The Program for International Student Assessment, PISA, is a test administered to 15 year-olds every 3 years in over 70 developed countries around the world. Its stated goal is to assess the application of skills in Reading, Science, and Math to real life problems. In the US, this test is conducted by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES).
The results of the 2015 PISA tests were just released last month. The performance of the US on these tests can be charitably described as “mediocre”. Out of 72 countries, the US was 24th in Reading and 25th in Science. In Mathematics, vital in today’s technology-driven economy, the US finished 40th and has shown a steady decline during the entire history of this testing. If these PISA tests even approximately reflect the actual mastery of the subjects they purport to assess, we are in trouble.
Is the PISA test is somehow unfair to US students? If students from Singapore (#1 ranking in math) were to take a different math test designed to target the strengths of US students, do we really think the Singapore results wouldn’t be as good? While cultural bias is a possibility in these tests, it would be more likely to manifest itself in the Reading and Science portions and less so in the binary and objective world of Mathematics. Also, if there is bias, wouldn’t we have to conclude the test was only unfair to the US and to a much lesser degree, or not at all, to the 39 other countries that finished ahead of the US in math? Debating the fairness of the test, or setting out to design a different test that would cast us in a better light isn’t the point. We have to be honest about the fact that students either know the subject or they don’t. The PISA tests over the last 16 years indicate a relative knowledge deficit between the US and the rest of the developed world.
The US has participated in these tests for a long enough time to span multiple administrations of both Democrat and Republican leadership. Various education initiatives and programs at the federal level enacted by each administration have failed to change our standing in any meaningful way. In fact, the results have gotten worse in math. This test spans different cultures, types of government, and a wide range of economies. The very large sample size and student diversity of this test combined with the observed long term trends tend to suppress any one factor or program as being to blame for the US results, regardless of the administration in power. It’s clear that implementing programs that work around the edges or “fine tune” our present education system are ineffective at keeping pace with the rest of the world. If we are truly interested in make a change for the better, and a significant improvement at that, we need to change the foundation of our education system in the US.
The incoming administration is proposing just such a fundamental change to the system involving a heavy emphasis on school choice and innovative state solutions. Is it the exactly correct kind of change? Don’t know – but arguing against it suggests that the proposed solution has already been tried on a large scale for a long enough time and failed, or that there is a known better solution than the one being proposed. If there is a known better solution in existence, then why hasn’t it been implemented already? The last 16 years (five complete PISA testing cycles) have included equal reign of both Democrat and Republican leadership (8 years each). There’s been ample opportunity for either side to implement their own “best way”. In all this time, our standing relative to the rest of the world has not changed for the better. If the US trajectory in mathematics continues, a strong case could be made that any change may be better – we’d have nowhere to go but up. Fundamental change is never easy, and by its very nature will disrupt longstanding traditions and practices. We’ve reached the point where doing nothing is worse.