A blog for discussing books of interest among educational leaders in Colorado.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Chapter 3: Why America hasn't lost yet

I really like the title of this chapter because of the double entendre... or as my Dad always says... "the double-nintendo." 

The dual meaning is striking.  The chapter addresses why we have not lost from an historical perspective and why the battle is not yet lost today. 

Some 2003 facts from the text:
  • 85% of Americans, 25 years and older, report having completed high school; a new all-time high
  • 27% of adult Americans report having attained at least a Bachelor's degree; a new all time high
  • 1993 to 2003 saw a 40% increase in the number of college graduates
Some 2008 facts from the text:
  • US leads the world in R&D spending accounting for 40%
  • Americans account for 38% of new patents awarded, leading the world
  • America employs 70% of the world's Nobel Prize winners
  • America is home to 30 of the world's top 40 universities
So despite the warning that the Nation was at risk back 1983, more than 20 years later it seems the US is still the leader in terms of innovation, research, technology, science and so on.  Was the report incorrect or did the report spur reform that has rescued our nation from certain disaster?

Dr. Yong Zhao then describes personal experiences he thinks are pertinent to the answer.  Words like diversity, individualism, inclusion, equality all emerge in this chapter.

Some questions to ponder:

  1. Since the US has not imploded due to bankruptcy of our nation's intellectual capital, was Nation at Risk incorrect or did we successfully reform?  Or is something else at work?
  2. Do you buy Dr. Zhao's measures of success?
  3. What resonated for you in his description of an imperfect system that others are now trying to emulate?
  4. What has Dr. Zhao overlooked or missed that is pertinent here?
We will have our first CASE webcast on this book on Friday, October 23rd at 3:30 PM.  Check your CASE MemberBulletin in your email for details.

1 comment:

  1. Dan,

    Thomas Friedman, who was mentioned in the webinar, writes in his NY Times Op-Ed Piece http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/opinion/21friedman.html?_r=3 that attacks education as the culprit. (Let's also keep in mind that contoversy sells print and increases online subscriptions and visits, so it's easy to use education *failures* to stir things up.)

    Below are two pieces of data Zhao uses that refutes Friedman:

    1.FIMS scores in 1964 correlate at r =-­‐0.48 with 2002 PPP-­‐GDP. In short, the higher a nation’s test score 40 years ago, the worse its economic performance on this measure of national wealth.

    2. The number of patents issued in 2004 is one indicator of how creative the generation of students tested in 1964 turned out to be. The average number of patents per million people for the nations with FIMS scores higher than the U.S. is 127. America clobbered the world on creativity, with 326 patents per million people. However, FIMS scores do correlate with the number of patents issued: r = .13 with the U.S. and r = .49 without the U.S. --Zhao's source: Baker, Keith (2007). Are International Tests Worth Anything? Kappan, October, 2007.

    I wonder how these two pieces of information jive with Friedman's next to last statement, "So our schools have a doubly hard task now — not just improving reading, writing and arithmetic but entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity."

    ReplyDelete