2 10 15 readings

Do resources matter? PISA science achievement comparisons between students in the United States, Canada and FinlandJane Beese University of Akron, USA

Xin LiangUniversity of Akron, USA

AbstractThe PISA 2006 Science Literacy Assessment results report Finland as the first ranked country out of the 30 developed nations that participated in the testing (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2007). The United States was ranked 21st. Closer exami-nation of school and student variables may help explain these outcomes. This article will use the PISA 2006 data to investigate how school resource indicators such as teacher qualifications, school resources, and school type, as well as student level indicators such as socioeconomic status and family resources affect science achievement. Comparisons will include the United States, Canada, and Finland. Due to the differences in the structure of educational systems and the makeup of student populations, findings have given an inaccurate impression that international competitiveness in science is not a viable option for the US (Ginsburg, Leinwand, & Pollock, 2007). Findings indicate school funding practices, teacher quality, school type, and family socioeconomic status impact student science achievement and have an effect on international school rankings.

Keywords: high-quality teachers, international rankings, resource disparity, student

demographics

Introduction

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) developed the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) to provide public comparisons of student achievement across more than 50 industrialized nations (OECD, 2009a). In addition to student achievement data, PISA collects demographic information on each student, family, and school to help explain the differences in student performance. These assessments were designed to explore the relationships between student achievement

Improving Schools © AuthorVolume 13 Number 3 November 2010 266–279ISSN 1365-4802 DOI: 10.1177/1365480210390554

AR

TIC

LE

at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on February 5, 2015imp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://imp.sagepub.com/

Beese and Liang: PISA science achievement comparisons between students 267

and the characteristics of students, schools, and educational systems, that, in turn, may further educational policies and practices conducive to student success (OECD, 2006).

Assessments in the areas of reading, mathematics, and science are administered to 15-year-old students every three years (Institute of Education Sciences, 2009). Due to the strict administrative procedures that are used, the PISA assessments have demon-strated high degrees of validity and reliability (OECD, 2007). PISA content is not derived from specific content standards or school curricula, but rather general content areas that focus on the application of knowledge and skills within the context of real-world problems (OECD, 2009b).

Science literacy assessment

In 2006, the PISA Scientific Literacy Assessment, a two-hour multiple-choice test, was administered to more than 40,000 students in 57 countries (OECD, 2007). PISA defines scientific literacy as ‘the capacity to use scientific knowledge, to identify questions and to draw evidence-based conclusions in order to understand and help make decisions about the natural world and the changes made to it through human activity’ (OECD, 2003: 133). The content areas include technology systems, living systems, earth and space systems, and physical systems (OECD, 2007). Students were tested on two domains. The first domain measured students’ basic knowledge of science and the sec-ond domain measured students’ science competency (OECD, 2007).

The performance scales are designed so that the average student composite score is 500 points with a standard deviation of 100 (OECD, 2007). Finland, with a mean score of 563, was ranked first in science and Canada, with a mean score of 534, was ranked third (OECD, 2009b). The United States, with a mean score of 489 (falling 11 points below the average), was ranked 21st out of 30 OECD countries (OECD, 2007). When 27 non-OECD partner countries are added, the US ranking drops to 29th out of 40 industrial-ized nations (Darling-Hammond, 2009). With a notable decline in rankings over the last three testing cycles, it appears that the US is lagging behind while other countries are gaining ground and leading the way in areas of science. Closer examination of school and student variables may help explain these outcomes.

Educational systems and science achievement

Researchers profess that school factors such as teacher quality (Darling-Hammond, 2009), school resources (Krueger, 1999; Murnane and Levy, 1996), and school type (US Department of Education, 2006) play important roles in student outcomes. Teacher quality for science education is particularly important because to be an effective science teacher requires a thorough and extensive understanding about science content knowl-edge, strong pedagogical knowledge to facilitate the complicated process of learning, efficient use of technology and other advanced devices, a passion for teaching, and a strong commitment to student learning.

Teacher quality is related to teachers’ academic backgrounds, preparation programs, and number of years teaching experience significantly affect their students’ achieve-ment (Akiba et al., 2007; Darling-Hammond, 2009). A study of mathematics teachers in New York City found that students who were taught by fully certified teachers with



268 Improving Schools 13(3)

strong academic backgrounds and two or more years of teaching experience benefited the most. Students’ achievement was impaired when taught by teachers with little to no experience who held temporary or alternative licensure (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, Rockoff, & Wyckoff, 2008). Effective educational programs provide high quality teach-ers and teaching to all students within their system (Darling-Hammond, 2009).

Teacher preparation programs between countries differ in coursework, licensure, and length of residency. In the US, preparation programs consist of courses in foundations and methods, as well as a practicum, which takes place during the last semester of a four-year degree. The US is the only country that does not require teachers to pass a standardized national test for licensure rather each state determines its own certification and test requirements. The basic requirement for teachers in Canada is four years post-secondary education that includes one year of professional studies in teacher education (Canadian Teachers Federation, 2010).

Over the past 30 years, Finland has developed national teaching policies that have improved their educational system and raised their international standing. Finland founded a strong training program, of two to three years graduate level courses, that actively recruits students with promise. These programs are completely subsidized. Finland has established school environments that support ongoing teacher development by instituting mentoring programs for inexperienced teachers and setting aside time for collaboration, data analysis, assessment, curriculum development, and professional development (Darling-Hammond, 2009). Improvements in teacher qualifications have been shown to reduce the gap in achievement between students who attend low-income schools and students who attend high-income schools by 25 percent (Boyd et al., 2008).

Students, in the US, who attend low-income, inner-city schools have unequal access to qualified and experienced teachers contributing to the plight of racial inequality and widening of the achievement gap (Akiba et al., 2007; Darling-Hammond, 2009). Student populations in disadvantaged schools comprise 50 percent or more minority students, 40 percent or higher low-income families, and 40–50 percent English-language learners. These schools serve students, families, and communities with the greatest need (Recruiting New Teachers, 2000). Highly qualified teachers have many options available to them and have little reason to work in settings where schools are labeled ineffective and face sanctions for poor performance. While more prosperous schools entice good teachers with higher salaries and better teaching conditions, struggling schools are often forced to hire the inexperienced and under-qualified teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2009; Lippman et al., 1996). These schools often resort to hiring teachers with alternative cre-dentials who are grossly unprepared to meet the challenges analogous to urban schools (Roth and Swail, 2000). They are also burdened with high teacher turnover rates where, on average, 50 percent of teachers leave within the first five years (Haberman, 2006). They enter a continuous cycle of recruiting and training new teachers without ever hav-ing the stability of a well-trained and effective teaching force.

Research on the relationship between school resources and student achievement has been inconsistent. Hanushek (1996) claimed there was no evidence that additional fund-ing for education, over the past century, had improved student performance; in fact, more money had helped to sustain failing systems in the US. However, increased fund-ing to targeted programs, that is, early childhood education, class size reduction, and




salary increases used to recruit and retain teachers for disadvantaged schools have been shown to improve student outcomes (Jacob and Ludwig, 2008). At first glance, the US appears to have the highest per pupil expenditure. However, after converting the figures to real terms and normalizing the percentage of Gross Domestic Product, we find that Finland spends more money at $6440 per pupil while the US spends only $5031 per pupil. Discrepancies can also be seen in the distribution of school funding.

