IAP NEWS UPDATEDecember 2010 – January 6th 2011

Publication: The Principal DifferenceTitle: PISA: It's Poverty Not StupidDate: December 15st, 2010Author: Richard VaughnWebsite: http://nasspblogs.org/principaldifference/2010/12/pisa_its_poverty_not_stupid_1.htmlSurvey: PISA

“There are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain

The release of the 2009 PISA results this past week has created quite a stir and has provided ample fodder for public school bashers and doomsayers who further their own philosophical and profit-motivated agendas by painting all public schools as failing. For whatever reason, these so-called experts, many of whom have had little or no actual exposure to public schools, refuse to paint an accurate picture of the state of education.

Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, should be providing the nation with a proper vision and focus for public education. He knows our challenges all too well. He confirmed that he gets it when he recently wrote me saying, "We must build a culture nationally where great educators ... choose to work with children and communities who need the most help." I believe his message is sincere and heartfelt and it is spot on. However, overstating a problem in order to increase the sense of urgency around school improvement is just as bad as understating the problem.

This week, Duncan had a golden opportunity to use the PISA results to provide focus for our education efforts and to point us in the right direction. Instead, he dug himself deeper into the pseudo-reformers' hole--more charter schools, more reliance on competition and free-market strategies, more testing, more use of test scores to evaluate teachers, more firing of principals and teachers, more closing of low-scoring schools--when he said, "the PISA scores released this past Tuesday were "a massive wake-up call," because the scores show American students holding relatively steady in the middle of the pack of the developed nations taking the international exam.

There is, however, someone who recognizes that the data is being misinterpreted. NEAToday published remarks from National Association of Secondary School Principals Executive Director, Dr. Gerald N. Tirozzi, that have taken "a closer look at how the U.S. reading scores on PISA compared with the rest of the world’s, overlaying it with the statistics on how many of the tested students are in the government’s free and reduced lunch program for students below the poverty line." Tirozzi pointed out, “Once again, we’re reminded that students in poverty require intensive supports to break past a condition that formal schooling alone cannot overcome.” Tirozzi demonstrates the correlation between socio-economic status and reading by presenting the PISA scores in terms of individual American schools and poverty. While the overall PISA rankings ignore such differences in

the tested schools, when groupings based on the rate of free and reduced lunch are created, a direct relationship is established.

Free and Reduced Meal Rate PISA ScoreSchools with < 10% 551Schools with 10-24.9% 527Schools with 25-49.9% 502Schools with 49.9-74.9% 471Schools with >75% 446U.S. average 500OECD average 493

With strong evidence that increased poverty results in lower PISA scores the next question to be asked is what are the poverty rates of the countries being tested? (Listed below are the countries that were tested by PISA along with available poverty rates. Some nations like Korea do not report poverty rates.)

Country Poverty Rate PISA ScoreDenmark 2.4% 495Finland 3.4% 536Norway 3.6% 503Belgium 6.7% 506Switzerland 6.8% 501Czech Republic 7.2% 478France 7.3% 496Netherlands 9.0% 508Germany 10.9% 497Australia 11.6% 515Greece 12.4% 483Hungary 13.1% 494Austria 13.3% 471Canada 13.6% 524Japan 14.3% 520Poland 14.5% 500Portugal 15.6% 489Ireland 15.7% 496Italy 15.7% 486United Kingdom 16.2% 494New Zealand 16.3% 521United States 21.7% 500

Leveling the playing field

A more accurate assessment of the performance of U.S. students would be obtained by comparing the scores of American schools with comparable poverty rates to those of other countries.

Schools in the United States with less than a 10% poverty rate had a PISA score of 551. When compared to the ten countries with similar poverty numbers, that score ranked first.

Country Poverty Rate PISA ScoreUnited States <10% 551Finland 3.4% 536Netherlands 9.0% 508Belgium 6.7% 506Norway 3.6% 503Switzerland 6.8% 501France 7.3% 496Denmark 2.4% 495Czech Republic 7.2% 478

In the next category (10-24.9%) the U.S. average of 527 placed first out of the ten comparable nations.

Country Poverty Rate PISA ScoreUnited States 10%-24.9% 527Canada 13.6% 524New Zealand 16.3% 521Japan 14.3% 520Australia 11.6% 515Poland 14.5% 500Germany 10.9% 497Ireland 15.7% 496Hungary 13.1% 494United Kingdom 16.2% 494Portugal 15.6% 489Italy 15.7% 486Greece 12.4% 483Austria 13.3% 471

For the remaining U.S. schools, their poverty rates over 25% far exceed any other country tested. However, when the U.S. average of 502 for poverty rates between 25-49.9% is compared with other countries it is still in the upper half of the scores.

