Define 'Failing.'

[jackofallgeeks]

In short, I do think that the American educational system is failing, though all I have is empirical evidence, not numbers like in this article.

And numbers, especially statistics, never lie.</sarcasm>

Reading through it, though, I get a distinct feeling of some kind of bait-and-switch, smoke-and-mirrors argument that the schools aren't failing, despite the masses of people in America that can't recount pertinent history, use propper grammar, or even really be bothered to care about things like 'learning' and 'knowledge.'

Comments

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

A few quick reactions:

1. How exactly are numbers not "empirical evidence?" Yeah, statistics can be massaged in various ways, but NCES is a pretty solid outfit. The advantage of statistics over anecdotal evidence is that there are all sorts of well-known phenomena that anecdotal evidence is subject to (one of the most important being confirmation bias - the tendency to remember incidents that confirm a hypothesis rather than the disconfirming ones. E.g., the idiot who thought JFK was the first president makes more of an impression than the 10 normal people who knew it was Grover Cleveland*).

2. "propper" grammar, eh? :)

3. That said, the article slides around a bit in its argument. If the statistics are in the US' favor, why all the talk about how cram exams will boost other nations' scores? It can't be that we're fine AND our failings need to be explained. And, to go back to statistics, while it's fine to say that there are ways in which (e.g.) Americans are succeeding/failing that can't easily be quantified (do we have more emotional intelligence than the Indians?), you've got to say something more to back up the claim. It reminds me of a time I was talking to someone who claimed to be one of Tom de Lay's staffers (I actually sorta doubt he really was) who was telling me that I should totally back the Republicans because we were winning the war on terror, just in all sorts of ways that he couldn't tell me about...

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

I had had a long reply but it seems my mail client doesn't process posting properly, so it was lost. I'll attempt to restate myself:

1. True, numbers are empirical. What I really meant was anecdotal, I suppose, I just didn't have the word. And you're right, anecdotal evidence is subject to certain phenomena. And I'll also concede that the NCES is probably very careful with their data and probably doesn't have anything to gain by bending it one way or another. That having been said, this article is obviously a persuasive one, meaning he wants us to buy what he's selling. That being the case, using a respectable source doesn't make one respectable, and he could be misdirecting us with valid data to come to an invalid conclusion. Like I said, I feel a bait-and-switch here.

2. I said proper grammar, not spelling. :p

3. This is probably the bait-and-switch feeling I'm getting. On top of that, I have to confess that I don't find "we're no worse than anyone else" very reassuring. It seems we ought to be less concerned about our test scores v. their test score and more concerned with how our students are doing v. how they ought to be doing. Of course, "how they ought" is rather difficult to nail down, I'm just saying...

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

Fair enough, on all counts.

Incidentally, lest you think I'm an idiot, the * was originally supposed to go to a note that I was joking about Cleveland being the first president...

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

-laughs- I'm well aware. We all know it was Thomas Jefferson.