The General Accounting Office issued this report at the behest of four Senators. It offers the first close look we've ever seen at the federal government's own two "school systems," the one run by the Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) with 47,000 pupils and the one run by the Defense Department (DOD) with 108,000 students.
The General Accounting Office issued this report at the behest of four Senators. It offers the first close look we've ever seen at the federal government's own two "school systems," the one run by the Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) with 47,000 pupils and the one run by the Defense Department (DOD) with 108,000 students. There is bad news in the former case, good news in the latter. In the GAO's words, "The academic achievement of many BIA students...is far below the performance of students in public schools [although] estimated per-pupil expenditures...are generally higher than for public schools nationally.... The academic achievement of DOD students...generally exceeds that of elementary and secondary students nationwide.... Estimated per-pupil expenditures at DOD schools located overseas were higher than expenditures for those located in the U.S.... [which] are much closer to national per-pupil expenditures." There's considerably more detail on both systems, particularly dealing with student achievement, teacher qualifications, access to technology, and physical facilities (which apparently are dreadfully dilapidated in many BIA schools). It's written in typical "just the facts" GAO style. And it includes comments by both federal agencies involved: brief thanks from DOD and a lengthy rejoinder from BIA (on which the GAO comments). If you'd like to see it, you'll find a PDF at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01934.pdf. Hard copies are available from the GAO at P.O. Box 37050, Washington, DC 20013 or 202-512-6000.
edited by Paul Peterson and David Campbell, The Brookings Institution, 2001
Brookings has just published this valuable new collection of essays and commentaries arising out of a Harvard conference in March 2000. It's the only volume we know that examines both vouchers and charter schools and draws comparisons, contrasts and other relationships between these two reform strategies. The fifteen essays include several on each of those reforms, several on the effects of choice on public education, two on the linkages between school choice and civic education, and a pair of thoughtful "reflections" by Paul Hill and Diane Ravitch. Well worth having on your shelf - and even reading! The ISBN is 0815770278. You can most easily track it down by surfing to http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/charters_vouchers.htm
edited by Don McAdams, Paul Hill and Jim Harvey, Center for Reform of School Systems, 2001
Houston has been much noticed of late, mainly because it's showing better results than most urban school systems, partly because former HISD superintendent Rod Paige is now U.S. Secretary of Education, partly because its reform-minded school board is so unusual, and partly because veteran board member Don McAdams is trying to help other cities effect the kinds of education reforms that appear to be working in Houston. This report from McAdams's Center for Reform of School Systems summarizes findings reported at a Houston conference in October 2000. Edited by McAdams, Paul Hill and Jim Harvey, it's not a collection of loosely joined papers but, rather, a coherent forty-page analysis. (It lists - but does not otherwise help the reader to obtain - the eleven papers discussed at that conference, including one by Gadfly editor Marci Kanstoroom and one by Fordham trustee Bruno Manno.) It provides data about HISD and information on the reform strategies underway there, organized primarily under the themes of accountability, capacity and empowerment. Perhaps its most important contribution is helping readers see the coherence - the master plan, even - of much of what's been done in Houston under the heading of school reform. If you'd like a copy, contact Don McAdams by e-mailing [email protected], write the Center for Reform of School Systems, 123 North Post Oak Lane, #405, Houston, TX 77024, or phone (713) 682-9888.
National Center for Education Statistics, December 2001
American 15-year-olds are about average compared with their peers in other advanced countries when it comes to their ability to apply reading, math and science skills to real-life situations. This according to the new Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the results of which were released this week. In both math literacy and science literacy, U.S. students scored well below their counterparts in countries such as Japan, Korea and Finland. In reading literacy, Finland, Canada and New Zealand led the pack. For this project, the United States joined with 27 other member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and four non-OECD countries to devise a survey that was given to 265,000 students in 32 lands. Unlike other international education appraisals, this one focuses on students' knowledge and skills in the context of everyday situations rather than their curricular mastery. The PISA results are in line with other international studies that show American students to be average in their understanding of math and science. According to the OECD's deputy director for education Barry McGaw, the explanation is that many young Americans score very badly; what the U.S. needs to do, he says, is pull up the bottom. In countries like Finland, Japan, and South Korea there is a much narrower gap between the highest and lowest performers than is in the United States. For those American students who scored well, one explanatory factor seems to be access to teachers with university degrees in the subjects they're teaching. You can access the report - a print version of which is forthcoming - online at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002115.