Mathematically Speaking

The results of the latest PISA testing should raise serious concerns. However, the overall ranking of 14th in reading is not the reason to be concerned. The problem is not as much

with our educational system as it is with our high poverty rates. The real crisis is the level of poverty in too many of our schools and the relationship between poverty and student achievement. Our lowest achieving schools are the most under-resourced schools with the highest number of disadvantaged students. We cannot treat these schools in the same way that we would schools in more advantaged neighborhoods or we will continue to get the same results. The PISA results point out that the U.S. is not alone in facing the challenge of raising the performance of disadvantaged students.

U.S. % Poverty Other Countries PISA ScoreU.S. (<10%)   551  Korea 539  Finland 536U.S. (10-24.9%)   527  Canada 524  New Zealand 521  Japan 520  Australia 515  Netherlands 508  Belgium 506  Norway 503U.S. (25-49.9%)   502  Estonia 501  Switzerland 501  Poland 500  Iceland 500U.S. (Average)   500  Sweden 497  Germany 497  Ireland 496  France 496  Denmark 495  United Kingdom 494  Hungary 494  Portugal 489  Italy 486  Slovenia 483  Greece 483  Spain 481  Czech Republic 478  Slovak Republic 477  Israel 474  Luxembourg 472U.S. (50-74.9%)   471  Austria 471  Turkey 464

  Chile 449U.S. (over 75%)   446  Mexico 425

Additional observations from PISA results:

· Shanghai, China topped the list with 556 but is not included in this analysis because Shanghai is a city not a country and because only 35% of Chinese students ever enter high school and because "when you spend all your time preparing for tests, and when students are selected based on their test-taking abilities, you get outstanding test scores."

· Of all the nations participating in the PISA assessment, the U.S. has, by far, the largest number of students living in poverty--21.7%. The next closest nations in terms of poverty levels are the United Kingdom and New Zealand have poverty rates that are 75% of ours.

· U.S. students in schools with 10% or less poverty are number one country in the world.

· U.S. students in schools with 10-24.9% poverty are third behind Korea, and Finland.

· U.S. students in schools with 25-50% poverty are tenth in the world.

· U.S. students in schools with greater than 50% poverty are near the bottom.

· There were other surprises. Germany with less than half our poverty, scored below the U.S. as did France with less than a third our poverty and Sweden with a low 3.6% poverty rate.

· Having recently listened to Sir Michael Barber talk about the amazing progress of the reforms in the United Kingdom, I was absolutely shocked to see that the UK, with 25% less poverty, scored below the U.S. average.

The Real Meaning of PISA: It's Poverty Not Stupid

If the so-called experts would have honestly and responsibly reported the PISA results, we might now be on the road to responsible school improvement instead continuing down the road of "reform de jour."

President Bill Clinton is famous for his campaign slogan, "It's the economy stupid!" When it comes to student achievement and school improvement, it's poverty not stupid! Researchers report that perhaps the only true linear relationship in the social sciences is the relationship between poverty and student performance. While there is no relationship between poverty and ability, the relationship between poverty and achievement is almost foolproof. To deny that poverty is a factor to be overcome as opposed to an excuse is to deny the reality that all educators, human services workers, law enforcement officers, medical professionals and religious clergy know and have known for years.

PISA reports average scores. The problem is that the U.S. is not average. While the U.S. is the top country in global competitiveness, we also have the highest percentage of students living in poverty and, regretfully, poverty impacts test scores.

To Secretary Duncan, poverty is not an issue that educators must address. At least he won't admit it in public. Apparently, he wants to take away all the excuses from teachers and principals. When I met with Duncan, I asked him if he had read the book or seen the movie, Blind Side. He indicated that he had and that he had enjoyed it very much. I reminded him of the pride and sense of accomplishment felt by the teachers in the private school attended by Michael Oher. In their minds, they had performed a miracle. I pointed out that, in high-poverty schools, a Michael Oher is the average student. In schools like ours we have hundreds of students like Michael Oher who depend on our school for everything including food, clothing, and emotional support.

