said this study was a challenge to middle-class households who thought that debates about school standards did not apply to them.

"The general perception has typically been that this is mainly a concern around poor schools in poor neighbourhoods and so middle-class families have often not been particularly engaged in this," he said.

In the short term, he said, the US economy would be insulated against this underachievement because it still had a "strong skill base, simply because it was the first economy investing in universal education in the 1960s, and those people still make up a large part of the workforce".

But this legacy would not last forever.

"As time goes by, skill gaps will become increasingly apparent," he said.

The report authors conclude that as well as focusing on the gap between rich and poor, the US needs to pay more attention to the rear lights of their international rivals as they race away ahead of them.

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 1:40 pm
by Sue U
The maths skills of teenagers in parts of the deep south of the United States are worse than in countries such as Turkey and barely above South American countries such as Chile and Mexico.
The geography skills of the BBC are no great shakes, either, apparently.
Minnesota, Vermont, New Jersey and Montana are all high performers.
I credit my state's high score to my son, who is something of a math whiz. I have no idea where he gets it; if I could do math, I would have been a hedge fund manager.

But seriously, what does it mean to be "proficient" in math? In the daily lives of the vast majority of the world, I can't imagine having to resort to anything more advanced than the basics of geometry (how much paint do I need for this room?) and algebra (how much is "30% off"?). If I were an engineer or a scientist I could see having a professional need for trigonometry and calculus, but for day-to-day activities of life I simply don't see the application. How much skill and knowledge does one need to be "proficient," and why?

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 2:42 pm
by Big RR
Actually sue, a lot of what you're talking about is arithmetic--calculating a discounted price, calculating the area of a room, balancing a checkbook, etc., and I do think these skills are lacking in many, but not just young students. The availability of calculators and online services have caused a lot of people to ignore these skills, and when they are ignored, they do tend to be lost. Is this necessarily bad? I don't know; certainly it makes us much more reliant on our tools, but then, we have been heading that way for a long time--few can make a fire (even with matches) without a chemical starter, but most know how to turn on the stove or heat, e.g.

As for more advanced mathematical concepts, I do think proficiency in math promotes adherence to a particular form of problem solving (and logic) even with nonmathematical problems, but you're right, who really needs to solve quadratic equations or calculate integrals unless your job requires it?

We are moving into the future, and some of the skills we needed in the past will be lost, or consigned to the halls of trivia. But it's sad to see some go.

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 5:11 pm
by Guinevere
If Massachusetts had been considered as a separate entity it would have been the seventh best at maths in the world.
Whatever "maths" is.

I agree with BigRR that what is important about learning more sophisticated math concepts is the thought process and the application of logic. That kind of instruction will always be valuable.

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 5:32 pm
by Sue U
Guinevere wrote: Whatever "maths" is.
[meademode]Shorely, "'maths' are," n'est-ce pas?[/meademode]

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 8:26 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Harrumph! Impostor! "Maths" is neither plural or singular, being unsubject (oddly enough) to quantity but in any case it cannot possess either 'are' or 'is'. If it were plural, then a possessive apostrophe is off side, 5 yard penalty and repeat the down. If it were singular, then "are" is in error in addition to the apostrophe.

Maths is an abbreviation of "MATHematicS", a word that is already in a singular form (though not in quantity) and that has no plural form at all.

There is no class taught under the name "mathematic". Therefore, the "English as a second language" Americanism "math" (as an abbreviated way of conveying the idea "mathematics") is of course a faux pas, is de trop and utterly non-u.

Gob's "my maths skills are..." is correct. Guin's "whatever maths is" is also correct.

yrs
Maggie :geek:

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 8:29 pm
by Joe Guy
That was a well calculated answer but could be divisive to sum.

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 8:35 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Figures!

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 9:43 pm
by Long Run
This analysis, from academics at Harvard and Stanford in the US and Munich University in Germany, punctures the idea that middle-class US pupils are high achievers.
This is a fine idea, but not too many people I know have ever believed that.