In Finland, money is distributed centrally and equally, by per pupil allocation, to schools. Public education in Canada is a provincial responsibility, therefore school funding in Canada varies slightly by province (Wilson, 2010). In the US, the acquisition of instructional resources relies heavily on property taxes due to a decentralized funding system. On PISA’s measures of equity, the US ranked 45th out of 55 countries scoring just above Brazil and Mexico (OECD, 2007). In the US, the wealthiest schools spend nearly 10 times more than the poorest schools (Kozol, 2005). Schools with the most economically disadvantaged students have the lowest educational expenditures.

Historically, there has been an achievement gap between poor schools and wealthy schools. However, this phenomenon is not present in other industrialized countries. In Finland, less than 5 percent of variance in student performance was attributed to between school differences (OECD, 2007). ‘Considering that Finland also showed the highest overall performance in science suggests that Finnish parents can rely on high and consistent performance standards across schools in the entire education system’ (OECD, 2007: 5). Between school differences in student performance for Canada was 17.9 percent. The between school difference in student performance for the US was 29.1 percent. In the US, the social, economic, and cultural composition of schools has as much impact on student learning as students’ own economic level (Rumberger and Palardy, 2005). Students from all income levels exhibit lower achievement when placed in high poverty schools (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2003).

Student level variables and student achievement

Relative poverty is defined as, ‘households with income below 50 percent of the national median income’ (United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2005: 6). The rate of child-hood poverty in Canada is 14.9 percent and the rate of childhood poverty in Finland is 2.8 percent. In the US, 21.9 percent of children live in poverty. As the richest nation in the world, the US has one of the highest rates of childhood poverty, more than twice the rate of most European nations (UNICEF, 2005). While Finland, Canada, and the US provide social supports for children’s health and welfare, the US falls short when it comes to reducing the number of children and poverty and minimizing its long-term effects.

Student family income level is the greatest contributing factor for between school dif-ferences (OECD, 2007). The disparity in educational outcomes between high-poverty and low-poverty children are staggering. Students from high SES families typically score higher on standardized tests than students from low-SES families (OECD, 2005). According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (National Assessment for Educational Progress, 2008), only 16 percent of low-income students in fourth grade were proficient in reading while 44 percent of fourth graders whose family incomes were higher than the cutoff point for free and reduced lunch were proficient in reading (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007). In math the disparity between groups




is even greater, at 21 percent versus 53 percent (NCES, 2007). Children from wealthier families perform better in school than disadvantaged children in all subjects and at all grade levels.

Studies on the factors related to student science achievement seem to suggest that both school resource factors and individual student factors interact and that both play impor-tant roles in student science academic achievement. The purpose of this study will investigate school resource indicators such as science teacher qualifications, school resources, and school type to determine how these factors interact with individual stu-dent family resources to contribute to science achievement using PISA 2006 data.

Methodology

To provide an international lens, comparisons will include the US, Canada, and Finland. Both Finland and Canada were selected because of their high rankings on the PISA 2006 Science Literacy Assessment. Other reasons for using Canada in the analysis were based on the commonalities shared with both the US and Finland.

The focus of this study is to examine the degree of variability in science teacher short-age and instructional resources between countries and how these school factors interact with student characteristics such as socioeconomic background and family resources to explain the differences in science achievement between countries. The research ques-tions that guide the data analysis are:

• Is there a difference in science teacher shortage and instructional resources for teaching science between schools taking student family resource factors into con-sideration?

• How much variability of student science achievement is related to teacher shortage and instructional resources for teaching science between countries?

• How do teacher shortage and instructional resources for teaching science at the school level interact with student social cultural background and family resources between countries?

Variables included in the study

School level variables include:

1. Science teacher qualification2. Adequacy of school resources3. School type

Individual student level variables include:

1. Gender 2. Socioeconomic status 3. Family resources 4. Time in lab 5. Teachers clear explanation of science concepts

A two-level hierarchical linear model (HLM) was used where students were the level-one analysis, and schools were the level-two analysis. Both an unconditional model and




a conditional model were examined to identify school factor contributions and student factor contributions. The researchers were also interested in the interaction results of school and student factors.

Participants of the study

The participants included administrators and their students who were 15 years old at the time of responding to the questionnaire. Fifteen-year-old students who participated in the study could be from different grade levels in the same school, thus school instead of class was the data unit in the design. Each country was required to draw a sample of 5000 students. In countries that had less than 5000 students, cohorts were used and in countries with larger populations the samples were weighted (PISA, 2004). Principals with fewer than six students were excluded. The final database used to fit the Hierarchical Linear Model included 869 Canadian, 166 US, and 155 Finnish schools. There were more public schools than private schools in the sample for all three coun-tries. The numbers of students included in the model were 5611 US, 22,646 Canadian, and 4714 Finish students. The gender ratio was fairly equal, and the average age of students was similar. Table 1 presents a summary of the demographic information of the participants in the study.

Results

Between and within school differences on science academic achievement

The unconditional model is an initial analysis used to compare the variability of sources. It is a one-way analysis of variance approach to identify the difference in stu-dent achievement explained by between schools and within school (individual student) differences. The results indicated that both student level and school level residual vari-ances were statistically significant, suggesting there was a need to add predictors to account for the remaining variance at both levels.

The grand mean was 520.69 for Canada, 563.59 for Finland, and 488.57 for the US. For Finland, the variance component (µ0j) from the grand mean was significantly different however, school variables accounted for only 5.8 percent of the variance in student sci-ence performance. For the US, school factors accounted for 23.78 percent of the vari-ance in student science performances. For Canada, school factors accounted for 20.51 percent of the variance in student science performance. Generally, studies of academic achievement using HLM have found 10 to 33 percent between school variability (Bryk and Raudenbush, 1992). Both the US and Canadian models fit this range, while

Table 1: Gender, age, and average science achievement

US Canada Finland

Female 49.40 51.00 50.60Male 50.60 49.00 49.40Age 15.82 15.85 15.17Science average 488.25 520.69 563.49




the variance between schools for Finland, only 5.8 percent, was much smaller. This indicates very small between school differences contributing to student science per-formance in Finland. The variance of science performance was largely explained by individual student differences.

Individual student variables across three countries

In the second stage, a random-coefficient regression model was adopted because the student variables were hypothesized to vary across schools. The final results of the student level model indicated a significant relationship between the student level vari-ables and science achievement in all three countries. The number of books at home (family resources) and family socioeconomic status were positively related to science achievement. The time students spent in labs conducting experiments and teachers clear explanation of scientific concepts were also significantly related to science achieve-ment. A negative relationship was implied because the variables were coded reversely with 1 indicating in all lessons, and 4 indicating never. Table 2 presents the results of the student model.