The Bottom Line

School improvement is not an event. It is an ongoing process that has no end. As a principal, parents and community members would repeatedly ask me, "When can we stop our comprehensive school-wide literacy initiative? I would answer, "We will stop emphasizing reading, writing, thinking and speaking when our parents repeatedly complain that their children are reading too fast with comprehension that is too high and when our students' writing skills are so superior that they are regularly winning Pulitzers and other literary awards." Smiles would erupt throughout the audience. They got it. They understood that literacy skills can always be improved and so can our schools.

There are three compelling reasons why we must improve our schools:

We have a moral and ethical obligation to provide every student with the best education, the kind of education that we would want for our own children.

In a knowledge economy, the country with the best-educated populace will have the highest standard of living.

Every dropout as well as every graduate who is not prepared for at least some post-secondary education and training is and will continue to be an economic and social burden on their local community and on this nation for their entire life.

The challenge of ensuring that each and every student is a life-long learner prepared to contribute in a global community is daunting enough. We don't need more hyperbole, particularly from those education insiders who should know better. For those of us who are deeply committed to improving the performance of every student, this rhetoric is counterproductive because it seriously erodes our ability to hire teachers, obtain resources, and gain the confidence and support of our communities.

We count on our leaders to provide focus and direction. Sadly, our education leaders don't trust us enough to tell us the truth. The problem is that we will never solve a problem that

our leaders refuse to admit even exists. The comparison of PISA scores by poverty clearly identifies our strengths and challenges as a nation. Our schools with less than 50% poverty) are some of the best in the world. Our extremely high-poverty schools, with over 50% poverty, are among the poorest performing internationally.

Instead of labeling all schools as failing, we must find a way to raise the performance of our students in under-resourced schools. Instead of looking to low-poverty countries like Finland for direction, we should be looking to take what we already know about educating students in high-performing, high-poverty schools like our Breakthrough Schools and scaling up their successes across the nation. We continually look for gold in other countries when, all along, we are sitting on Acres of Diamonds.

Truthfully, you and I know all too well that Secretary Duncan, who led schools in Chicago, is aware of the relationship between poverty and student achievement, but he doesn't trust us enough to tell us the truth. He is afraid that we will use poverty as an excuse and that we will forget about our disadvantaged students. Ironically, by not acknowledging poverty as a challenge to be overcome, Duncan is forgetting about our disadvantaged students. Duncan needs to deliver the message that all our students deserve not only access to an education, but access to an excellent education. He needs to repeatedly remind us that, when it comes to school improvement, it's poverty not stupid.

Publication: The Becker-Posner BlogTitle: Implications of International Comparisons of Student PerformanceDate: January 2nd, 2011Author: Gary BeckerWebsite: http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2011/01/implications-of-international-comparisons-of-student-performance-becker.htmlSurvey: PISA

Gary Becker is an influential American economist and a Nobel laureate. He is among the foremost exponents of the study of human capital.

Results on standardized tests are becoming a common way to evaluate student performance in different school systems, such as in different states of the United States. These tests are especially important in international comparisons of student performance since school systems differ so much across countries. International tests in mathematics, science, and reading have been given to high school students in different countries every few years since about 50 years ago. The well-know PISA tests started in 2000, and the number of countries included has been expanded by 2009 to over 60.

Scores on standardized tests have many well-discussed problems from the viewpoint of measuring how much students learn. For example, teachers may concentrate on materials that are likely to be on a test rather than on other possibly more important knowledge- this is called “teaching to the test”. Still, standardized tests are a much better way to compare achievements among students, and especially among students in different countries, than are various measures of average years of schooling- the most commonly used measures in international comparisons.

The US spends much more per student than any other country (with a few small exceptions). Yet from the very beginning, American students have generally performed below average compared to students from the richer countries that comprise the OECD countries. In 2009, the average American student did a little better on the PISA tests: they were much above students from the great majority of the 65 countries that participated, and were at, but no better than, the average level of OECD countries.

Another interesting case is that of Chile. Some critics have used Chile’s below average performance on the PISA tests to oppose Chile’s extensive use of school vouchers. Chile’s performance may be disappointing, but in 2009 Chile did the best of all Latin American countries (Chile was a little behind Uruguay in math), and much better than Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico (except again in math where Chile did about the same as Mexico), even though Argentina has a much longer tradition of emphasizing education.

