5 ms·

Why would we control PISA scores for US demographics in the first place? Why are the 1st and 2nd generation immigrants removed? The education system is the sam

Why would we control PISA scores for US demographics in the first place? Why are the 1st and 2nd generation immigrants removed? The education system is the same for all the kids, unless US Whites are using a different curriculum from the other demographic groups. "If we massage this data set the right way, we get the chart we want".

bumby 2y ago
Conjecture, but it may be to focus on the native born population as a better metric for education quality since they have (presumably) been a product of that system for their entire life. Contrast that to a 1st gen immigrant who a major amount of time in a different country's system; testing them after a short stint in the US tells us much less about the US educational system. It's harder for me to think of a reason why 2nd gen should be removed, unless the assumption is the educational attainment/integration of 1st gen parents heavily biases the results of their kids. I don't know if all that holds up under scrutiny, though. Also, because demographics aren't distributed evenly geographically, I think there is probably a case that the education system is different for different races (to the extent that racial geographic distribution is different).
- LtWorf 2y ago
  2nd gen are removed so that there are fewer poor people with uneducated parents who can't help them at home because the school system is bad in the sample.
  - bumby 2y ago
    That's what I was alluding to, but it's unclear how sound of a methodology that is. It seems like a better approach would be to control for parent educational attainment directly, rather than use some imperfectly correlated metric like immigration status.
    - LtWorf 2y ago
      Yes I agree that might be better, although still not perfect because not all parents are equally involved.
iepathos 2y ago
> The education system is the same for all the kids This is incorrect, certainly an ideal we'd all like but far from reality. The educational experiences and outcomes of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants can and often does differ significantly from native-born students. Seeing the difference in the data/scores should clue you into this and helps us understand the socioeconomic impact on student achievement that immigration has. Language is often a large factor where 1st and 2nd generation students may be speaking a different language at home than they are in school. The US has significantly more immigrants than other countries in the world which is why not controlling for it skews the data disproportionately.
- oblio 2y ago
  > The US has significantly more immigrants than other countries in the world https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_immigrant_and_emigrant_population https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_... If that table is to believed, the US is kind of middle of the pack if you sort by percentages, at 15%. It might even be middle of the pack for developed countries, too
  - int_19h 2y ago
    As far as I can tell, that table conflates temporary workers with permanent immigration, so I'm not sure how useful it really is in this context.
    - oblio 2y ago
      I've counted OECD countries[1] (roughly 40 developed countries), and the US is in 15th place, on par with Spain. Hardly worth writing home about :-) [1] This is the fairest comparison because people immigrate to rich countries in general. The only poor countries with lots of immigrants are generally safe poor countries right next to war-torn countries, which get lots of refugees.
  - bootsmann 2y ago
    Its especially pertinent here that a lot of the countries that outperform the US have significantly higher percentages of immigrants, yet they don't seem to be failing them in the manner that the US education system is: Switzerland: 30% Sweden: 20% Canada: 21% Germany, Austria etc.
eitally 2y ago
Why would we not? If I didn't control for demographics, I probably wouldn't have my kids in our local public schools (in the wealthiest county <? - Santa Clara> in the country) because the Great Schools ratings show only mid-pack achievement. If I do control for demographics, though, I see the white & Asian kids are doing fine and it's the rest who are struggling, primarily for a combination of socioeconomic & immigration reasons. Given this, I'm comfortable sending my kids to our neighborhood schools because I'm in the fortunate demographic where kids will do well no matter where you put them. It's the same for any educational achievement measures, including PISA. Kids from households with two parents who are working professionals and college educated will do fine most of the time, and kids without those privileges will struggle most of the time.
- drivebyhooting 2y ago
  Are you not concerned with the negative socialization? Anecdote: I still have a chipped front tooth from “the other demographic” throwing a ball at my face in public high school PE.
  - kenjackson 2y ago
    Either you have a better sense of humor than I do, or that anecdote is especially not useful.
- 3836293648 2y ago
  It kinda makes sense when looking at local schools to send your children to. It makes no sense when comparing countries in a major international study, that's just massaging data to make yourself look good
- Jensson 2y ago
  Every country has immigrants though, you can't just selectively remove them in one country and not the others, that is not an apples to apples comparison.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
bsder 2y ago
Actually, it mostly turns out that minorities slightly outgain Whites and Asians during the school year. The problem is that they fall way behind in the 3 months not in school.
DAGdug 2y ago
How you select immigrants would dramatically affect these results, so it makes sense to exclude them. A lot of East and South Asian 2nd gen achievement is due to them being the children of highly skilled immigrants - they’d thrive in almost any setup. If USA imported only PhDs from Latin America, their kids would be, on average, stellar achievers. For this reason, it makes sense to eliminate them as a group, in the interest of simplicity.

