http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/8/39700724.pdf

Range of rank on the PISA 2006 science scale

Mean score Standard error OECD countries All countries/economies Upper Rank Lower Rank Upper Rank Lower Rank

Finland
563
(2.0)
1
1
1
1
Hong Kong-China
542
(2.5)
2
2
Canada
534
(2.0)
2
3
3
6
Chinese Taipei
532
(3.6)
3
8
Estonia
531
(2.5)
3
8
Japan
531
(3.4)
2
5
3
9
New Zealand
530
(2.7)
2
5
3
9
Australia
527
(2.3)
4
7
5
10
Netherlands
525
(2.7)
4
7
6
11
Liechtenstein
522
(4.1)
6
14
Korea
522
(3.4)
5
9
7
13
Slovenia
519
(1.1)
10
13
Germany
516
(3.8)
7
13
10
19
United Kingdom
515
(2.3)
8
12
12
18
Czech Republic
513
(3.5)
8
14
12
20
Switzerland
512
(3.2)
8
14
13
20
Macao-China
511
(1.1)
15
20
Austria
511
(3.9)
8
15
12
21
Belgium
510
(2.5)
9
14
14
20
Ireland
508
(3.2)
10
16
15
22
Hungary
504
(2.7)
13
17
19
23
Sweden
503
(2.4)
14
17
20
23
Poland
498
(2.3)
16
19
22
26
Denmark
496
(3.1)
16
21
22
28
France
495
(3.4)
16
21
22
29
Croatia
493
(2.4)
23
30
Iceland
491
(1.6)
19
23
25
31
Latvia
490
(3.0)
25
34
United States
489
(4.2)
18
25
24
35
Slovak Republic
488
(2.6)
20
25
26
34
Spain
488
(2.6)
20
25
26
34
Lithuania
488
(2.8)
26
34
Norway
487
(3.1)
20
25
27
35
Luxembourg
486
(1.1)
22
25
30
34
Russian Federation
479
(3.7)
33
38
Italy
475
(2.0)
26
28
35
38
Portugal
474
(3.0)
26
28
35
38
Greece
473
(3.2)
26
28
35
38
Israel
454
(3.7)
39
39
Chile
438
(4.3)
40
42
Serbia
436
(3.0)
40
42
Bulgaria
434
(6.1)
40
44
Uruguay
428
(2.7)
42
45
Turkey
424
(3.8)
29
29
43
47
Jordan
422
(2.8)
43
47
Thailand
421
(2.1)
44
47
Romania
418
(4.2)
44
48
Montenegro
412
(1.1)
47
49
Mexico
410
(2.7)
30
30
48
49
Indonesia
393
(5.7)
50
54
Argentina
391
(6.1)
50
55
Brazil
390
(2.8)
50
54
Colombia
388
(3.4)
50
55
Tunisia
386
(3.0)
52
55
Azerbaijan
382
(2.8)
53
55
Qatar
349
(0.9)
56
56
Kyrgyzstan
322
(2.9)
57
57
Statistically significantly above the OECD average
Not statistically significantly different from the OECD average
Statistically significantly below the OECD average

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071204/ap_on_...ZKG.oNWnPqs0NUE

US teens lag behind in science and math



By NANCY ZUCKERBROD, AP Education Writer
42 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - U.S. students are lagging behind their peers in other countries in science and math, test results out Tuesday show.

The test, the Program for International Student Assessment, was given to 15-year-olds in 30 industrialized countries last year. It focused on science but also included a math portion.

The 30 countries, including the United States, make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which runs the international test.

The average scores for U.S. students were lower than the average scores for the group as a whole.

U.S. students also had an average science score that was lower than the average score in 16 other OECD countries. In math, U.S. students did even worse — posting an average score that was lower than the average in 23 of the other leading industrialized countries.

The test also was administered to students in about two dozen countries or jurisdictions that are not part of the industrialized group.

When compared with the broader group, the U.S. students fell in the middle of the pack in science and did somewhat worse in math.

There was no change in U.S. math scores since 2003, the last time the test was given. The science scores aren't comparable between 2003 to 2006, because the tests aren't the same.