Japan and other Asian countries typically place much greater emphasis on rote learning and memorization than does the United States and some European nations. South Korea, Japan, and Hong Kong rank high on the PISA tests, much higher than the US. However, America is the world leader in game-changing creativity and innovations, far above these other countries. Perhaps America’s lead is related in part to the emphasis that the American education system places on creative thinking rather than memorizing what famous people have said.Russia provides another interesting example. Russia has produced many outstanding mathematicians and scientists, yet the Russian Federation ranks quite low on the PISA tests in mathematics and science.

Modern economies have enormous specialization by skill, type of industry, and various other characteristics. This implies that an economy can perform at a high level even though not everyone is well educated in mathematics, science, reading, or other fields. It is sufficient if enough young persons are prepared in these subjects to supply enough trained men and women for the jobs and other tasks that require specialized training. Such specialization implies that not only are the average scores for different countries relevant, but so too are measures of the distribution of scores among students within a country. Calculations by William Hubbard of the University of Chicago Law School for the 2003 PISA results do show that the US ranks somewhat higher relative to other countries when comparing the variances in scores among students in the same country than when comparing average scores.

That the distribution of scores is important does not deny that average scores may also matter a lot in modern economies that rely extensively on the labor force’s command of knowledge and information. to test this hypothesis, a few economists have related average scores on various international tests in math and science, along with average years of schooling and other variables, to subsequent growth in per capita incomes. Eric Hanushek of the Hoover Institution pioneered this approach, but the latest study I know of is by Appleton, Atherton, and Bleaney, “International Test Scores and Economic Growth”. They show that higher scores by different countries are followed in later years by moderately higher growth rates in GDP, holding constant initial per capita incomes,

average years of schooling, and some other variables. Test scores are far more important than average years of schooling in predicting subsequent economic growth.

International comparisons are always somewhat suspect because differences across countries that are not observed by economists rather than the variables that are measured may be producing the results found. For this reasons, Appleton, Atherton, and Bleaney also relate changes over time in test scores within countries to subsequent changes in their economic growth rates. They find much weaker results in these within-country comparisons, which is not uncommon.

Despite all the qualifications, scores on standardized tests, like the PISA tests, are much more effective ways to compare student achievements in different countries than are average years of schooling and other measures of school years completed. As I indicated earlier, the mediocre performance of the average American student on the PISA and other tests may indicate only that the US school system emphasizes creativity and independent. However, I strongly believe that it is also evidence of the mediocre performance of many American schools. International test scores have been used for decades to push for improvements in the schools available to the lower third of American students through the spread of charter schools, school vouchers, and stronger incentive to teachers, students, and parents. The 2009 PISA test results indicate that some progress is being made in American schools, but considerable room for improvement still remains.

Publication: The Becker-Posner BlogTitle: The PISA Rankings and the Role of Schools in Student Performance on Standardized TestsDate: January 2nd, 2011Author: Richard PosnerWebsite: http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2011/01/the-pisa-rankings-and-the-role-of-schools-in-student-performance-on-standardized-testsposner.htmlSurvey: PISA

Richard Posner is an American jurist and philosopher who is currently a judge on the United States Court of Appeals and a Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. He is an influential figure in the law and economics movement.

International comparisons are tricky, as Becker points out, but the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), which tests 15-year-olds for proficiency in reading, math, and science by well designed standard tests conducted in thousands of schools all over the world, is a careful and responsible program, the results of which deserve to be

taken seriously. The latest results (which are for 2009) reveal among other things that although the United States spends more money per student on secondary school education than any other country except Switzerland and Austria, Americans’ performance on the PISA tests is mediocre. In the latest tests Americans ranked 17 in reading, 24 in science, and 30 in math. 15-year-old kids in East Asian nations (including Australia and New Zealand), along with Finland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada, outperform the United States in all three subjects. Since 2000, when the PISA tests were first given, the United States has fallen in rank in reading and science, and is unchanged in math.

The rankings tend to be interpreted as measures of the quality of a nation’s pre-collegiate school system (primary and secondary education, since primary education influences performance in secondary schools). But this may be a mistake. Schooling is only one, though doubtless an important, input into performance on the PISA tests. Another is IQ. There have been some efforts to compare IQ across countries, notably by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen; see their 2006 book IQ and Global Inequality. Their results cannot be regarded as definitive, given significant limitations in the data, but they are suggestive. The authors find that the East Asian countries, which generally rank highest on the PISA tests (including reading—not just math and sciene), have the highest average IQs; the average IQ of Americans is lower because of our large black and Hispanic populations, which have lower average IQs than whites and Asians.

