Where Does America Stand?

1. Where Does America Stand? Gary W. Phillips Vice President & Chief Scientist American Institutes for Research May 4, 2011 Education Writers Association New Orleans, LA

2. Where Does America Stand? • The Biggest Lesson Learned From PISA • Why has Setting High Standards in the United States Not Worked? • The Importance of International Benchmarking Gary W. Phillips, American Institutes for Research

3. Lessons From PISA for the United States • PISA continues to document the mediocre performance of the U.S. among the OECD countries even though • We spend more on education per student • Only Luxembourg spends more • The parents of our students are more educated • Ranking 8th among the OECD countries • SES heterogeneity is about average with other OECD countries • Even though our immigrant population is large (6th largest among OECD countries - about 19.5%) this only explains 3% of the variance between country performance. Gary W. Phillips, AIR

4. Lessons From PISA for the United States • What works? • Everything else being equal, countries that place a high value on education get better results than countries that do not. Gary W. Phillips, AIR

5. The Biggest Lesson Learned From PISA – How Bad the Problem is (PISA, 2009) Gary W. Phillips, American Institutes for Research

6. The Biggest Lesson Learned From PISA – How Bad the Problem is (PISA, 2009) Gary W. Phillips, American Institutes for Research

7. The Biggest Lesson Learned From PISA – How Bad the Problem is (PISA, 2009) Gary W. Phillips, American Institutes for Research

8. The Biggest Lesson Learned From PISA – How Bad the Problem is (PISA, 2009) Gary W. Phillips, American Institutes for Research

9. The Biggest Lesson Learned From PISA – How Bad the Problem is (PISA, 2009) Gary W. Phillips, American Institutes for Research

10. The Biggest Lesson Learned From PISA – How Bad the Problem is (PISA, 2009) Gary W. Phillips, American Institutes for Research

11. The Biggest Lesson Learned From PISA – How Bad the Problem is) • The United States is not even close to being prepared to win the international educational competition race. • Some of our economic competitors are so far ahead of us that it is hard to imagine how we will ever catch up. Gary W. Phillips, American Institutes for Research

12. Why has Setting High Standards in the United States Not Worked? • Ever since the Nation at Risk (1983) the U.S. education policy mantra has been we should set high standards because all children can learn. Gary W. Phillips, AIR

13. Why has Setting High Standards in the United States Not Worked? • This mantra has been replayed over and over again through a steady stream of • National panels (e.g., Goals 2000) • Federal Legislation (e.g., NCLB) • Each demanding higher and higher standards monitored through standards-based accountability testing. Gary W. Phillips, AIR

14. Why has Setting High Standards in the United States Not Worked? • Over the past three decades this has not worked as evidenced by • NAEP’s 30-year long term trend is basically flat. • For two decades the percent proficient in reading, writing, math & science is basically flat at about 30% in grade 4 and dropping even more by grade 12. • For two decades the United States has remained in the middle ranking in international comparisons. • Of every 100 students starting in the 9th grade 30% drop out and another 35% are not prepared for college. • STEM College Degrees (NSF, 2006) • United States 17% (many are awarded to foreign students) • South Korea 41% • China 52% • Japan 64% Gary W. Phillips, AIR

15. Why has Setting High Standards in the United States Not Worked? • So after 30 years of efforts to raise standards and unprecedented increases in accountability testing • Not improved student achievement • Not internationally competitive • Not substantially reduced the dropout rate • Not substantially improved the rate of college readiness Gary W. Phillips, AIR

16. Why has Setting High Standards in the United States Not Worked? • Because, we haven’t actually set high standards we have only talked about it. Gary W. Phillips, AIR

17. Selling the Student Short by Setting Low StandardsState Performance Standards, Grade 8, Mathematics References: Mapping state proficiency standards onto NAEP scales: 2005–2007 (NCES, 2009) and International benchmarking: state education performance standards (Phillips, 2010) Gary W. Phillips, American Institutes for Research

18. Selling the Student Short by Setting Low StandardsState Performance Standards, Grade 8, Mathematics References: Mapping state proficiency standards onto NAEP scales: 2005–2007 (NCES, 2009) and International benchmarking: state education performance standards (Phillips, 2010) Gary W. Phillips, American Institutes for Research

19. International Benchmarks on TIMSS & PIRLS Gary W. Phillips, American Institutes for Research

20. Selling the Student Short by Setting Low StandardsState Performance Standards, Grade 8, Mathematics References: Mapping state proficiency standards onto NAEP scales: 2005–2007 (NCES, 2009) and International benchmarking: state education performance standards (Phillips, 2010) Gary W. Phillips, American Institutes for Research

21. Selling the Student Short by Setting Low StandardsState Performance Standards, Grade 8, Mathematics References: Mapping state proficiency standards onto NAEP scales: 2005–2007 (NCES, 2009) and International benchmarking: state education performance standards (Phillips, 2010) Gary W. Phillips, American Institutes for Research

22. Selling the Student Short by Setting Low Standards • Correlation between performance standard and percent proficient = -.81 for Grade 8 Mathematics. • Difference between the state with the highest standard and the lowest standard is about 2 standard deviations. • A difference of two standard deviations is so large that it represents at about a four grade level difference. • The expectations gap (what is expected in the state with the highest standards versus what is expected in the state with the lowest standards) is twice the size of the national black-white achievement gap. Gary W. Phillips, American Institutes for Research

23. Selling the Student Short by Setting Low Standards • Current state CRT-performance standards legislated by NCLB are not valid measures of State-by-State performance. • States are deluded into believing most of their students are proficient. • Explains why NAEP has found that teachers in the lowest achieving states have the highest satisfaction with what they are teaching. • Explains why 35% of students with a high school degree need remedial help when entering college. • Explains why local policy makers do not have a sense of urgency to bring about radical educational reform (the nation may have a problem but all their local schools are above average and all their students are proficient). • Without a common metric and an external referent most states are lulled into complacency. Gary W. Phillips, American Institutes for Research

24. This Is Why International Benchmarking is Important • International benchmarking should be used when states (or consortia of states) establish performance standards. • Benchmarking encourages states to set higher standards that are more consistent across states. • National and international benchmarking is one way to provide an external referent. Gary W. Phillips, American Institutes for Research

25. Thank You Gary W. Phillips, American Institutes for Research