U.S. girls and boys did about the same on the science and math portions of the test.

Finland's 15-year-olds did the best on the science test, followed by students in Hong Kong and Canada. Students in Finland, Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong were the top performers in math.

___

http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3343,en_...1_1_1_1,00.html


Finland takes number one spot in OECD's latest PISA survey, advance figures show


29/11/2007 - Finland once again takes the number one spot in OECD's three-yearly PISA test of the abilities of a sample of 15-year old secondary-school students, followed by Hong Kong (China) and Canada in second and third place, according to advance details of results that will be published in full next week.


The PISA survey, based on tests carried out in 2006 in 57 countries that together account for nearly 90% of world GDP, is the most comprehensive and rigorous international yardstick of secondary-school students' attainments. After focusing in 2000 on reading skills and in 2003 on mathematics, PISA 2006 tested students on how much they knew about science and their ability to use scientific knowledge and understanding to identify and address questions and resolve problems in daily life.


Comparisons between the results of the 2006 tests and those of previous years are not strictly valid, as the nature of the tests varied.Full PISA results will be published on Tuesday 4 December 2007; advance details are being made available following the publication by a Spanish magazine of partial leaked figures.


Commenting on the PISA survey, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría noted that it is a tool to assist governments in their policy choices on education. "In today's competitive global economy, quality education is one of the most valuable assets that a society and an individual can have," he said.


In that context, he added, "PISA is much more than just a ranking. It is about how well individual education systems are equipping their young people for the world of tomorrow. First and foremost, it tells countries where their strengths and weaknesses lie."


For advance details of individual countries' performance in the PISA 2006 survey, see the table below. Full details and analysis will be published by OECD at 10.00 a.m. Paris time on Tuesday 4 December 2007.


See table "Range of rank on the PISA 2006 science scale".


Note to Editors:


PISA is a three-yearly survey of the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds in OECD member countries and partner countries and economies. The product of collaboration between participating countries through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), it draws on leading international expertise to develop valid comparisons across countries and cultures.


In 2006, PISA assessed the competencies of 15-year-old students in 57 countries with an extensive two-hour test. More than 400,000 students from 57 countries making up close to 90% of the world economy took part. The focus was on science but the assessment also included reading and mathematics and collected data on student, family and institutional factors that can help to explain differences in performance.


The table summarises the performance of 15-year-olds in science. It shows three main pieces of information:

The average score of the country on the science assessment. Across the 30 OECD countries the scores are statistically standardised to have an average of 500 points. The scores are also standardised so that approximately two-thirds of the students score between 400 and 600 - that is the standard deviation is 100. The colour coding in the list of the countries in the first column gives an indication of whether the country's score is statistically significantly above, below or not different from the OECD average.
The rank of the country compared to other OECD countries. When a sample of students represents all students in a country, it is not always possible to state with 100% accuracy what the exact rank of the country is compared with other countries. For this reason, OECD calculates, with 95% confidence, a range of ranks that the country falls within. For example, in the list above, OECD is 95% confident that New Zealand ranks between 2nd and 5th of all the OECD countries.
The rank of the country compared to all the countries which participated in PISA 2006. The same 95% level of confidence is applied when comparing a country's position to all the other countries. For example, the list above shows, with 95% confidence, that Croatia ranks between 23rd and 30th position of all the countries which participated in PISA 2006.
In addition to ranking the countries according to students' science performance, OECD carries out extensive analysis to explore the reasons for differences between countries, between schools and between students. This analysis will be publicly released on 4 December.


For further background reading, see :
Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy, A Framework for PISA 2006 :
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/35/37464175.pdf
Sample test questions from the PISA 2006 assessment
http://www.oecd.org/document/25/0,3343,en_...1_1_1_1,00.html

http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,3343,en_...1_1_1_1,00.html

OECD’s PISA survey shows some countries making significant gains in learning outcomes


04/12/2007 - OECD’s latest PISA survey of the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds shows that some countries have seen significant improvements in student performance since 2000. Korea further increased its strong reading performance between 2000 and 2006 by 31 score points, the equivalent of almost a school year, mainly by raising the proportion of top-performers. Poland increased its reading performance by 29 score points over the same period. Mexico and Greece saw significant improvements in mathematics performance between 2003 and 2006. However, across the OECD area as a whole learning outcomes have generally remained flat, while expenditure on education in OECD countries rose by an average of 39% between 1995 and 2004.