IQ is understood to reflect both genetic endowment and environmental factors, particularly factors operative very early in a child’s life, including prenatal care, maternal health, the educational level of the parents, family stability, and poverty (all these are correlated, and could of course reflect low IQs of parents as well as causing low IQs in their children). The case for very early intervention in children’s development, powerfully urged by the distinguished University of Chicago economist James Heckman, can be understood as an effort to lift IQs in the black and Hispanic communities and by doing so improve the educational performance of black and Hispanic children, including performance on the PISA tests. It is true that Heckman emphasizes noncognitive skills that facilitate learning, but these skills could also increase performance on IQ tests, indicating a positive effect on IQ.

The 2009 PISA test scores reveal that in American schools in which only a small percentage (no more than 10 percent) of the students receive free lunches or reduced-cost lunches, which are benefits provided to students from poor families, the PISA reading test scores are the highest in the world. But in the many American schools in which 75 percent or more of the students are from poor families, the scores are the second lowest among the 34 countries of the OECD; and the OECD includes such countries as Mexico, Turkey, Portugal, and Slovakia.

If IQ is playing a significant role in America’s mediocre showing on the PISA tests, improvements in secondary school education are unlikely to have dramatic effects. The white and Asian kids in American schools are already doing fine, for the most part; the black and Hispanic kids may not do much better until their early childhood environment is improved to the point at which black and Hispanic IQs are raised significantly.

Analysis of the PISA results has revealed some other interesting facts. One is that higher teacher salaries dominate small class size as a factor in high PISA scores. This is a reassuring finding because it suggests that secondary school education can be improved at no net increase in cost, since higher teacher salaries are offset by larger classes—if class size is raised in proportion to increases in teacher salaries, there is no net increase in the school’s cost, and there should actually be a reduction in cost in the long term because a reduction in the number of classrooms reduces the size and therefore cost of a school even if each classroom is larger. Another reassuring finding, in light of all the agitation over charter schools and voucher systems, is that private schools on average do not outperform public schools after adjusting for the quality of students upon entrance and that competition for students does not seem to improve average performance either. Of course these are generalizations across many countries and America’s individualistic culture may not fit them.

This observation is especially pertinent to another finding in the PISA report, which is that poor kids do better in a school that has mostly middle-class kids. Our education system, both public and private, tends as a practical matter to be segregated according to family income and social class. This is a reflection of economic inequality, which is great in the United States and growing.

Becker points out that despite the imperfections of its educational system, America remains preeminent in innovation. This is important but it appears to be due in part to the nation’s attractiveness to immigrants. Many of our innovators are foreign born; increasingly they are Asian. The United States, as a result of generous immigration policies in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, also has the largest Jewish population in the world—larger than Israel’s, and a higher percentage of American Jews are Ashkenazi—that is, descendants of European Jewish immigrants. This is significant because Ashkenazi Jews have a significantly higher average IQ than other Americans, including (though the margin is small) East Asians, and, as important, a very strong cultural orientation toward high achievement in business, science, and intellectual fields generally. From the standpoint of innovation, a wide distribution of IQs is more important than the average IQ, because most innovations will come from persons with an above-average IQ, and in scientific and other technical fields from persons with a way-above-average IQ. Moreover, because of the bell shape (normal distribution) of IQ across persons, a higher average IQ translates into a much longer upper tail—the part of the distribution that contains the highest IQs.

If as I am speculating (and I emphasize that it is speculation), IQ is a major factor in school performance, we should hesitate to place too much weight on variance in educational investments, methods, etc. in explaining differences in that performance, relative to genetic and cultural factors and also (and importantly) to economic inequality.

Publication: VOXTitle: The virtuous equity-efficiency trade-off in educational outcomesDate: January 4th, 2011Author: Richard FreemanWebsite: http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/5985

Survey: PISA

Richard Freeman is a professor of Economics at Harvard University.

Many interpret countries' scores in international testing as grades of their national educational policies. Summarising evidence from international maths exams, this column finds that the highest-scoring countries are those with the least inequality in test scores, suggesting a “virtuous” equity-efficiency trade-off. It also finds that countries perform even better when test scores are highly correlated with the number of books in the family home.

How countries fare in international tests of student achievement is a magnet for media attention the world over. In December 2010, for instance, two of the world's leading newspapers, the New York Times, and The Financial Times reported on the remarkable scores of students from Shanghai in the latest Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) tests, which assess the reading, maths and scientific skills of the world’s 15-year-olds (Cook 2010, Dillon 2010).