bumby 2y ago

Conjecture, but it may be to focus on the native born population as a better metric for education quality since they have (presumably) been a product of that system for their entire life. Contrast that to a 1st gen immigrant who a major amount of time in a different country's system; testing them after a short stint in the US tells us much less about the US educational system. It's harder for me to think of a reason why 2nd gen should be removed, unless the assumption is the educational attainment/integration of 1st gen parents heavily biases the results of their kids. I don't know if all that holds up under scrutiny, though. Also, because demographics aren't distributed evenly geographically, I think there is probably a case that the education system is different for different races (to the extent that racial geographic distribution is different).

LtWorf 2y ago
2nd gen are removed so that there are fewer poor people with uneducated parents who can't help them at home because the school system is bad in the sample.
- bumby 2y ago
  That's what I was alluding to, but it's unclear how sound of a methodology that is. It seems like a better approach would be to control for parent educational attainment directly, rather than use some imperfectly correlated metric like immigration status.
  - LtWorf 2y ago
    Yes I agree that might be better, although still not perfect because not all parents are equally involved.

iepathos 2y ago

> The education system is the same for all the kids This is incorrect, certainly an ideal we'd all like but far from reality. The educational experiences and outcomes of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants can and often does differ significantly from native-born students. Seeing the difference in the data/scores should clue you into this and helps us understand the socioeconomic impact on student achievement that immigration has. Language is often a large factor where 1st and 2nd generation students may be speaking a different language at home than they are in school. The US has significantly more immigrants than other countries in the world which is why not controlling for it skews the data disproportionately.

oblio 2y ago
> The US has significantly more immigrants than other countries in the world https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_immigrant_and_emigrant_population https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_... If that table is to believed, the US is kind of middle of the pack if you sort by percentages, at 15%. It might even be middle of the pack for developed countries, too
- int_19h 2y ago
  As far as I can tell, that table conflates temporary workers with permanent immigration, so I'm not sure how useful it really is in this context.
  - oblio 2y ago
    I've counted OECD countries[1] (roughly 40 developed countries), and the US is in 15th place, on par with Spain. Hardly worth writing home about :-) [1] This is the fairest comparison because people immigrate to rich countries in general. The only poor countries with lots of immigrants are generally safe poor countries right next to war-torn countries, which get lots of refugees.
- bootsmann 2y ago
  Its especially pertinent here that a lot of the countries that outperform the US have significantly higher percentages of immigrants, yet they don't seem to be failing them in the manner that the US education system is: Switzerland: 30% Sweden: 20% Canada: 21% Germany, Austria etc.

eitally 2y ago

Why would we not? If I didn't control for demographics, I probably wouldn't have my kids in our local public schools (in the wealthiest county <? - Santa Clara> in the country) because the Great Schools ratings show only mid-pack achievement. If I do control for demographics, though, I see the white & Asian kids are doing fine and it's the rest who are struggling, primarily for a combination of socioeconomic & immigration reasons. Given this, I'm comfortable sending my kids to our neighborhood schools because I'm in the fortunate demographic where kids will do well no matter where you put them. It's the same for any educational achievement measures, including PISA. Kids from households with two parents who are working professionals and college educated will do fine most of the time, and kids without those privileges will struggle most of the time.

drivebyhooting 2y ago
Are you not concerned with the negative socialization? Anecdote: I still have a chipped front tooth from “the other demographic” throwing a ball at my face in public high school PE.
- kenjackson 2y ago
  Either you have a better sense of humor than I do, or that anecdote is especially not useful.
3836293648 2y ago
It kinda makes sense when looking at local schools to send your children to. It makes no sense when comparing countries in a major international study, that's just massaging data to make yourself look good
Jensson 2y ago
Every country has immigrants though, you can't just selectively remove them in one country and not the others, that is not an apples to apples comparison.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

bsder 2y ago

Actually, it mostly turns out that minorities slightly outgain Whites and Asians during the school year. The problem is that they fall way behind in the 3 months not in school.

DAGdug 2y ago

How you select immigrants would dramatically affect these results, so it makes sense to exclude them. A lot of East and South Asian 2nd gen achievement is due to them being the children of highly skilled immigrants - they’d thrive in almost any setup. If USA imported only PhDs from Latin America, their kids would be, on average, stellar achievers. For this reason, it makes sense to eliminate them as a group, in the interest of simplicity.