The survey also revealed widespread pessimism among secondary school students about environmental challenges and limited enthusiasm for scientific careers.


Based on tests carried out among 400,000 students in 57 countries in 2006, the latest PISA survey focuses particularly on students’ abilities in comprehending and tackling scientific problems. It also provides an update on performance in reading and mathematics compared with surveys in 2000 and 2003.

Launching the report at a press conference in Tokyo, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría emphasized the importance of education for the development of people and society."Effective and innovative education policies open enormous opportunities for individuals", he said. "They also underpin healthy and vibrant economies." In the highly competitive globalised economy of today, quality education is one of the most valuable assets that a society and an individual can have." (read his speech)

While most students polled said they were motivated to learn science, only a minority aspired to a career involving science: 72% said it was important for them to do well in science; 67% enjoyed acquiring new knowledge in science; 56% said science was useful for further studies; but only 37% said they would like to work in a career involving science and 21% said they would like to spend their life doing advanced science.


At a time when scientific and technological know-how is helping to drive growth in advanced economies, the results of PISA 2006 reveal wide variations in skills levels. Student attitudes to science will be crucial to countries’ economic potential in tomorrow’s world, and PISA 2006 gives a detailed picture of how well students around the world are prepared for the challenges of a knowledge society.


The top performer in science in PISA 2006 was Finland, followed by Hong Kong-China, Canada, Chinese Taipei, Estonia, Japan and New Zealand. Australia, the Netherlands, Korea, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium and Ireland, Liechtenstein, Slovenia and Macao-China also scored above OECD average. Data for science in PISA 2006 are not directly comparable to data in the previous studies as the nature of the tests has changed.


Students from families with a more advantaged socio-economic background were more likely to show a general interest in science, and this relationship was strongest in Ireland,France, Belgium and Switzerland. One significant feature of a student’s background was whether they had a parent in a science-related career.


In Australia, Canada, Finland, Japan and New Zealand, at least one in seven students reached the top two levels of scientific literacy. In Greece, Italy, Mexico, Portugal, Spain and Turkey, by contrast, the proportion was lower than one in 20. On average across the OECD, students in private schools outperformed students in public schools in most countries. The picture changed, however, when the socio-economic background of students and schools was taken into account, with public schools taking the lead.


Streaming at an early age tends to increase the impact of socio-economic background on student performance, PISA 2006 indicates. The earlier students were stratified into separate institutions or programmes, the stronger was the impact which the school’s average socio-economic background had on performance. Schools that divided students by ability for all subjects tended to have lower student performance on average.


The survey identified considerable interest among students in some scientific issues. Most, for example, were aware of environmental issues such as forest clearing and greenhouse gases. However, they were generally pessimistic about the future, with fewer than one in six believing that problems such as air pollution and nuclear waste disposal would improve over the next 20 years. Those who performed better in science showed greater awareness of environmental issues but were also more pessimistic.

http://www.oecd.org/document/35/0,3343,en_...1_1_1_1,00.html

Launch of PISA 2006


Speech by Angel Gurría, OECD Secretary-General

Tokyo, Japan Press Club, 04 December 2007



Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for inviting me to speak at the Japan Press Club. It is an honour to be in this prestigious building, and to have the opportunity to address such an influential audience. I am delighted to be able to share with you the new results of one of our most widely known and cited research products, the latest report from PISA, the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment.

PISA examines how well individual national education systems are doing in equipping their young people for the world of tomorrow. In the highly competitive globalised economy of today, quality education is one of the most valuable assets that a society and an individual can have. Skills are key factors for productivity, economic growth and better living standards. Effective and innovative education policies open enormous opportunities for individuals just as faulty educational systems result in declining standards, exclusion and unemployment. They also underpin healthy and vibrant economies. That is why education plays a central role in OECD’s agenda.