School resource variables across three countries

To investigate whether school resource factors remained significantly related to science achievement after controlling for student variables, the school effect model was exam-ined by adding school level variables to explain the variation. The results showed that none of the school resource factors were significantly related to students’ science achievement for Finland. Further, the interaction between student and school level variables also turned out to be insignificant for the Finland model. This is not surpris-ing, as only 5.8 percent of school resource factors explain Finnish students’ science achievement. However, school type (private versus public), shortage of lab equipment, shortage of science teachers, and ratio of full-time versus part-time science teachers were significantly related to US and Canadian students’ science achievement. For example, on average, US private schools outperformed public schools by 57.53 points. On average, US schools with principals reporting lack of lab equipment, and lack of qualified teachers scored 10.12 and 2.69 points lower per unit. These negative relation-ships were statistically significant. Similar results were identified for school effects in the Canadian model. Table 3 presents the comparative results of school level model.

Table 2: Comparison of individual student factors for the three countries

Family resource effects US Canada Finland

Coefficient p Coefficient p Coefficient p

Model for student mean,Intercept Level 2 grand mean

β0 488.88 520.69 563.18 .00

Gender β1 11.16 .05 10.96 .00 10.07 .00Number of books at home β2 16.94 .00 13.47 .00 13.86 .00Time spent doing lab β3 -3.55 .00 2.83 .00 -16.84 .00Teacher explain ideas clearly β4 -10.95 .00 -15.34 .00 -10.93 .00Family social economic status Β5 20.67 .00 15.49 .00 18.29 .00




Interactive results of student family and school resource variables

A mixed model approach was conducted to examine the interaction between student and school variables on student performance. In the mixed model, student level and school variables were entered into the model together to calculate a parameter estimate for each pair. Several interesting interactions were found. None of school and student level interactions were significant for Finland. Thus, Table 4 only presents the mixed model results of the US and Canada. The mixed model indicated some similarities, as

Table 3: Comparison of school effect variables of the three countries

Family resource effects US Canada Finland

Coefficient p Coefficient p Coefficient p

Model for school mean,Intercept Level 2 grand mean

γ00 462.70 0.00 450.57 0.00 564.84 0.00

School type γ01 57.53 0.00 53.82 0.00 -11.08 0.31Full-time and part-time teacher ratio

γ02 -0.13 0.01 0.48 0.00 0.24 0.14

Lack of qualified science teacher

γ03 -2.69 0.00 -5.65 0.00 -4.17 0.34

Lack of lab equipment γ04 -10.12 0.00 0.34 0.84 2.78 0.26

Table 4: Comparison of mixed effect of school and student level variables between the US and Canada

Fixed effects US Canada

Variable Coefficient SE t p Coefficient SE t p

Model for school mean, Intercept Level 2 grand mean

γ00 462.70 18.38 25.18 0.00 450.57 8.66 52.05 0.00

Models for slopes Socio-cultural status γ20 28.75 7.61 3.78 0.00 21.00 5.37 3.91 0.00 School shortage of

lab equipmentγ21 -3.99 1.65 -2.42 0.02 -0.99 0.38 -2.60 0.01

Time spent in lab for experiment

γ30 -7.14 9.21 -0.78 0.44 3.70 6.60 0.56 0.58

School hindered by lack of science teachers

γ31 - - - - -3.21 1.30 -2.48 0.01

School hindered by shortage of lab equipment

γ32 - - - - 3.97 1.24 3.20 0.00

Teachers clearly explains

γ40 -12.77 7.91 -1.62 0.11 -13.12 4.44 -2.95 0.00

School hindered by shortage of lab equipment

γ41 - - - - -2.39 0.97 -2.47 0.01




well as, differences between the two countries. On average, students who reported one unit higher number of books at home would also tend to have 16.23 and 20.15 points higher science score in the US and Canada respectively. Students who reported one unit higher of family socioeconomic status also tended to have an average of 28.75 and 21.00 points higher science score in the US and Canada respectively. Furthermore, in both US and Canadian models, the interaction between student socioeconomic status and shortage of lab equipment were significant. On average, US students with one unit less lab equipment were also 3.99 units lower socioeconomic status. On average, Canadian students who reported one less unit of lab equipment were also .99 units lower in family socioeconomic status. Major differences between the US and Canadian model existed in two ways: 1) the interactions between time doing experiment, lack of qualified science teachers, and shortage of lab equipment; and 2) the interaction between teachers clear explanation of science concepts and shortage of lab equipment. In both aspects, the interaction of the Canadian model was statistically significant, while the U.S model was not. For Canadian students, students who spent more time in the lab conducting experiments experienced a more severe problem with a lack of qualified science teachers in their schools. Also, students who spent less time conduct-ing experiments in the lab also experienced a shortage of lab equipment in their schools. Teachers who clearly explained the real life relevance of science concepts to students tended to experience a greater shortage of lab equipment. These observations were not significant in the US schools.

Conclusion and discussion

There is rising concern that the public school system in the United States will be unable to produce individuals competitive in the world market (Blumenfeld et al., 2000; Bracey, 2002). Many of the issues facing contemporary society rely heavily on scientific progress (Baldi, Jin, Skemer, Green, Herget, & Xie, 2007). The need for scientists to sustain American productivity throughout the 21st century was articulated by the 2007 report to Congress, Rising Above the Gathering Storm (Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, 2007). The deciding factor in international com-petitiveness may be each country’s level of student performance in scientific areas (Baldi et al., 2007; PISA, 2004). The rationale behind PISA is to provide empirical outcomes representative of educational systems that will inform educational leaders and influence policies enacted at the national or local levels. The focus of this research was to identify school resources and student factors that impact US students’ science achievement through comparative analysis with the Canadian and Finish school systems.

The Canadian and Finnish educational systems are highly centralized where schools are provided flexibility at the local level to decide how funds are used. Centralized funding provides a level playing field of resources that serves as the prerequisite for genuine local control in making educational decisions that matter (Darling-Hammond, 2009). The US educational system is one of the most unequal in terms of distribution of edu-cational resources between schools. These disparities weaken the nation’s capacity by reinforcing the inequalities in educational outcomes.

The differences in educational systems reflect social and economic differences that can-not be fully accounted for by school factors (Goldstein, 2004). Finland has a largely




homogeneous population with fewer differences in school populations than in the US where conditions of poverty are more extreme and contribute to disadvantaged school settings (Gamerman, 2008). The performance gap between race and class, in the US, illustrates the neglect in providing an efficient and equitable education for all children.

Student variables related to number of books at home, family socioeconomic status, time conducting experiments in the lab, and their teachers’ clear explanation of science concepts were all positively related to science achievement across the three countries. In the US and Canada, students who reported a shortage of lab equipment at school also had lower family incomes. This means students from disadvantaged homes attended schools with fewer resources. The discrepancy between lab equipment at school and socioeconomic status was large for US students when compared to that of Canadian students. For the US, the average gap was 3.99 units and for Canada, the average gap was 0.99 units. One area of further exploration should be the extent to which differences in student performance are associated with differences in socioeconomic status.