Donna Walker James, Sonia Jurich and Steve Estes, American Youth Policy Forum, 2001
This report, the fourth in an American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF) series highlighting academic and social programs that "make a difference" for young people, provides background data on minority achievement and summarizes existing research on programs that have boosted African-American, Latino and Native American academic achievement. The report profiles 38 successful programs, ranging from the celebrated KIPP Academies of Houston and the Bronx to less well known efforts like Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID), a challenging college preparatory program targeted at low-income teenagers. The report describes each program and recaps the results of studies undertaken by independent researchers using data collected by program administrators. Although no single strategy for success was common to all programs, frequently cited elements include some predictable and key items: meticulous planning and adherence to goals; leaders who lead by example; measuring progress based on pre-established benchmarks; academically demanding curricula; extensive professional development; and family involvement. AYPF concludes that 1) "commitment to all students, more than specific strategies, appears to prevail as the main contributing factor of success," and 2) progress in narrowing the achievement gap is frustratingly slow, due in part to the perpetuation of ineffective programs based on shoddy research and evaluation practices. View the report at http://www.aypf.org/rmaa/index.html or order a copy for $10 at http://www.aypf.org/pubs.htm or by sending a check to American Youth Policy Forum, 1836 Jefferson Place, NW, Washington DC 20036-2505.
Eric A. Hanushek, John F. Kain and Steve G. Rivkin, National Bureau of Economic Research, November 2001
Economists Eric Hanushek, John Kain and Steve Rivkin teamed up for this provocative - some might even say explosive - new paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research. They set out to try to determine why teachers change schools or leave teaching. Their data source is Texas. Their bottom line: It's the kids, not the money. It seems that the more disadvantaged (and minority) the students, the less apt are white teachers to remain in those schools. (There is also some evidence that minority teachers tend to prefer minority pupils.) The effect of student body composition on teacher mobility is stronger than the effect of salary. But paying teachers more can overcome their propensity to leave poor and heavily minority schools. This price tag can be hefty, however: "[S]chools serving a high proportion of students who are academically very disadvantaged and either black or Hispanic may have to pay an additional 20, 30 or even 50 percent more in salary than those schools serving a predominantly white or Asian, academically well-prepared student body." Across-the-board salary increases for all teachers won't accomplish this. This looks to us like a pretty strong argument for what some term "combat pay" for teachers in challenging schools - and for redoubling efforts to recruit more minority teachers. If you'd like to see for yourself, you can download the paper for $5 from http://www.nber.org/papers/w8599.
In an article in Adolescent Medicine, Paul Hill explains why most large, urban high schools are not only ineffective but actually harmful to adolescents - especially low-income and minority students - and what can be done about them. These schools are widely known to be plagued by low standards, poorly qualified teachers, frequent leadership changes, violence and a lack of decorum, but Hill argues that what is most lethal is the fundamental disconnect between what happens inside the schoolhouse and what happens afterwards when students move on. Students can pass through the doors of these mammoth institutions, meet all their requirements, and still face the same dead-end jobs - or worse - upon graduation that they would have faced had they dropped out of school. That's because the schools are weak, divided and isolated, "worlds unto themselves that maintain few meaningful links with outsiders, including parents, community organizations and employers." Teachers cultivate a disdain for the business economy and act like college professors, focusing on their own subjects and letting others figure out if there is any real use for the material they teach. Is the situation hopeless? Hill says no and describes three types of high schools - Catholic schools, career magnet schools, and new small public schools - that have had remarkable success in educating and motivating poor and minority students. These successful schools tend to have a specific vision, standards and goals; a unified approach to instruction; a commitment to personalization; links to "external validators" (alumni, employers, and college admissions officers); school-level autonomy; and - most important of all - family and teacher choice. According to Hill, there is "almost no exaggerating the importance of family choice. The fact that families can choose forces schools to say what they will provide and make sure they deliver." Choice, while no panacea, "appears to be a necessary condition for the creation and survival of high schools that effectively link disadvantaged urban students to positive adult futures." For more, including brief recommendations for health professionals on how to help adolescents traverse high school safely, see "High Schools and Development of Healthy Young People," Paul T. Hill, Adolescent Medicine, October 2001.