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 12:42 am
by Sue U
MajGenl.Meade wrote:Harrumph! Impostor! "Maths" is neither plural or singular, being unsubject (oddly enough) to quantity but in any case it cannot possess either 'are' or 'is'. If it were plural, then a possessive apostrophe is off side, 5 yard penalty and repeat the down. If it were singular, then "are" is in error in addition to the apostrophe.
Um, that wasn't an apostrophe, them was single quotes (around "maths") used to denote a quote within a quote. Harrumph indeed!

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 1:09 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Sue U wrote:
MajGenl.Meade wrote:Harrumph! Impostor! "Maths" is neither plural or singular, being unsubject (oddly enough) to quantity but in any case it cannot possess either 'are' or 'is'. If it were plural, then a possessive apostrophe is off side, 5 yard penalty and repeat the down. If it were singular, then "are" is in error in addition to the apostrophe.
Um, that wasn't an apostrophe, them was single quotes (around "maths") used to denote a quote within a quote. Harrumph indeed!
Ah the old "'. That just leaves the incorrect "maths are" then. :P

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 2:12 pm
by Big RR
Therefore, the "English as a second language" Americanism "math" (as an abbreviated way of conveying the idea "mathematics") is of course a faux pas
And you learned this where, in your econs studies? After all, Econs is the proper abbreviated form of ECONomics, right?

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 7:34 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
It is permitted to lose the "s" when the abbreviation begins with a vowel and is expressed as two syllables. Thus, it is Ee-con and not eakon (if you see what I mean?).

This also applies when the abbreviation can be confused with the name of a food - linguistics for example may be known as linguini because everyone likes to get their tongue round it. It may be lingus I suppose for the same reason. Physics of course may be called "phys" because no one knows which s was retained.

Should be clear now.

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 11:26 pm
by BoSoxGal
The other day I had a bill owed at a local coffee shop of $5 and some odd change; I handed the clerk a $10 bill and a $1 bill, whereupon she looked at me like I had a third eye and tried handing the $1 back to me. I explained that I would like a $5 bill + change in return, rather than $1s + change.

It was nearly painful watching her laboriously calculate in her mind the change required.

Surely ability to make change with basic denominations of currency should fall under proficiency in maths necessitated by life's demands, and might be more important in the long run than calculus?

This was in the high-maths-achieving state of Montana, no less.

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 12:00 am
by Econoline
You should have just accepted the $4.xx she was about to hand you, then handed her that plus your single and asked for a five for five singles. (Much less confusing for her pretty little mind.) OTOH, the type of person who always relies on a cash register to figure the change rather than ever doing any math in her head would have simply put in the amount of the check ($5.xx) and the amount of your payment ($11.00) and seen immediately that she owed you $5.xx in change.

But all that's just simple elementary school arithmetic. I would repeat Sue's question, "But seriously, what does it mean to be "proficient" in math?"



P.S. BTW...welcome back, BSG. (If you are back, that is; if not, I'll just wave as you quickly pass through.)

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 12:10 am
by BoSoxGal
Thanks, Econoline. I come in peace and hope not to stir up any trouble; I've been very busy with both work and personal life, but have missed you all - friends who raise my ire, and friends who don't, alike. Hopefully my new signature line will express to all my desire to participate here without a revisiting of old arguments.

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 12:13 am
by Gob
I game to let bygones be bygones, I'm sure most are.

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 12:21 am
by Sue U
"Life is a long lesson in humility."

Boy, ain't that the truth.

Welcome back, BSG

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 12:50 am
by Lord Jim
Nice to see you back here BSG... :ok

Re: It doesn't add up.

Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 1:08 am
by Guinevere
Sue U wrote:"Life is a long lesson in humility."

Boy, ain't that the truth.

Welcome back, BSG
I think it's really just long hand for "welcome to your 40s" 8-)

Welcome, BSG