In the mixed Canadian model, students who spent more time in the lab doing experi-ments also faced a more severe problem with the lack of qualified science teachers in their schools. Also, students who spent less time doing experiments in the lab also experienced more shortage of lab equipment in their schools. For the students who reported that their teachers explained science concepts clearly more often tended to experience more shortage of lab equipment in schools. However, these observations were not significant in the US model.

The unconditional model indicated that there were larger variations in teacher quality and school resources in the US (23.78%) and Canadian schools (20.50%) than in Finnish schools (only 5.8%). None of the school factors including qualified science teachers, lab equipment, school type, and full-time versus half-time teacher ratio were significant for the variation of science achievement of Finnish students. Students in schools that lacked qualified science teachers, lab equipment, and part-time teachers were behind an average of 2.69, 10.12, and 0.13 points than students in schools with adequate qualified science teachers, lab equipment and more full-time teachers in the US. For Canada, the negative effect of shortage of science lab equipment and low full time-part time ratio was similar to the US model.

Students in private schools outperformed students their peers in public schools by 57.53 points in the US and 53.82 points in Canada. When accounting for socioeconomic sta-tus, students in public schools outperformed students in private schools by an average of 12 points (OECD, 2007). After controlling for student demographics, public schools outperformed both charter schools and private schools. The benefits of private school-ing are awarded students through the backgrounds and the economic level of the schools’ intake (Lubienski and Lubienski, 2006).

One plausible explanation for the variability in American schools might be resource disparity. Throughout the 1990s, the NAEP demonstrated a widening achievement gap between low-poverty and high-poverty schools (Center on Education Policy, 2009). Low-minority, high-income schools tend to be better funded and have all-around stronger resources than high-minority, high-poverty schools. According to Carey, ‘Closing the achievement gap starts with closing the funding gap – Only by providing the necessary resources can states help ensure quality education for all students’ (2004).




The disparity in school funding perpetuates the inequitable distribution of high-quality teachers. Schools with 40 percent or more students eligible for free or reduced lunch report difficulty in finding qualified teachers (WCPSS, 1999). Policy-makers need to consider policies that will help disadvantaged schools secure and maintain a high-quality teaching force. In Finland, such policies exist. School cultures have been estab-lished that support professional growth by instituting mentoring programs and professional learning communities where teachers have time to collaborate, develop curriculum, and discuss educational practices (Clotfeler, 2006). Teacher training pro-grams are fully subsidized and pay is competitive with other professions. In Finland, intensive teacher training programs ensure that certified teachers are competent profes-sionals before they enter the classroom (Garland, 2008). According to Darling-Hammond, in order to be competitive with other nations, ‘we need to be thinking about building a supply of great teachers and continually improving their skills, rather than only focusing on the bad teachers when we haven’t helped them learn how to be good’ (Garland, 2008).

We must recognize that student performance is affected by the priorities implied in the structure of school funding. Understanding the importance of education and the conse-quences of a failing system, the US can look at the proportion of government spending that is directed towards education and determine the proportion of spending necessary to improve the educational system and meet the needs of the disadvantaged populations. Finland spends a greater percentage of their gross domestic product than the US. In a country with so much wealth, commitments to improve the educational system are not matched by resources. Schools in Finland and Canada benefit from an equal distribution of funding and schools are equipped with similar resources. Policies written to alleviate these differences will contribute to the US international standing in education just as the long-term reforms in Finland elevated their international ranking.

In the 1980s, Finland eliminated standardized testing and revised their national stand-ards and curriculum. The national standards for students in Finland are limited and are about 10 pages in length. In the US, teachers are required to instruct students on a set on prescribed standards for each subject area and grade. Standards are developed at the state level and are much more specific and the extensive in scope. The curriculum in Finland was developed to focus learning goals on problem-solving, higher order think-ing, independent learning, as well as the integration of technology (Darling-Hammond, 2009). The PISA assessments require students to think beyond the application of basic scientific facts and apply what they have learned. The narrowing of the curriculum in the US by national standards and mandated testing has reduced the flexibility teachers once had to be innovative and move beyond simple facts, to explore concepts, and engage students in complex problem-solving activities. It would be interesting to deter-mine whether or not the difference in national standards and testing systems impact student performance on the PISA 2006.

Also of concern are measurement issues regarding the PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy Assessment. There is a plethora of international literature that has raised concerns about the design and validity of the PISA assessments and their ability to represent students’ scientific knowledge and comprehension (Astolopolous, Psalidas, Hatzinkita, & Katsis, 2008; Goldstein, 2004; Rochex, 2006; Yee, 2006). Among those arguments are questions regarding content validity (Pelliccia and Arrisueno, 2009), phrasing of




test questions (Rochex, 2006), and test design. To ensure comparability and accurate interpretation of the test scores, fundamental problems with test construction would need to be investigated. Until then there is a word of caution to those who intend to use PISA findings to change educational policy or practice.

The author can be contacted via email at: [email protected]

References

Akiba M, LeTendre GK and Scribner JP (2007) Teacher quality, opportunity gap and achievement gap in 47 countries. Educational Researcher 36(7): 369–387.

Astolopolous C, Psalidas A, Hatzinkita V and Katsis A (2008) Student assessment on PISA science items: Methodological issues. The International Journal of Learning 15(8): 1–9.

Baldi S, Jin Y, Skemer M, Green P, Herget D and Xie H (2007) Highlights from Pisa 2006: Performance of US 15-year-old students in science and mathematics literacy in an international context. IES National Center for Education Statistics, pp. 1–74.

Blumenfeld T, Fishman B, Krajcik J, Marx R and Soloway E (2000) Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling-up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist 35(3): 149–164.

Bracey GW (2002) Why do we scapegoat the schools? Washington Post, 5 May, p. B01.

Boyd D, Lankford H, Loeb S, Rockoff J and Wyckoff J (2008) How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Education Finance & Policy 1(2): 176–216.

Bryk AS and Raudenbush SW (1992) Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Canadian Teachers Federation (2010) The Canadian educational system: Becoming a teacher. CPEAC.org. Available from: http://www.ctf-fce.ca/TIC/Default.aspx?SID=625890, accessed 23 January 2010.

Center on Education Policy (2009) Has student achievement increased since 2002? Available from: http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=535&nodeID=1, accessed 3August 2009.

Clotfelter C, Ladd H, Vigdor J and Wheeler J (2006) High poverty schools and the distribution of teachers and principals. Stanford Working Paper Series. 1–40.

Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century (2007) Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Darling-Hammond L (2009) The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gamerman E (2008) What makes Finnish kids so smart? The Wall Street Journal, 28 February. Available from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120425355065601997.html, accessed 2 September 2009.

Garland S (2008) Reform school: An Obama advisor thinks US schools could take a lesson from Finland and Singapore. Newsweek, 18 December. Available from: www.newsweek.com/id/175894/page/1, accessed 31 August 2009.

Ginsberg A, Leinwand S and Pollock E (2007) Lessons learned from U.S. international science performance. American Institutes for Research, 1–41.

Goldstein H (2004) International comparisons of student attainment: Some issues arising from PISA study. Assessment in Education 11: 319–330.

Haberman J (2006) The impact of differential expenditures on school performance. Educational Researcher 18: 45–62.