It's nice to reoccupy this space after making room for two terrific guest editorials and a week's hiatus at Thanksgiving. Allow me to bend your ear, as it were, on a quartet of important issues.
* * * *
The long Elementary and Secondary Education Act (E.S.E.A.) drama appears at long last to have reached its final act. As the Gadfly heads toward cyberspace this week, the one big issue awaiting resolution is special education funding. You may well ask how this crept into E.S.E.A. in the first place, as special ed is governed by a different statute (I.D.E.A.) that's due for renewal next year. The answer is that the Senate version of E.S.E.A. was burdened with an amendment to turn Washington's portion of I.D.E.A. funding into an "entitlement" (i.e. remove it from the annual budget-and-appropriations cycle) and, over a few years, boost it to the long-promised 40 percent level that, in this peculiar policy arena, is termed "full funding." Why forty percent?, you may wonder. No reason, save that Congress plucked it out of the air and wrote it into the original special ed law a quarter century ago. Forty percent of what?, you may also wonder. No, not, as you might surmise, the actual costs of special education. Rather, it's forty percent of average per pupil expenditures on regular education. In other words, based on absolutely nothing, Congress guestimated that educating a disabled child would cost twice as much as educating a non-disabled youngster and, also based on absolutely nothing, dangled the promise that Uncle Sam would someday cover two-fifths of that extra cost.
That this promise has never been kept, even as the burdens of this costly federal mandate have worsened, is the source of much fiscal angst among states and school districts. So the Senate decided to ease the pain by writing special-ed fiscal relief into E.S.E.A. The House and White House both demurred. All agree that more money should be spent on special ed, but the administration and its House allies contend (as do we at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and our colleagues at the Progressive Policy Institute, as explained in our joint volume Rethinking Special Education for a New Century) that this program needs a thorough overhaul and that the surest way to keep that from happening is to "fully fund" the unreformed program.
Once this fractious issue gets resolved, the E.S.E.A. bill should speedily make its way to the Oval Office for the President's signature. Expect much hoopla.
* * * *
Why aren't schools more entrepreneurial? Why do so many educators and policy makers insist on rationing scarce programs for which there is keen demand rather than make more of them available? Why do schools (and colleges) prefer to become more selective instead of growing, opening branch campuses, or otherwise serving more students?
This burr has been under my saddle for a long while, but it intensified with The Washington Post's December 1 account of the increasingly elaborate efforts being made by parents and students seeking admission to Fairfax County's super-elite Thomas Jefferson High School for Math and Science. These include late-evening test prep sessions and advice from admissions counselors on elementary school extracurricular activities. This excellent school now accepts just 15% of 3000 annual applicants, putting it into the same selectivity league as Princeton.
Regrettably, the Fairfax County school system is also behaving like Princeton rather than acting in the public interest. I've no idea how many of the 3000 applicants (for 420 spots) are capable of doing the work, but suppose a third of them are very strong candidates. That means Fairfax County could more than double the size of this school, or open another like it, without letting its standards slip. But of course that doesn't happen. (The school board reportedly plans, instead, to enlarge the entering class slightly to accommodate a few more disadvantaged and minority youngsters.) Public schools - and, alas, many private schools - almost never think the way the real world does, namely that increased demand should lead to increased supply. Let's hear it for a wide open education marketplace where students and parents get what they want rather than what bureaucrats and bean counters are willing to let them have.
* * * *
We continue to see disturbing gaps in the curricular guidance spreading through the education system in the aftermath of September 11th's terrorist attacks. We find tons of advice to educators to comfort children, teach them tolerance and burnish their multicultural sensibilities, but very little that passes for rigorous history, civics and patriotism lessons. You will find this problem - I hope you agree that it's a problem - examined by Diane Ravitch in Education Week; by David T. Gordon in the November-December issue of the Harvard Education Letter; by Stanford professor William Damon in an essay, "Restoring Civil Identity Among the Young," which can be found in a new book, Making Good Citizens, edited by Ravitch and Joseph Viteritti; and by yours truly in the December issue of Commentary ("Teachers, Terrorists, and Tolerance," Commentary, December 2001; not available online).