Dramatic changes in the global talent pool over recent decades oblige countries to assess the educational progress of their young people in a global context. Today, countries like China or India are delivering high skills at moderate cost and at an ever increasing pace. Other countries – including the developed countries that are members of OECD -- cannot ignore these competitive pressures, on pain of harming their own future well-being.

Governments are aware of this challenge and I am happy to present the results of our latest PISA assessment where no less than 57, countries participated, up from 41 in 2003 and 28 in 2000, covering close to 90% of the world economy. In my remarks today, I will begin by showing where countries stand in terms of the science knowledge and skills of their 15-year-olds. I will then highlight where education systems can be, by showing you what the best performing education systems achieve in terms of quality, equity, and efficiency. And I will conclude with identifying some of the policy levers that PISA identifies for raising quality and improving equity.

There are many reasons for doing the global PISA launch in Tokyo. One of them is certainly the remarkable progress that Japan has achieved in preparing for the educational challenges of a globalised world. In the 1960s, Japan ranked 14th among OECD countries in the proportion of its population with tertiary qualifications. Today it ranks second, just after Canada. But there is more to be proud of. As I mentioned, PISA 2006 focuses on the science performance of 15-year-olds. And it shows that Japan, along with Finland, Canada, Australia and Korea, achieves not only high performance but also offers an equitable access to learning opportunities. Students from all socio-economic spheres are given an opportunity to realise their potential, and they take these opportunities up. These results are a wake-up call for other countries that are doing less well in this respect. But OECD countries also need to look outside the OECD area, where we find three of the 5 top performers in PISA 2006 (Hong Kong China, Chinese Taipei and Estonia).

But PISA is much more than just a ranking. It also tells countries about their strengths and weaknesses compared to their peers. Japan is a case in point: Japanese students did extremely well when asked to use scientific evidence: reproduce knowledge, interpret evidence, draw conclusions and identify the underlying reasoning. But they struggled to identify scientific issues and to figure out the features of a scientific investigation, in short they have difficulties to apply their knowledge to novel situations.

This is an important finding. Students who learn just to memorise and reproduce scientific knowledge and skills may find themselves ill-prepared for tomorrow’s job market. The current curriculum reform in Japan aims to strengthen students’ competency in the investigative arena so there is recognition of this problem. Successful countries in this area, such as Finland, New Zealand, Australia, the Netherlands and Canada, may provide useful points of reference and offer best practices.

We have devoted most of the attention in PISA 2006 to science, but PISA looks at other competency areas too. In mathematics, which had been our focus area in 2003, Japan maintained a high achievement level of 523 score points, even if the lower performance of girls dragged overall performance down slightly. In reading the results remained broadly unchanged since 2003 too, but at a much lower performance level, 498 score points. Accessing, managing, integrating and evaluating written information appears to be the greatest challenge for Japanese 15-year-olds.

But looking at averages only is not enough. How skills are distributed also matters. High-level skills are particularly important for countries like Japan that operate at the frontier of technological development. On average across OECD countries, 1.3% of 15-year-olds reach Level 6, the top level of the PISA 2006 science scale. This group can consistently identify, explain and apply scientific knowledge in a variety of complex life situations. Japan has twice as many top performers as the OECD average (2.6%). This is a very good result but it could be even better. In New Zealand and Finland the share of Level 6 performers is at least 3.9%, three times the OECD average; these countries also do better in the percentage of students reaching the next best level. This is a very important finding because, even if PISA cannot establish the causal nature of the relationship, the proportion of Level 5 and 6 performers at age 15 is a good predictor for a country’s research intensity; it explains 70% of the OECD cross-country variation in the share of researchers in total employment.

But science education is not just about those who move on to become brain surgeons and particle physicists. It should also give citizens the ability to participate fully in society and in the labour market. This requires baseline scientific competency at least at PISA Level 2, which requires competencies such as recalling single scientific concepts and using results of a scientific experiment represented in a data table as they support a personal decision. Many countries have a serious problem with low performers; across the OECD, on average 19.2% of students perform below the PISA baseline Level 2. On this score, Japan again looks good with only 12% of 15-year-olds not reaching Level 2. But again Finland looks better with only 4%. Our experience in many countries has been that it is extremely difficult to reverse patterns of poor performance, and as skill demands in labour-markets increase, the social costs of poor educational levels are high and increasing. Therefore, even if the proportion of low performers in Japan is still low compared with other OECD countries, monitoring this will deserve continued attention.

