CRITIQUE OF MARKET EDUCATION
BY GERALD W. BRACEY
APRIL, 1999
Read Andrew Coulson's reply to this critique
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for the [book launch] luncheon, the book, and your recent e-mail. You declare that we have different opinions of many things and that that will make my reactions to the book edifying. I hope so, but I doubt it. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of facts.
I was skeptical of the arguments presented until page 22 when credibility vaporized. On that page you report that Harold Stevenson found that "by the fifth grade the best American schools had lower scores than the worst schools of all three other [Asian] nations." Stevenson's research is without merit. It has been uncritically accepted only because it fits the conventional crisis mentality. In "The Second Bracey Report" I debunked his research, showing, in part, that he misinterpreted his own data.
But think about it. Is it reasonable to assert that the best American schools are worse than the worst Asian schools? Shouldn't that assertion give you pause for its face foolishness? Indeed, you go on to contradict this outrageous contention yourself on page 190, observing that in TIMSS, American fourth graders were seventh among 41 countries in math and third in science. Could they fall from this lofty perch to Stevenson's low estate in only one more grade?
At the eighth grade level, when American students were scoring slightly below average (53% correct vs. 55% for all 41 nations), the schools of the First In the World Consortium were showing themselves to be just that. Their average score was 585, Japan's 605, a statistically insignificant difference. Only Singapore had a significantly higher score. On the TIMSS 4th grade math, Japan scored 597, the Consortium 591, another non-significant difference. In science, Consortium 4th graders outscored all nations while their 8th graders finished fourth, with no nation having a significantly higher score.
See also the attached "Back to Stat 101 Award" for further refutation of the Stevenson silliness.
Clinton released the TIMSS 4th grade results at a press conference in one of the Consortium districts and I discussed them (using them to further refute Stevenson) in the "Seventh Bracey Report" so surely you must have known about them.
The TIMSS-NAEP linking study showed that in math some 60% of students in the highest states are above the international average of all 41 countries taken together and almost 70% are above average in science (15% to 20% are in the TOP 10% of the 41 nations). In the 1992 Second International Assessment of Educational Progress, only one nation, Taiwan, scored higher in math than the top third of American schools--by only a single point on the NAEP scale.
This example could, unfortunately, be multiplied many times. Thus, as I said at the beginning, my problems with the book are about facts, not opinions. I don't know the merits of your history. But you see the problem, I'm sure: If you get things so terribly wrong using data that I do know, how can I trust you to accurately deal with data that I don't know?
Of course, as I point out in the attached Rotten Apple Award to Peterson, if other nations are doing much better than we are, this argues for more state involvement, not less. These other nations have much tighter, far more centralized state control of their schools.
Yours in edification,
Jerry Bracey
Back to
the "About the Editor" Page
Copyright © 1998, Andrew J. Coulson
www.schoolchoices.org
All rights reserved