Hanushek E (1996) School resources and student performance. In: Burtless G (ed.) Does Money Matter? The Effect of School Resources on Student Achievement and Adult Success. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 43–73.

Institute of Education Sciences: National Center for Education Statistics (2009) Program for international student assessment (PISA). Available from: http://nces.ed.gov/Surveys/PISA/index.asp.




Jacob B and Ludwig J (2008) Improving Educational Outcomes for Poor Children. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Krueger A (1999) Experimental estimates of education production functions. Quarterly Journal of Economics 64(2): 497–532.

Kozol J (2005) The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. New York City, NY: Random House. 1–416.

Lippman L, Burns S and McArthur E (1996) Urban Schools: The Challenge of Location and Poverty. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Lubienski C and Lubienski S (2006) Charter, Private, Pubic, and Academic Achievement: New Evidence from NAEP Mathematics. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education. New York: Teachers’ College Columbia University.

Murnane R and Levy F (1996) Evidence from Fifteen Schools in Austin, Texas. Teaching the New Basic Skills. Austin, TX: Fress Press.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (2008) The nation’s report card. Available from: http://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2005/s0111.asp, accessed 17 April 2009.

National Center for Education Statistics (2007) The condition of education 2007. NCES 2007-064. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Educational Statistics (2003) Trends in International Mathematics and Science: 2003 Results. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Sciences. US Department of Education.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2003) The PISA assessment frame-work: Mathematics, reading, science, and problem solving knowledge and skills. OECD. 1-152. Retrieved January 14, 2010 from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0.3417.en_32252351_32236101_1_1_1_1_1.00.htnl

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2006) Top of the class: High performers in science in Pisa 2006. Secretary General of OECD. Available from: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/datao-ecd/44/17/42645389.pdf, accessed 21 January 2009.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2007) Executive Summary: Pisa 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World. Paris: OECD.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2009a) What is Pisa? Available from: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_32252351_32235907_1_1_1_1_1,00.html, accessed 14 January 2010.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Economic Development (OECD) (2009b) Available from: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_32252351_32235918_1_1_1_1_1,00.html, accessed 21 January 2010.

Pelliccia L and Arrisueno G (2009) New study shows selective use of data and political bias in international test: Report also finds encouraging progress in big city districts, despite continued achievement gaps. Brookings Institute, Washington, DC.

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (2004) A Profile of Student Performance in Reading and Science. Paris: OECD.

Recruiting New Teachers (2000) The Urban Teacher Challenge: Teacher Demand and Supply in the Great City Schools. Belmont, MA: Author (in association with the Council of the Great City Schools and the Council of the Great City Colleges of Education).

Rochex J (2006) Chapter 5: Social, methodological, theoretical issues regarding assessment: Lessons from a secondary analysis of PISA 2000 literacy tests. Review of Research in Education 30(1): 163–212.

Roth D and Swail W (2000) Certification and Teacher Preparation in the United States. Washington, DC: Educational Policy Institute.

Rumberger RW and Palardy GJ (2005) Does resegregation matter? The impact of social composition on academic achievement in Southern high schools. In: Boger JC and Orfield G (eds) School Resegregation: Must the South Turn Back? Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 127–147.

United Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (2005) Child poverty in rich countries 2005. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.

US Department of Education (2006) National assessment of educational progress: Comparing private schools and public schools using the hierarchical linear model. National Center for Educational Statistics: Institute of Educational Sciences, Washington, DC.




Wake County Public School System (WCPSS) (1999) The impact of poverty upon schools. Wake County Public School System Evaluation and Research Department. Available at: http://www.wcpss.net/evaluation-research/reports/1999/9920_poverty.pdf, accessed 22 May 2010.

Wilson DJ (2010) Separate school. In: The Canadian Encyclopedia. Available from: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007290, accessed 24 January 2010.

Yee LP (2006) What are PISA and TIMSS? What do they tell us? Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematics, Madrid, Spain, 1–10.



2/2/2015 Three Reasons Students Do Better Overseas - NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/opinion/why-students-do-better-overseas.html?pagewanted=print 1/4

December 17, 2013

Why Other Countries Teach BetterBy THE EDITORIAL BOARDMillions of laid-off American factory workers were the first to realize that they were competing

against job seekers around the globe with comparable skills but far smaller paychecks. But a

similar fate also awaits workers who aspire to high-skilled, high-paying jobs in engineering and

technical fields unless this country learns to prepare them to compete for the challenging work

that the new global economy requires.

The American work force has some of the weakest mathematical and problem-solving skills in

the developed world. In a recent survey by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development, a global policy organization, adults in the United States scored far below average

and better than only two of 12 other developed comparison countries, Italy and Spain. Worse

still, the United States is losing ground in worker training to countries in Europe and Asia

whose schools are not just superior to ours but getting steadily better.

The lessons from those high-performing countries can no longer be ignored by the United

States if it hopes to remain competitive.

Finland: Teacher Training

Though it dropped several rankings in last year’s tests, Finland has for years been in the highest

global ranks in literacy and mathematical skills. The reason dates to the postwar period, when

Finns first began to consider creating comprehensive schools that would provide a quality,

high-level education for poor and wealthy alike. These schools stand out in several ways,

providing daily hot meals; health and dental services; psychological counseling; and an array of

services for families and children in need. None of the services are means tested. Moreover, all

high school students must take one of the most rigorous required curriculums in the world,

including physics, chemistry, biology, philosophy, music and at least two foreign languages.

But the most important effort has been in the training of teachers, where the country leads

most of the world, including the United States, thanks to a national decision made in 1979. The

country decided to move preparation out of teachers’ colleges and into the universities, where it

became more rigorous. By professionalizing the teacher corps and raising its value in society,

the Finns have made teaching the country’s most popular occupation for the young. These



programs recruit from the top quarter of the graduating high school class, demonstrating that

such training has a prestige lacking in the United States. In 2010, for example, 6,600 applicants

competed for 660 available primary school preparation slots in the eight Finnish universities

that educate teachers.

The teacher training system in this country is abysmal by comparison. A recent report by the

National Council on Teacher Quality called teacher preparation programs “an industry of

mediocrity,” rating only 10 percent of more than 1,200 of them as high quality. Most have low

or no academic standards for entry. Admission requirements for teaching programs at the State

University of New York were raised in September, but only a handful of other states have taken

similar steps.

Finnish teachers are not drawn to the profession by money; they earn only slightly more than

the national average salary. But their salaries go up by about a third in the first 15 years, several

percentage points higher than those of their American counterparts. Finland also requires

stronger academic credentials for its junior high and high school teachers and rewards them

with higher salaries.

Canada: School funding

Canada also has a more rigorous and selective teacher preparation system than the United

States, but the most striking difference between the countries is how they pay for their schools.

American school districts rely far too heavily on property taxes, which means districts in

wealthy areas bring in more money than those in poor ones. State tax money to make up the

gap usually falls far short of the need in districts where poverty and other challenges are

greatest.