A partial solution to this problem was unveiled yesterday when Bill Bennett's K12, Inc. put onto its website a whole new Internet-based "American Patriotism" program, designed for parents, children and educators, suitable for most age and grade levels, and featuring many appealing features (e.g. on-line storybooks) in addition to some of the eternal centerpieces of American civics. This excellent curricular offering is available at no cost at http://patriot.k12.com/jsp/patsignup.jsp (requires registration). You can also call (888) 968-6512 for further information.
* * * *
Would that these civics lessons were translated into Arabic, Farsi and Pashto! For when we look overseas at the "madrasas" attended by many students in Islamic lands (and at the public schools in some of those same lands), we see the opposite of instruction in tolerance, freedom and democracy. Instead, we see children being taught fundamentalism, anti-Americanism and hatred of Christians, Jews and other "infidels." Youngsters are, in effect, being recruited by their very schools for jihad against the west. With millions of boys (and some girls) affected, no easy solution to this problem is in sight. And where it's entrenched in the government's own schools and policies (as seems to be the case in Saudi Arabia, for example), it's hard to know where even to begin.
A recent Associated Press report from Pakistan offers a bit of hope, however, for a "policy solution" that might even be furthered with foreign economic assistance. We read that "Pakistan's military-led government plans to rein in the country's religious schools, state-funded institutions that sent thousands of young students to fight alongside the Islamic militia. A new law boosts funding to Islamic schools, or madrasas, that adopt modern subjects, including science, computers, English and math. The government also plans to cut funding to those schools deemed to breed extremism and violence....Government officials said Friday they planned to establish a board to regulate and monitor the madrasas and to make sure their students don't indulge in violence. They also announced plans to set up three model Islamic schools as early as March."
But please don't exhale yet. The A.P. also reports that "Leaders of some of the schools predicted violence if the government tries to enforce the law. 'It is an attempt to destroy Islamic education, divorce us from our religion and divide the Muslims,' said Maulana Sami-ul Haq, a powerful political leader who runs a large religious school.... 'They will resist it in every town and city.'"
Arizona could become the second state (after Iowa) to do away with its seniority-based pay scale for teachers and replace it with a system in which teachers are paid based on how effective they are. But daunting obstacles lie ahead. A task force of business and education leaders appointed by Governor Jane Hull is on the verge of recommending a performance-based pay plan that would dramatically hike starting salaries and reward teachers based on student progress, parent satisfaction and professional development, according to an article in The Arizona Republic. Although many Arizona lawmakers seem open to the proposal, it would bear a hefty price tag - probably too hefty for the state to bear given a $1.6 billion budget deficit (and considering that voters already raised sales taxes to lift teacher salaries to their current level). In addition to the usual union foes, the plan also faces opposition from the new state schools chief and from local board members who are complaining that the system would undermine their authority to formulate teacher performance plans. "Teacher salaries facing overhaul," Robbie Sherwood, The Arizona Republic, November 28, 2001.
Reducing class size is a reform that is popular with teachers, parents, and the education establishment, but policymakers need more solid information about the costs and benefits of other reform options before they commit billions more dollars to across-the-board class-size reduction. So conclude four respected education researchers in a careful six-page overview of the evidence on class size that appears in last month's Scientific American. Hundreds of studies of the effect of class size reduction on student achievement have been inconclusive, but fresh analyses of data from the Project STAR experiment in Tennessee and new data from California and the SAGE study in Wisconsin suggest that students (particularly minority students) can benefit from very small classes in the early grades, though how large the benefit is and how long it lasts are debated. Even if class size does make a difference, however, the researchers argue that California's effort to reduce class size in grades K-3 statewide is a poorly designed policy that will consume billions of dollars ($5 billion so far) and produce miniscule gains while exacerbating the problem that California's urban districts already have finding qualified teachers. Policymakers ought to consider other options like attracting and hiring better teachers, the analysts suggest. Sidebars accompanying the article examine why it is that smaller classes might benefit children, given that teachers who are assigned smaller classes tend not to change their teaching styles or spend much more time with individual pupils, and how Japan manages with 40 students per teacher in elementary school classes. "Does Class Size Matter?" by Ronald Ehrenberg, Dominic Brewer, Adam Gamoran, and Douglas Willms, Scientific American, November 2001 (not available online). A longer version of the article appeared in Psychological Science and the Public Interest in May 2001.
