Our Math Deficit Doesn't Add Up(motherjones.com)
motherjones.com
Our Math Deficit Doesn't Add Up
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/04/our-math-deficit-doesnt-add
4 comments
There are other possible reasons for the perceived math deficit. Factories like General Plastics may be seeing lower scores from job applicants because:
1) Racism 20 years ago may have prevented minorities from applying for jobs at these factories. Now, policies, attitudes, and the workplace environment may encourage more african americans or hispanics to apply for these jobs. The full NEAP reports make it clear that there is still a significant math performance gap between the overall population and whites. A broader pool of applicants, reflecting less racism today, will result in lower math performance. (This performance gap although significant is narrowing.)
2) Sexism 20 years ago could have precluded many women from applying for factory jobs. Now with more women applying, the performance gap in math between women and men may affect the average results seen on General Plastics tests. (Unfortunately, this performance gap hasn't narrowed over time.)
3) Improved opportunities for students from lower income families to go to college (because of student loan programs) may be causing the lower test scores at General Plastics. There is a significant performance gap in math and reading associated with family income, so it is more likely that students from lower income families apply for factory jobs rather than go to college today. Twenty years ago even the better performing students from low income families might not have been able to go to college because of the expense. Now, the better students from this pool will go to college (supported by student loans, etc.) changing the population that will be applying for factory jobs.
I'm not sure if any of these possibilities is true, but they are alternative hypotheses not considered by the article. Notice that each of these possibilites don't imply that things are getting worse, but that things are getting better (over a multi-decade time period--less racism, sexism, more opportunities).
1) Racism 20 years ago may have prevented minorities from applying for jobs at these factories. Now, policies, attitudes, and the workplace environment may encourage more african americans or hispanics to apply for these jobs. The full NEAP reports make it clear that there is still a significant math performance gap between the overall population and whites. A broader pool of applicants, reflecting less racism today, will result in lower math performance. (This performance gap although significant is narrowing.)
2) Sexism 20 years ago could have precluded many women from applying for factory jobs. Now with more women applying, the performance gap in math between women and men may affect the average results seen on General Plastics tests. (Unfortunately, this performance gap hasn't narrowed over time.)
3) Improved opportunities for students from lower income families to go to college (because of student loan programs) may be causing the lower test scores at General Plastics. There is a significant performance gap in math and reading associated with family income, so it is more likely that students from lower income families apply for factory jobs rather than go to college today. Twenty years ago even the better performing students from low income families might not have been able to go to college because of the expense. Now, the better students from this pool will go to college (supported by student loans, etc.) changing the population that will be applying for factory jobs.
I'm not sure if any of these possibilities is true, but they are alternative hypotheses not considered by the article. Notice that each of these possibilites don't imply that things are getting worse, but that things are getting better (over a multi-decade time period--less racism, sexism, more opportunities).
"Scaled Score" vs. "Raw Score"
Learn. The. Fucking. Difference.
This article shows a graph of the _scaled_ scores on the NAEP Math test. The _scaled_ scores remained flat. He then uses that fact to show that students are about as good at math now as they were 35 years ago.
There's just no fucking connection.
It's true that the scaled scores have remained the same, but all that shows is that the group of people taking the test now is about as diversely-skilled in mathematics as they were in 1978. For all we know, the raw scores could have plummeted 50%.
The only thing we can conclude from this graph is that the test _itself_ is just about as good at ranking students as it was 30 years ago, and, maybe, that student math-skill-diversity has remained constant. The "bell curve" is the same shape as it was yesterday. But that doesn't mean it hasn't been bitch-slapped to the left. To the left.
The only thing we can conclude from this article is that the author doesn't know shit about statistics. We can't conclude anything about General Plastics, or any other military commander.
SOURCE: Psychometrics is my bitch.
TL;DR - Kids might suck more at math than before, or not; the relevant data isn't in this article.
Learn. The. Fucking. Difference.
This article shows a graph of the _scaled_ scores on the NAEP Math test. The _scaled_ scores remained flat. He then uses that fact to show that students are about as good at math now as they were 35 years ago.
There's just no fucking connection.
It's true that the scaled scores have remained the same, but all that shows is that the group of people taking the test now is about as diversely-skilled in mathematics as they were in 1978. For all we know, the raw scores could have plummeted 50%.
The only thing we can conclude from this graph is that the test _itself_ is just about as good at ranking students as it was 30 years ago, and, maybe, that student math-skill-diversity has remained constant. The "bell curve" is the same shape as it was yesterday. But that doesn't mean it hasn't been bitch-slapped to the left. To the left.
The only thing we can conclude from this article is that the author doesn't know shit about statistics. We can't conclude anything about General Plastics, or any other military commander.
SOURCE: Psychometrics is my bitch.
TL;DR - Kids might suck more at math than before, or not; the relevant data isn't in this article.
The argument against explanation 3 (roughly, "NCLB created incentives for schools to teach kids to be good at math tests and not good at real-world problem solving") is that no one teaches to the NAEP, and that the NAEP has stayed mostly constant in its material coverage since '78.
This would be sound if the NAEP tested real-world problem solving. However, judging by their sample question booklets ( http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/booklets.asp ), the NAEP consists of the sorts of questions one would assign for homework in a high school algebra or geometry class: e.g., "train" problems, proofs of properties of triangles, and so on -- not exactly things I would call "real-world problem solving."
My own personal experience as an undergraduate math instructor hints very strongly to me that #3 is the most significant issue.
This would be sound if the NAEP tested real-world problem solving. However, judging by their sample question booklets ( http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/booklets.asp ), the NAEP consists of the sorts of questions one would assign for homework in a high school algebra or geometry class: e.g., "train" problems, proofs of properties of triangles, and so on -- not exactly things I would call "real-world problem solving."
My own personal experience as an undergraduate math instructor hints very strongly to me that #3 is the most significant issue.
Anyone who thinks the American market is a free trade market is abjectly delusional; it's a market of dominant cartels who make mediocre efforts at appearing to provide choice and act competitive just like our inept and antiquated political parties and structure. Collusion has all but removed real choice in all of our markets.