The reason for this attention is that the scores on international scholastic assessment tests are a report card of sorts on national educational policies. Given the relation of education to economic achievement, many policymakers and analysts take student performance as a possible leading indicator of the future success of their country’s economy.

All international tests show that test scores vary greatly among students within countries and across countries. There are many reasons for this variation. The family background of students differs. The quality and educational practices of schools differs. Learning resources outside of schools differ. In addition, the distribution of scores within countries and schools also differs. In some countries/schools test scores are narrowly distributed around the average score. In others, test scores are widely distributed around the average score.

Economic analysis often stresses the existence of an equity-efficiency trade-off in outcomes, in which equity refers to the inequality of outcomes among people while efficiency refers to the overall level of outcomes (Okun 1975). The standard view in macroeconomics is that increases in equity (usually reflected in reducing the dispersion of wages) come at the expense of reductions in efficiency (lower GDP per capita).

Our analysis of eighth-grade mathematics test scores from the 1999 and 2007 waves of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study shows a very different pattern across countries in the relation between educational equity and efficiency. Instead of the usual trade-off we find a “virtuous equity-efficiency relation” in test score outcomes among countries (Freeman et al. 2010). Countries with the highest test scores have low inequality in scores whereas countries with low test scores have high inequality.

In addition, we found large cross-country differences in the relation between family background measured by books in the household and students’ performance. In some

countries, students with more books at home did a lot better in mathematics tests than students with fewer books in their home. In other countries the number of books in the home had relatively weak effects on student test scores. One might have expected that the countries where books at home mattered a lot on test scores would have greater dispersion in those scores.

We found the opposite. Countries in which books in the home had a greater impact on test scores had higher median test scores and lower variation in student test scores than in countries where books in the home was more weakly related to test scores. This is another virtuous relation governing student test scores.

Conclusions

Our finding that educational outcomes show a virtuous equity-efficiency trade-off supports policy interventions that aim primarily at helping students in the lower part of the distribution, such as possibly early childhood education programmes focused on disadvantaged children. Since books in the household presumably reflect various aspects of non-school educational resources, it directs attention at policies that seek to increase family resources that complement formal schooling. An interesting possible experiment would be to provide free books to families, as the Chilean government did (The Economist 2007), particularly those with lower incomes, and to see how that intervention would affect the accumulation of human capital and the distribution of test scores.

Publication: The Seattle TimesTitle: Despite recent test scores, China is not 'eating our lunch'Date: January 2nd, 2011Author: Kam Wing ChanWebsite: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2013808513_guest03chan.htmlSurvey: PISA

Kam Wing Chan is a professor in geography at the University of Washington. His research focuses on China's migrant labor and urbanization.

The lackluster performance of our 15-year-olds in math, science and reading in a standardized test compared with Shanghai's students scoring first in all three subjects, have stirred some interesting and somewhat self-deprecating comments. President Obama declared it a "Sputnik moment," and columnist Esther Cepeda opined alarmingly about China "eating our lunch."

To be sure, our 14th-to-25th ranking in the Program for International Student Assessment is no cause for complacency. Neither is China eating our lunch, or any meal — at least not yet.

We know that China is a master of turning out sparkling economic statistics. Some of those are real and deserve congratulation — China's economy is indeed on a meteoric rise. But many others are not so real, gamed by bureaucrats whose careers are tied to

certain short-term statistical yardsticks, or as a result of our ignorance of how China functions.

Cepeda is right in pointing out that the contrast of the U.S. scores with Shanghai's is not totally appropriate: It is comparing the entire U.S. population — including many who are on free or reduced-price lunches — with China's cream of the crop, the Shanghai kids.Even more important, but far less-known, is that in Shanghai, as in most other Chinese cities, the rural migrant workers that are the true urban working poor (totaling about 150 million in the country), are not allowed to send their kids to public high schools in the city. This is engineered by the discriminatory hukou or household registration system, which classifies them as "outsiders." Those teenagers will have to go back home to continue education, or drop out of school altogether.

In other words, the city has 3 to 4 million working poor, but its high-school system conveniently does not need to provide for the kids of that segment. In essence, the poor kids are purged from Shanghai's sample of 5,100 students taking the tests. The Shanghai sample is the extract of China's extract. A fairer play would be to ask kids at Seattle's private Lakeside School to race against Shanghai's kids.