In October 2001, the Abell Foundation released a study on teacher certification which included a comprehensive review of all studies that investigate whether certified teachers are more effective than teachers without traditional state certification (and a related question, whether formal teacher training from a school of education is correlated with greater student achievement). The study, Teacher Certification Reconsidered: Stumbling for Quality, by Kate Walsh, found that nearly all of the 150 studies commonly cited in support of teacher certification and formal teacher training have serious flaws. In the absence of solid evidence that certified teachers are superior to non-certified teachers, Walsh argued, there is little reason to insist that only people trained in state-approved teacher education programs be allowed to teach. A few weeks after the Abell Foundation report was released, Linda Darling-Hammond of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (and one of the leading advocates for stiffer certification requirements) published a 71-page response in which she charged that Walsh ignored and misrepresented the findings of a number of studies that she reviewed. This week, the Abell Foundation released a rejoinder to Linda Darling-Hammond's response. In the rejoinder, Kate Walsh and University of Missouri economist Michael Podgursky refute each of Darling-Hammond's specific charges and assertions and analyze all studies over which there was disagreement. There is also a short list of corrections. The Abell rejoinder (as well as the original study) can be found at http://www.abell.org/ . The Darling-Hammond response is at http://www.nctaf.org/whatsnew/abell_response.pdf.
For an ed school professor's analysis of the rhetoric used by both sides in the debate over reforming teacher training, see "Sticks, Stones and Ideology: The Discourse of Reform in Teacher Education," by Marilyn Cochran-Smith and Mary Kim Fries, Educational Researcher, November 2001.
The General Accounting Office issued this report at the behest of four Senators. It offers the first close look we've ever seen at the federal government's own two "school systems," the one run by the Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) with 47,000 pupils and the one run by the Defense Department (DOD) with 108,000 students. There is bad news in the former case, good news in the latter. In the GAO's words, "The academic achievement of many BIA students...is far below the performance of students in public schools [although] estimated per-pupil expenditures...are generally higher than for public schools nationally.... The academic achievement of DOD students...generally exceeds that of elementary and secondary students nationwide.... Estimated per-pupil expenditures at DOD schools located overseas were higher than expenditures for those located in the U.S.... [which] are much closer to national per-pupil expenditures." There's considerably more detail on both systems, particularly dealing with student achievement, teacher qualifications, access to technology, and physical facilities (which apparently are dreadfully dilapidated in many BIA schools). It's written in typical "just the facts" GAO style. And it includes comments by both federal agencies involved: brief thanks from DOD and a lengthy rejoinder from BIA (on which the GAO comments). If you'd like to see it, you'll find a PDF at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01934.pdf. Hard copies are available from the GAO at P.O. Box 37050, Washington, DC 20013 or 202-512-6000.
Donna Walker James, Sonia Jurich and Steve Estes, American Youth Policy Forum, 2001
This report, the fourth in an American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF) series highlighting academic and social programs that "make a difference" for young people, provides background data on minority achievement and summarizes existing research on programs that have boosted African-American, Latino and Native American academic achievement. The report profiles 38 successful programs, ranging from the celebrated KIPP Academies of Houston and the Bronx to less well known efforts like Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID), a challenging college preparatory program targeted at low-income teenagers. The report describes each program and recaps the results of studies undertaken by independent researchers using data collected by program administrators. Although no single strategy for success was common to all programs, frequently cited elements include some predictable and key items: meticulous planning and adherence to goals; leaders who lead by example; measuring progress based on pre-established benchmarks; academically demanding curricula; extensive professional development; and family involvement. AYPF concludes that 1) "commitment to all students, more than specific strategies, appears to prevail as the main contributing factor of success," and 2) progress in narrowing the achievement gap is frustratingly slow, due in part to the perpetuation of ineffective programs based on shoddy research and evaluation practices. View the report at http://www.aypf.org/rmaa/index.html or order a copy for $10 at http://www.aypf.org/pubs.htm or by sending a check to American Youth Policy Forum, 1836 Jefferson Place, NW, Washington DC 20036-2505.