Americans tend to see such inequalities as the natural order of things. Canadians do not. In

recent decades, for example, three of Canada’s largest and best-performing provinces —

Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario — have each addressed the inequity issue by moving to

province-level funding formulas. As a recent report by the Center for American Progress notes,

these formulas allow the provinces to determine how much money each district will receive,

based on each district’s size and needs. The systems even out the tax base and help ensure that

resources are distributed equitably, not clustered in wealthy districts.

These were not boutique experiments. The Ontario system has more than two million public

school students — more than in 45 American states and the District of Columbia. But the

contrast to the American system could not be more clear. Ontario, for example, strives to

eliminate or at least minimize the funding inequality that would otherwise exist between poor



and wealthy districts. In most American states, however, the wealthiest, highest-spending

districts spend about twice as much per pupil as the lowest-spending districts, according to a

federal advisory commission report. In some states, including California, the ratio is more than

three to one.

This has left 40 percent of American public school students in districts of “concentrated student

poverty,” the commission’s report said.

Shanghai: Fighting Elitism

China’s educational system was largely destroyed during Mao Zedong’s “cultural revolution,”

which devalued intellectual pursuits and demonized academics. Since shortly after Mao’s death

in 1976, the country has been rebuilding its education system at lightning speed, led by

Shanghai, the nation’s largest and most internationalized city. Shanghai, of course, has

powerful tools at its disposal, including the might of the authoritarian state and the nation’s

centuries-old reverence for scholarship and education. It has had little difficulty advancing a

potent succession of reforms that allowed it to achieve universal enrollment rapidly. The real

proof is that its students were first in the world in math, science and literacy on last year’s

international exams.

One of its strengths is that the city has mainly moved away from an elitist system in which

greater resources and elite instructors were given to favored schools, and toward a more

egalitarian, neighborhood attendance system in which students of diverse backgrounds and

abilities are educated under the same roof. The city has focused on bringing the once-shunned

children of migrant workers into the school system. In the words of the O.E.C.D, Shanghai has

embraced the notion that migrant children are also “our children” — meaning that city’s future

depends in part on them and that they, too, should be included in the educational process.

Shanghai has taken several approaches to repairing the disparity between strong schools and

weak ones, as measured by infrastructure and educational quality. Some poor schools were

closed, reorganized, or merged with higher-level schools. Money was transferred to poor, rural

schools to construct new buildings or update old ones. Teachers were transferred from cities to

rural areas and vice versa. Stronger urban schools were paired with rural schools with the aim

of improving teaching methods. And under a more recent strategy, strong schools took over the

administration of weak ones. The Chinese are betting that the ethos, management style and

teaching used in the strong schools will be transferable.

America’s stature as an economic power is being threatened by societies above us and below us

on the achievement scale. Wealthy nations with high-performing schools are consolidating

their advantages and working hard to improve. At the same time, less-wealthy countries like



Chile, Brazil, Indonesia and Peru, have made what the O.E.C.D. describes as “impressive gains

catching up from very low levels of performance.” In other words, if things remain as they are,

countries that lag behind us will one day overtake us.

The United States can either learn from its competitors abroad — and finally summon the will

to make necessary policy changes — or fall further and further behind. The good news is that

this country has an impressive history of school improvement, as reflected in the early-20th-

century compulsory school movement and the postwar expansion, which broadened access to

college. Similar levels of focus and effort will be needed to move forward again.

Flunking innovation and creativityAuthor(s): Yong ZhaoSource: The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 94, No. 1 (September 2012), pp. 56-61Published by: Phi Delta Kappa InternationalStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41763573 .

Accessed: 05/02/2015 12:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Phi Delta Kappa International is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The PhiDelta Kappan.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.3 on Thu, 5 Feb 2015 12:08:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pdki

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41763573?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


i I^S^^fttion

and creativity

scores in math, science, and reading are

developing innovators and entrepreneurs.

By Yong Zhao

"We have a wake-up call now about America's kids," announced a worried Diane Sawyer on "ABC World News" in December 2010.

Three weeks earlier, Sawyer had taken viewers to China to show them what she called "the ambition and energy of 1.3 billion people" competing for the American dream. "Today, the new international reading, math, and science scores were released, and Chi- nese students left American teens in the dust in all three categories," Sawyer said.

"In fact, these numbers are stunning for the entire world. Shanghai stunner, you could call it," said ABC reporter David Muir who accompanied Sawyer to China and farther explained the significance of the scores. He pointed out that U.S. Secretary Arne Duncan labeled the scores a wake-up call for Amer- ica and President Obama and tagged the occasion "a modern day Sputnik moment to catch up." The rest of the 3 ̂-minute news clip featured stunning

YONG ZHAO ([email protected]) is presidential chair and associate dean for global education in the University of Oregon's College of Education, Eugene, Ore. This article is adapted from his book World Class Learners: Educating Creative and Entre- preneurial Students (Corwin, 2012).

graphics showing how American students trailed Shang- hai and several Asian countries, plus footage of President John F. Kennedy talking about the Soviet's Sputnik, the first man-made satellite to orbit the earth, launched in 1957 (Sawyer, 2010).

Sawyer was referring to the most recent results of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), an international assessment of 1 5 -year-olds in mathematics, reading, and science. In the most recent round, 65 nations participated in the study, with China's Shanghai ranking No. 1 in all three categories and the United States coming out average or below average (OECD, 2010). The results received extensive media coverage in the United States, all emitting a sense of shock, urgency, and anxiety. For example, Shanghai's students posted an average reading score of 556, compared to 500 for U.S. students, and they achieved the highest scores in math, 600, which was 113 points higher than the average for U.S. students (Associated Press, 2010). Considering the size of the gap between American students and Shanghai students, this sense of urgency and anxiety seems warranted.

Why didn't China celebrate?

Shanghai's stunning performance shocked other countries,

56 Kappan September 201 2



too. For example, a recent report by Australia's Grat- tali Institute highlighted the extraordinary education achievement in Shanghai where "the average 15 -year- old mathematics student is performing at a level two to three years, on average, above his or her counterpart in Australia, the U.S., the U.K., and EU21 countries" (Jensen, 2012, p. 7). Although China has been thought of as a country with excellent education for a while now, Shanghai's PISA scores officially sealed its position as a world leader. It has become an education giant, one of the best-performing education systems, and a target of envy and learning. Surpassing Shanghai has become a goal for many countries, suggests the tide of Marc Tucker's recent book, Surpassing Shanghai : An Agenda for American Education Built on the Worlďs Leading Sys- tems (Harvard Education Press, 201 1).

But China did not have a big party celebrating this apparently outstanding achievement, which is unusual for a country eager to affirm its rise on the global stage with massive media coverage of any achievement in international competition, such as the number of Olympic medals. In fact, there was very little national coverage of the PISA results by the state-run mainstream media. And whenever the PISA story is mentioned, it is often accompanied with cautionary notes about why this news is not worth celebrating.

Steve Jobs, among others, is one of the whys. "China needs (Steve) Jobs," China's Premier Wen

Jiabao told business leaders in Jiangshu during his tour of one of China's most developed provinces in December 2011. "We must have products like Ap- ple's that can dominate the world's markets" (Zhang, 2011). Wen's comments reflect China's burning de- sire for innovative and entrepreneurial talents to transform its labor-intensive economy to one built on innovation and creativity.

