Americans have always been concerned about the educational progress of our kids compared to kids in other nations. In the 1950s, the fear that we were falling behind in the race  to the moon with the Soviet Union meant a new emphasis on math and science. In the 1980s, the Reagan Administration’s publication of The Nation at Risk said, “the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.”

When stacking up our kids with kids in Asian countries and even kids in a couple former Soviet republics, our kids fall short. Yesterday’s release of the international PISA test didn’t provide any relief from our national angst.

So, why don’t we do well? Is it the test? Is it our system of providing education? Are we fairly comparing the same types of kids in one country to another country? Can we even talk about education reform without dealing with massive economic inequality and childhood poverty rates?

Dana Goldstein at Slate has a good summary of the debate.

I’m sure that all those theories are right to a certain extent. There probably isn’t one fair and accurate way to measure educational progress across nations. Economic factors and the diversity of our country are in part to blame for our nation’s educational woes. We probably should have higher educational expectations for our kids. But I’m also certain that we could be doing a lot better as a nation at educating ALL of our children. I want to add one more point to Goldstein’s summary.

In some ways, the uniquely American way of letting localities control schools is a great thing. Each school operates as a laboratory of education, and some have cooked up really cool ways of educating kids. It enables schools to reflect the diversity of its inhabitants. It provides opportunities for citizens to become directly involved in their schools and can become a new avenue for political participation. All good things.

However, this tradition of local control of schools fosters an extreme individualism. The “MY tax money should go to MY kid” mentality means that schools have huge variations in the services. When the courts have attempted to equalize finances, localities have fought these measures. They have fought reforms in curriculum that might benefit poorer kids, when those reforms would disrupt their status quo.  My kids’ suburban school bears little resemblance to schools just 20 minutes south from here in Newark.

And people don’t care. Well, maybe that’s a little harsh. Let’s just say that suburban parents, aka the voters, have no idea what’s happening in poorer and more urban areas. They have no incentive to learn more. Maybe these PISA scores will make people pay attention a little more. Maybe we need our politicians to explain why it’s a really bad thing that kids in Newark aren’t reading at grade.

Some say that if we create a national system of education, it might improve the urban schools, but it will decrease the quality of suburban schools. Then the wealthier families will exit the system, and there will be even less investment in education. It will also mean losing out on the good aspects of local control of schools – laboratories of education, diversity, and participation. Maybe we need a half way measure, like greater state control of schools.

So, understanding our kids’ PISA performance is terribly complicated with lots of blame to spread – teacher quality, economic matters, an anti-intellectual culture, as well as educational individualism.