edited by Don McAdams, Paul Hill and Jim Harvey, Center for Reform of School Systems, 2001
Houston has been much noticed of late, mainly because it's showing better results than most urban school systems, partly because former HISD superintendent Rod Paige is now U.S. Secretary of Education, partly because its reform-minded school board is so unusual, and partly because veteran board member Don McAdams is trying to help other cities effect the kinds of education reforms that appear to be working in Houston. This report from McAdams's Center for Reform of School Systems summarizes findings reported at a Houston conference in October 2000. Edited by McAdams, Paul Hill and Jim Harvey, it's not a collection of loosely joined papers but, rather, a coherent forty-page analysis. (It lists - but does not otherwise help the reader to obtain - the eleven papers discussed at that conference, including one by Gadfly editor Marci Kanstoroom and one by Fordham trustee Bruno Manno.) It provides data about HISD and information on the reform strategies underway there, organized primarily under the themes of accountability, capacity and empowerment. Perhaps its most important contribution is helping readers see the coherence - the master plan, even - of much of what's been done in Houston under the heading of school reform. If you'd like a copy, contact Don McAdams by e-mailing [email protected], write the Center for Reform of School Systems, 123 North Post Oak Lane, #405, Houston, TX 77024, or phone (713) 682-9888.
edited by Paul Peterson and David Campbell, The Brookings Institution, 2001
Brookings has just published this valuable new collection of essays and commentaries arising out of a Harvard conference in March 2000. It's the only volume we know that examines both vouchers and charter schools and draws comparisons, contrasts and other relationships between these two reform strategies. The fifteen essays include several on each of those reforms, several on the effects of choice on public education, two on the linkages between school choice and civic education, and a pair of thoughtful "reflections" by Paul Hill and Diane Ravitch. Well worth having on your shelf - and even reading! The ISBN is 0815770278. You can most easily track it down by surfing to http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/charters_vouchers.htm
Eric A. Hanushek, John F. Kain and Steve G. Rivkin, National Bureau of Economic Research, November 2001
Economists Eric Hanushek, John Kain and Steve Rivkin teamed up for this provocative - some might even say explosive - new paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research. They set out to try to determine why teachers change schools or leave teaching. Their data source is Texas. Their bottom line: It's the kids, not the money. It seems that the more disadvantaged (and minority) the students, the less apt are white teachers to remain in those schools. (There is also some evidence that minority teachers tend to prefer minority pupils.) The effect of student body composition on teacher mobility is stronger than the effect of salary. But paying teachers more can overcome their propensity to leave poor and heavily minority schools. This price tag can be hefty, however: "[S]chools serving a high proportion of students who are academically very disadvantaged and either black or Hispanic may have to pay an additional 20, 30 or even 50 percent more in salary than those schools serving a predominantly white or Asian, academically well-prepared student body." Across-the-board salary increases for all teachers won't accomplish this. This looks to us like a pretty strong argument for what some term "combat pay" for teachers in challenging schools - and for redoubling efforts to recruit more minority teachers. If you'd like to see for yourself, you can download the paper for $5 from http://www.nber.org/papers/w8599.
National Center for Education Statistics, December 2001
American 15-year-olds are about average compared with their peers in other advanced countries when it comes to their ability to apply reading, math and science skills to real-life situations. This according to the new Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the results of which were released this week. In both math literacy and science literacy, U.S. students scored well below their counterparts in countries such as Japan, Korea and Finland. In reading literacy, Finland, Canada and New Zealand led the pack. For this project, the United States joined with 27 other member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and four non-OECD countries to devise a survey that was given to 265,000 students in 32 lands. Unlike other international education appraisals, this one focuses on students' knowledge and skills in the context of everyday situations rather than their curricular mastery. The PISA results are in line with other international studies that show American students to be average in their understanding of math and science. According to the OECD's deputy director for education Barry McGaw, the explanation is that many young Americans score very badly; what the U.S. needs to do, he says, is pull up the bottom. In countries like Finland, Japan, and South Korea there is a much narrower gap between the highest and lowest performers than is in the United States. For those American students who scored well, one explanatory factor seems to be access to teachers with university degrees in the subjects they're teaching. You can access the report - a print version of which is forthcoming - online at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002115.