More fundamentally, I would argue, the winner of the next true "Sputnik race" will not be called by PISA test scores.

It will be decided, instead, by other strengths the U.S. still has over China. We have a more open and receptive social system. For example, Washington state, like many other states, accepts undocumented immigrant children in their public schools and universities. Whereas in China, children of migrant workers — and these kids are Chinese nationals, not foreigners — are barred from attending high schools in cities where their parents work.

Moreover, U.S. education is generally far broader than simply getting good test scores, while top Chinese schools fixate on those. Kids in many American schools are exposed to a wider, sometimes open-ended, learning experience and are encouraged to explore beyond the conventional.

It is the openness and creativity of the American system and the opportunities it brings — the crucial factors that unleash the Bill Gateses of the world — that not only determine who eats the lunch but even what's on the menu.

After all, just a mere 20 years ago the menu did not have anything to do with American inventions like iPods, Google, Twitter and Facebook.

Publication: The Yomiuri ShimbunTitle: Exams seek students' opinions / High school entrance tests look for well-expressed original thoughtsDate: December 31st, 2010

Website: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T101230003678.htmSurvey: PISA

More and more high school entrance exams are asking students to express their own opinions on various topics, rather than just repeat facts that they have memorized.

Observers say this is one reason Japanese students performed better in the latest reading tests by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Program for International Student Assessment. Such questions, which are aimed at evaluating examinees' ability to think independently, may become the key to success in future entrance exams, even in tests early next year, they said.

Students who took this spring's unified entrance examination for Osaka prefectural high schools saw a chart titled "calendar of biological evolution" on the Japanese test.

The chart used calendar dates to illustrate the history of biological evolution--for example, it showed the first organism appearing on Earth on New Year's Day, oxygen emerging on July 2 and a multicellular organism on Nov. 4. It took until Dec. 2 for a mammal to be born, and after the evolution of mankind, the Industrial Revolution was marked at 23:59:59 on Dec. 31.

After looking at the chart, students had to write what they learned from it using the words "human beings" and "birth." Correct answers should refer to the fact that mankind appeared on Earth quite recently.

Another question asked students to write what they thought was important for the future of human beings in 50 characters or less.

"These kind of questions test students' ability to choose important information, develop their own opinions and express their views intelligibly," said an official of the Osaka Prefectural Board of Education in charge of the high school entrance exams. "Recent examinations include questions that the exam creators had to rack their brains to come up with."

In the latest PISA tests conducted in 2009, Japanese students ranked eighth in reading, up seven ranks from the previous test in 2006. The tests have been given to 15-year-old students every three years since 2000, at which time Japanese students also ranked eighth in reading.

Some observers were surprised that the improvement occurred before the introduction of new teaching guidelines that require more content to be taught in classrooms.

Keitaro Kamata, chief researcher at Benesse Educational Research and Development Center, said one reason Japanese students did better in 2009 was the increase of questions similar to those in the PISA test in high school entrance examinations, i.e. requiring students to think on their own rather than answer questions mechanically.

According to Kamata, questions asking students to address their views appeared on unified entrance examinations for prefectural high schools in such prefectures as Aomori, Iwate, Kanagawa, Saitama and Tochigi.

In Aomori Prefecture's test, a question about chimpanzees contained an illustration of one chimpanzee giving a drink to another, but only doing so after being asked by the other chimpanzee. Students were asked to compare the chimpanzee's action to that of a human being.

Correct answers contained such terms as "mutual assistance."

Questions asking students to express their views were first found in entrance examinations for integrated public middle and high schools, which were established in 1999. According to the Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Ministry, such schools preferred questions requiring students to think on their own to questions just testing their knowledge.

One such school is Municipal Oshukan Middle School in Meguro Ward, Tokyo. In this year's entrance examination, it showed a dictionary definition of the word "michi," which has such meanings as "road" or "passage," and asked students to write down their thoughts in 500 to 600 characters.

"The question tests whether students can think and express their opinions logically," Vice Principal Tadao Yanagisawa said.

Kamata said the proportion of questions requiring students to express their opinions in high school entrance examinations is still small, but has been increasing in recent years.

"Such questions require students to express their own opinions using their own words, unlike conventional questions asking them to extract phrases and expressions from the text," Kamata said.

"If entrance exams change, so will classes. I think teachers will spend more time nurturing students' ability to think and express themselves in the future," he said.