In PISA 2006 we also looked at students’ attitudes towards science. Why is this important? Competing successfully in a globalised world increasingly depends on countries’ ability to innovate. This in turn will require major investments in scientific infrastructure and the ability to attract qualified individuals into science-related professions. Governments have to secure broad public support for scientific endeavour. Science and technology have enabled remarkable achievement over the past 100 years, but addressing these challenges successfully will require countries to make major investments in scientific infrastructure and to attract qualified individuals into science-related professions, as well as to secure broad public support for scientific endeavour and the capacity of all citizens to use science in relation to their lives. Peoples’ attitudes to science thus play a key role. In general, Japanese 15-year-olds report a fairly strong level of appreciation of science, even if it is not as strong as it is in many other OECD countries. But they often attach less personal value to science than their peers in other OECD countries. They fail to see the opportunities that science can offer for their own lives and their motivation for future science learning is low. Only 8% of Japanese students say that they expect a science-related career at age 30 (OECD average 25%), the lowest proportion in the OECD. Last but not least, while doing well in the PISA test, Japanese 15-year-olds were least confident in their science abilities among OECD countries.

We reach similar conclusions when it comes to science and the environment. Japanese 15-year-olds report a below-average level of awareness of most of the environmental issues, with environmental awareness and science performance closely linked. It also seems that many young Japanese may not yet have fully grasped the seriousness of the environmental challenges that we face, as they tend to report an above-average level of optimism regarding environmental issues, and the less they know about science, the more optimistic they report to be that the environmental challenges will be successfully addressed.

I would like to mention another very important dimension of all our work at the OECD: gender differences. Here, the PISA 2006 results are very encouraging: In 22 out of 30 OECD countries, boys and girls perform equally well in science. But will this result in gender parity later on in life, in career choices, in jobs, in salaries? Of course, we do not know what study choices Japanese 15-year-olds will actually make when they are older. But PISA does show that Japanese girls are much less motivated to learn science than boys. Girls rarely participate in science-related activities, even though Japanese girls do well on academic tests. This is an important policy concern.

Knowing how things are is important. But how can we make things better? The results from the OECD PISA Assessment leave us with the question what schools and school policy-makers can do to raise performance and to moderate the impact that socio-economic background has on student performance.

Some people say that strong educational performance is all to do with money. And indeed, the results from PISA show a positive cross-country relationship with expenditure per student. But the relationship is far from straightforward: Finland, New Zealand, Korea, Japan, Australia and the Netherlands do well with moderate expenditure, while top spenders like the United States and Norway perform below the OECD average. The PISA results also show that, across the OECD area, student performance has generally remained flat between 2000 and 2006 while expenditure on education in OECD countries has risen by 39% in real terms during this period.

So money is important but not sufficient to raise educational performance. It matters at least equally how educational resources are invested. An adequate supply of teachers and quality of educational resources at school are associated with better learning outcomes. But more importantly, there are a number of school policies and practices that are crucial for performance without being necessarily tied to resources. Let me just highlight three of them – institutional differentiation, autonomy, and accountability, because they feature so prominently in national education policy debates.

Differentiation at an early age damages equity without improving quality. In systems that separate children early in secondary school, students’ performance by the age of 15 depends more than average on their socio-economic background. And there is no systematic benefit in terms of the average performance. This is an important policy lesson, perhaps less so for Japan but, but certainly for many of Europe’s education systems.

Private schooling is another form of institutional differentiation. Looking only at performance, students in private schools outperformed those in public schools in 20 countries. Only in three countries, public schools showed better results than private ones. But once you take account of the socio-economic background of students and schools the picture changes. Public schools then have an advantage of 12 score points over private schools. Private schools do of course offer an attractive alternative for parents looking to maximise the benefits for their children, including those benefits that come from the socio-economic level of schools’ intake, but more private schooling is not automatically associated with better overall outcomes. In Japan, we found no performance difference between public and private schools before the socio-economic background of students and schools was taken into account. But once we took these factors on board, students in public schools outperformed students in private schools. As a caveat, let me add here that we should, of course, also consider that there is significant variability in Japan’s private schools. While some perform very well, others are geared to educating poor performers who did not succeed in the public system.