Despite its astounding economic growth for more than two decades, China's economy remains labor- intensive rather than knowledge-intensive. Accord- ing to a report of the Chinese National Statistics Bureau, only about 2,000 Chinese companies owned the patent for the core technology used in the products they produced in 2005; that number represents less than 0.003% of all Chinese companies in that year (Zhao & Wu, 2005). Merely 473 innovations from China were recognized by the world's leading patent offices outside China in 2008 versus 14,399 from the United States (Gupta & Wang, 2011). As a result, although products worth billions of dollars are made in China, they are not made by China. Fur- thermore, an economy built on cheap labor is very volatile in a world where many countries can offer cheap labor. Rising labor costs and the increasing value of its currency already have threatened China's status as the world's factory.

But China can't have a Steve Jobs unless it fun- damentally reforms its education, according to one of the most influential Chinese-American technology gurus, who has dedicated himself to incubating young entrepreneurs in China. "The next Apple, the next Google will come, but probably not in China," said Kai-fti Lee, founder of Innovation Works, an investment company aimed at cultivating innovative entrepreneurship in China. Lee was former founding president of Google China and former vice president of Interactive Services of Microsoft after working at Apple as a research and development executive (Cai- jing, 2010).

"At least not in the next 50 years or 100 years, there will not be an Apple or Google in China," Lee said in a controversial prediction at the World Eco- nomic Forum's Summer Davos in Tianjin, China, in September 2010. Lee migrated from Taiwan to the U.S. at 11 and received his undergraduate education at Columbia and earned a Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon University. "If China wants this (to have an Apple or Google), it must rebuild its education system," Lee said.

The same in Singapore

Why is such an "excellent education system" held responsible for China's failure to produce a Steve Jobs? Why would the Chinese want to blow it up if it is as outstanding as its PISA performance suggests it is? Apparently, there is a mismatch of understanding of educational excellence.

The mismatch goes beyond China. Around the same time that China's Wen Jiabao said his country needs Steve Jobs, the iconic entrepreneur and the company he cofounded incited a discussion about creativity and entrepreneurship in another Asian country that has been viewed by outsiders to have the best education. In 2011, Steve Wozniak, who founded Apple with Jobs, said during an interview that a company like Apple could not emerge in structured countries like Singapore:

When you're very structured almost like a religion . . . Uniforms, uniforms, uniforms . . . everybody is the same. Look at structured societies like Singapore where bad behavior isn't tolerated. You are extremely punished. Where are the creative people? Where

V94 N1 kappanmagazine.org 57



are the great artists? Where are the great musicians? Where are the great singers? Where are the great writers? Where are the athletes? All the creative elements seem to disappear. (BBC, 2011)

Wozniak's comments quickly got the attention of Singaporeans, who have been working hard at pro- moting creativity and entrepreneurship. Although some disagreed with Wozniak's assessment, the overall reaction was that he told the truth. Singa- porean entrepreneur Willis Wee wrote, "I'm not sure how much Wozniak knows about Singapore and its system. But as a Singaporean, who grew up in this tiny island, I have to agree with his words" (Wee, 2011).

In a CNN article, Singaporean journalist Alexis Ong concurred. "At first glance, it made the small pseudo-patriot in me annoyed, but for the most part, the great and mighty Woz speaks the truth," she said, adding that the culprit is Singapore's education system. "Wozniak's comments are really a scathing indictment of the Singapore education system, its strictly regimented curriculum and by-rote study techniques that sustain the city's formal culture," said Ong. Everybody is educated in Singapore, she added. "But clearly the Singaporean education isn't the kind of education that gives rise to the people like Sergey Brin and Mark Zuckerberg ... In Singapore, where children are streamed into different academic tracks and under pressure to get into a reputable school before the age of 12, the push to conform is enormous" (Ong, 2012).

But outsiders believe Singapore has an excellent education system. Outsiders have envied and admired Singapore for its consistently high performance on international tests. Since the early 1990s, Singapore has ranked in the top five in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). In the most recent PISA, Singapore took second place in math, fourth place in sciences, and fifth in reading. Here again is a case of contradiction - an education giant that has trouble producing the creative and entrepreneurial talents it needs.

Achievement gap vs. entrepreneurship gap This contradiction exists in other high-perform-

ing countries as well. Korea and Japan have consistently produced outstanding scores in international

tests. In the most recent PISA administered in 2009, Korea ranked fourth in math, sixth in sciences, and second in reading, while Japan was ninth in math, fifth in sciences, and eighth in reading. Nonethe- less, these countries have not traditionally shown a level of creativity and innovation-driven entrepreneurship that matched their test scores. Accord- ing to the 2010 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) report (Kelley, Bosma, & Amoros, 2010), Korea and Japan were at the bottom of the list of 22 innovation-oriented developed nations, taking 19th and 2 1st place respectively in terms of "nascent entrepreneurship rate," which is defined as the percentage of people actively engaged in early stage entrepreneurial activities. (China and Singapore weren't included in the GEM study.)

That GEM report also said Korea ranked seventh and Japan 2 1st in the percentage of individuals who started and are still managing a business. An even more telling figure is that less than half of all the early entrepreneurship activities in Korea and Japan were driven by opportunity and improvement, the rest were driven by necessity. In this category, Korea ranked 16th and Japan 18th.

The contradictory relationship between test scores and entrepreneurship activities is further af- firmed by a comparison of PISA performance along with the entrepreneurship activities of nations. PISA scores in reading, math, and sciences are negatively correlated with entrepreneurship indicators in almost every category at statistically significant levels. In other words, countries with higher PISA scores have lower entrepreneurship activities. Specifically, countries with better performance on PISA tend to have fewer people who plan to start businesses and fewer people who have started new businesses.

The inverse relationship between PISA scores - often perceived as the measure of a nation's education quality and its students' academic abilities - and entrepreneurship activities seems to affirm the contradiction exemplified by Singapore and China. This means that the commonly used measures of educational quality have negative or no relationships with entrepreneurship .

The level of entrepreneurial activities in a nation is affected by many factors, but one of the most important factors is the percentage of individuals with entrepreneurial qualities because these are the individuals who undertake entrepreneurship activities. And one of the most significant elements of entrepreneurial qualities is perceived entrepreneurial capabilities - that is, an individual's confidence in his or her ability to succeed in entrepreneurship. Research suggests high-performing countries in international tests show a low level of perceived entrepreneurial capabilities (Zhao, 2012). For example, high-scoring

58 Kappan September 201 2



countries on the PISA and TIMSS such as Singa- pore, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan scored much lower than Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States in the category of perceived entrepreneurship capabilities of the GEM survey in 2011 (Bosma, Wennekers, & Amoros, 2012). Figure 1 shows the ranking of 2 3 countries and regions that participated in both the 2009 PISA math and 201 1 GEM entrepreneurial capabilities. All 23 countries and regions are considered developed economies and thus are categorized as "innovation-driven economies" by the GEM study.