On the second point: autonomy. Another feature that the best performers in PISA share is that they have devolved responsibility to the frontline. PISA suggests that countries giving more responsibility to schools tend to perform better. Giving schools more autonomy in formulating the budget, and letting them decide on allocations within the school tends to go hand in hand with better performance. This remains true even after accounting for socio-economic background and as other school and system level factors.

The third point is accountability, and improved accountability is a fundamental counterpart to greater school autonomy. Accountability has to do, among other factors, with how education systems use results from assessments. In many countries, this is controversially debated. Some see assessment results primarily as tools to reveal best practices and identify shared problems in order to encourage teachers and schools to improve learning environments. Others extend their purpose to use the results to support contestability of public services or foster market-mechanisms in the allocation of resources. And it is widely debated to what extent information on student performance should be made available to parents and the public at large. PISA shows that schools posting results publicly tend to perform better (even after accounting for all other school and socio-economic factors). This effect is strong across many countries. This suggests that external monitoring of standards, rather than relying mostly on schools and teachers to uphold them, can make a real difference to results.

PISA itself has encouraged countries not to take internally assessed education standards for granted. We can already see that the discipline provided by subjecting schools to external assessment with publicly visible results produces strong effects. Of course, such issues are very sensitive and need to be carefully addressed, particularly in a country like Japan that has just reintroduced a national assessment system this year, after 50 years of absence of external monitoring. However, the long-term perspective of improved transparency in schooling outcomes is important.

School systems continue to face the challenge how to improve equity without threatening quality. Given that resources are finite, the answer is not straightforward. Will reducing resources for socio-economically advantaged students and schools harm students’ performance more than improving resources for socio-economically disadvantaged students and schools would improve results? Even if this were not to lower the average score, it is possible that it would reduce the number of high-performing students, which in itself is undesirable.

PISA tells us that the most important factors for success they are not the ones most closely associated with finite material resources, such as the distribution of good teachers. Rather, what matters is how schools and the school system are run – for example, the amount of time that students spend in class and the extent to which schools are accountable for their results. Delivering such advantages to one student is not obviously at the expense of another. This, in itself, is an important conclusion from PISA. It underlines once more that quality, equity and coherence in educational standards are indeed achievable policy goals.

By way of conclusion, let me say that educational policies should provide the basis for our children to succeed. Successful learning experiences involve enabling environments at school, at home, everywhere. To get it right requires a deep understanding of how the system works. PISA is one of the tools at hand to improve performance, not only for policy-makers but for all of us striving to give our children the best education we can. But getting it right also requires courage to take the right measures and to reform when needed. The OECD stands ready to help – both with the analysis and the often difficult aspects of making reform happen.

When countries are ranked in terms of their level of religousity there is a strong negative correlation
with science achievement. This, in a nutshell is what is wrong with education in this country. So therefore we
should elect a president that doensn't understand and accept Evolution...George Bush, fololowed by Gov. Huck...

well, F(acts - what IS)/F(aith - what you'd rather HAVE be) rarely mingle well: science can't be done by simply writing up numbers to fit your wish but noting down numbers that are no matter how unpleasant

it is VERY HARD to accept what is and not being able to wish something away when you don't like it, these mindsets DO NOT match. like oil and water.


in a religious system you're told to beLIEve WITHOUT facts and even IN SPITE of them - when you're taught from childhood to ignore reality, then understanding concepts BASED on facts may seem quite unnatural....

I have difficulty with this subject. Creationism is a religious belief not held by everyone.
A higher power if God or Science is the greater general belief.
Creationist believe in the bible word for word and believe the old testament as relevant as the new testament.
Christians study the old testament as the history of the bible and the new testament as the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The reason I have difficulty with this subject is that those who see the state of Israel as fulfillment of biblical phrophecy are ready for the rapture(which I do not believe in) and ( the end of times) which I am not ready for and is biblical suppose to come after 100 years of peace and the armageddon ( a biblical reference to a dream).
Sometimes I think that America is like the tower of babel by learning and communicating with one mind and one language. The rest of the world learning two, three and four languages to communicate with the world and participating in the world.