As Figure 1 shows, countries that scored higher in the 2009 PISA had lower scores in perceived entrepreneurial capabilities. Japan, Singapore, Ko- rea, and Taiwan, among the top six on the PISA math score league table, are the lowest in terms of entrepreneurial capabilities, while the lowest ranked countries in PISA such as the United Arab Emirates, the United States, and Spain have the

highest entrepreneurial capabilities. This inverse relationship is confirmed by a correlational analysis, which shows significant negative correlation between PISA scores and entrepreneurial capabilities across countries (Zhao, 2012).

Interpreting the gaps From China and Singapore's blame of their sup-

posedly excellent education for their inability to produce creative and entrepreneurial talents like Steve Jobs to the overall negative relationship between PISA scores and entrepreneurial capabilities, it seems reasonable to question the value and con- sequently the significance of educational excellence measured by international assessments such as the PISA. Entrepreneurship is directly related to economic prosperity and success. Thus, there should be little doubt that entrepreneurial capabilities may be a more worthwhile indicator than test scores. Even if we assume no causal relationship between the PISA




and entrepreneurial activities and capabilities, the gap in PISA test scores may not warrant the level of anxiety and concern expressed by policy makers, the media, and the public.

But there is another possibility that should worry us: If the Chinese and Singaporeans are correct to blame their education for their shortage of creative and entrepreneurial talents, then the relationship between PISA scores and entrepreneurial capabilities and activities indeed could be causal. That would mean that pursuing academic achievement may come at the cost of entrepreneurial qualities. In other words, the educational practices and societal factors that help students achieve academically may hamper entrepreneurial qualities and reduce creativity. Standardized, narrow, and uniform educational experiences, high-stakes standardized testing, a push for conformity, and intolerance of exceptional talents are among the factors identified in China and Singa- pore's education system for destroying the nations' creativity and entrepreneurial spirits.

Implications The world needs more creators, innovators, mak-

ers, and entrepreneurs. Numerous international orga- nizations have produced reports about the importance of entrepreneurship and issued calls for countries to develop entrepreneurship (Schoof, 2006; World Eco- nomic Forum, 201 1) because "innovation and entrepreneurship provide a way forward for solving the global challenges of the 2 1 st century, building sustain- able development, creating jobs, generating renewed economic growth, and advancing human welfare" (World Economic Forum, 2009, p. 7). In the U.S., the Obama administration launched a $2 billion entrepreneurship initiative in 2 0 1 1 , which includes a significant piece for youth entrepreneurship education because, as President Obama said, "entrepreneurs are the engine of job creation in America, generating mil- lions of good jobs" (2009). There is also an increasing call for adding entrepreneurship education to all school curriculum (Aspen Youth Entrepreneurship Strategy Group, 2008).

But, unfortunately, America is becoming more like Asia. American reformers have been steadily transforming schools into education environments hostile to creative and entrepreneurial talents. In an effort to close the achievement gap in test scores through measures such as No Child Left Behind, the U.S. has added a strong Asian flavor to its schools characterized by centralized standardized curriculum and high-stakes standardized testing. It is con- tinuing down the same path with more rigor and force with the Common Core standards initiative and Race to the Top. Already, America has seen a significant narrowing of curricula (McMurrer, 2008)

and a drastic shift toward teaching to the test (Nich- ols & Berliner, 2007). Coincidentally, America also saw a significant decline in creativity in the last few decades, as Newsweek reported in 2010 (Bronson & Merryman, 2010).

If America wants to continue its tradition of innovation and entrepreneurship, if President Obama is serious about out-innovating others and encouraging entrepreneurship, we must stop policies and practices that can harm creativity and entrepreneurship. This means attempts to narrow a child's educational experiences, to deprive children of opportunities to explore their interests and pas- sions, or to label children incompetent or at risk just because they don't perform well on standardized tests. This also means any attempt to standardize and homogenize school experiences by forcing all teachers to teach the same thing at the same time for all children through test-based accountability measures for teachers and school leaders. Essen- tially, stop NCLB, stop the Common Core, and stop Race to the Top!

Of course, the most desirable situation is not just stopping efforts that can do harm, but developing an education that enhances human curiosity and creativity, encourages risk taking, and cultivates the entrepreneurial spirit in the context of globaliza- tion. Such an education requires a significant shift in our mindset about education from employment- oriented to entrepreneurship-oriented. An entrepreneurship-oriented education affords children autonomy, voice, and choice in what they learn, engages children in creating and making works that matter, and provides the learning in a global context. K

References

Aspen Youth Entrepreneurship Strategy Group. (2008). Youth entrepreneurship education in America: A policy maker's action guide. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

Associated Press. (2010, December 7). In ranking, U.S. students trail global leaders. USA Today.

BBC. (201 1 , Jan. 20). Steve Wozniak: "Think for yourself." www.bbc.co.uk

Bosma, N., Wennekers, S., & Amorós, J. (2012). Global entrepreneurship monitor: 201 1 extended report: Entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial employees across the globe. London, England: Global Entrepreneurship Research Association.

Bronson, P. & Merryman, A. (2010, July 10). The creativity crisis. Newsweek.

Caijing. (2010). Kai-fu Lee: The next Apple will not be invented in China (translated), www.caijing.com.cn

60 Kappan September 2012



Gupta, A. & Wang, H. (201 1 , July 28). Chinese innovation is a paper tiger. The Wall Street Journal.

Jensen, B. (201 2). Catching up: Learning from the best school systems in East Asia. Melbourne, Australia: Grattan Institute.

Kelley, D., Bosma, N., & Amorós, J. (2010). Global entrepreneurship monitor. London, England: Global Entrepreneurship Research Association.

McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

Nichols, S. & Berliner, D. (2007). Collateral damage: How high- stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Obama, B. (2009, March 10). President Obama's remarks to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. The New York Times.

OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results. Paris, France: Author.

Ong, A. (2012, January 10). Singapore needs to encourage "bad behavior." CNN. www.cnngo.com

Sawyer, D. (2010, December 7). China beats U.S. in reading, math, and science. ABC News, abcnews.go.com

Schoof, U. (2006). Stimulating youth entrepreneurship: Barriers and incentives to enterprise start-ups by young people. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labor Organization.

Wee, W. (201 1 , December 15). Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak questions Singapore's creativity. Tech in Asia. www. techinasia.com/wozniak-questions-singapore-creativity/

World Economic Forum. (2009). Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs: Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st century. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

World Economic Forum. (201 1). Unlocking entrepreneur capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st century: Final report on the entrepreneurship education work stream. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

Zhang, S. (201 1 , December 21). Wen Jiabao: Zhongguo yao you qiaobusi (Wen Jiabao: China needs jobs). China Daily.

Zhao, X. & Wu, Q. (2005, December 20). End-of-year report: China to strengthen protection of intellectual properties and encourage domestic innovation. Xinhua News Service.

Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.




2 10 15 readings

Documents

student achievement

student variables

student performance

pisa content

pisa assessments

student success oecd

school resources

usaabstractthe pisa