The more limited in thought of a president the more limited our government and growth.
The best thing I have seen come out of organized religion in the US in the last couple of years has been the green movement. Taking care of the earth as a gift (from God).

PISA is interesting as USA is so low. I have heard the USA geography scores were also low compared to the rest of the world.

It says a lot when science and geography are so low. Even computer is a science as well as a business and technology.

If we fail in our sciences that would cover earth science and biological science and marine and animal science, health and most manufacturing are results of science.
Math is a science are USA scores low in math also?

1) read couple of posts up

2) Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy, A Framework for PISA 2006 :
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/35/37464175.pdf - excellent reading to understand what and how exactly was rated, with examples. download

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf


Range of rank of countries/economies
on the mathematics scale


Mathematics scale

Mathematics score S.E.
Range of rank
OECD countries All countries/economies
Upper rank Lower rank Upper rank Lower rank


Chinese Taipei 549 (4.1) 1 4
Finland 548 (2.3) 1 2 1 4
Hong Kong-China 547 (2.7) 1 4
Korea 547 (3.8) 1 2 1 4
Netherlands 531 (2.6) 3 5 5 8
Switzerland 530 (3.2) 3 6 5 9
Canada 527 (2.0) 3 6 5 10
Macao-China 525 (1.3) 7 11
Liechtenstein 525 (4.2) 5 13
Japan 523 (3.3) 4 9 6 13
New Zealand 522 (2.4) 5 9 8 13
Belgium 520 (3.0) 6 10 8 14
Australia 520 (2.2) 6 9 10 14
Estonia 515 (2.7) 12 16
Denmark 513 (2.6) 9 11 13 16
Czech Republic 510 (3.6) 10 14 14 20
Iceland 506 (1.8) 11 15 16 21
Austria 505 (3.7) 10 16 15 22
Slovenia 504 (1.0) 17 21
Germany 504 (3.9) 11 17 16 23
Sweden 502 (2.4) 12 17 17 23
Ireland 501 (2.8) 12 17 17 23
France 496 (3.2) 15 22 21 28
United Kingdom 495 (2.1) 16 21 22 27
Poland 495 (2.4) 16 21 22 27
Slovak Republic 492 (2.8) 17 23 23 30
Hungary 491 (2.9) 18 23 24 31
Luxembourg 490 (1.1) 20 23 26 30
Norway 490 (2.6) 19 23 25 31
Lithuania 486 (2.9) 27 32
Latvia 486 (3.0) 27 32
Spain 480 (2.3) 24 25 31 34
Azerbaijan 476 (2.3) 32 35
Russian Federation 476 (3.9) 32 36
United States 474 (4.0) 24 26 32 36
Croatia 467 (2.4) 35 38
Portugal 466 (3.1) 25 27 35 38
Italy 462 (2.3) 26 28 37 39
Greece 459 (3.0) 27 28 38 39
Israel 442 (4.3) 40 41
Serbia 435 (3.5) 40 41
Uruguay 427 (2.6) 42 43
Turkey 424 (4.9) 29 29 41 45
Thailand 417 (2.3) 43 46
Romania 415 (4.2) 43 47
Bulgaria 413 (6.1) 43 48
Chile 411 (4.6) 44 48
Mexico 406 (2.9) 30 30 46 48
Montenegro 399 (1.4) 49 50
Indonesia 391 (5.6) 49 52
Jordan 384 (3.3) 50 52
Argentina 381 (6.2) 50 53
Colombia 370 (3.8) 52 55
Brazil 370 (2.9) 53 55
Tunisia 365 (4.0) 53 55
Qatar 318 (1.0) 56 56
Kyrgyzstan 311 (3.4) 57 57


Source: OECD PISA 2006 database. Figure 6.20b, PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World.
12 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/142046885031

Range of rank of countries/economies
on the reading scale


Korea 556 (3.8) 1 1 1 1
Finland 547 (2.1) 2 2 2 2
Hong Kong-China 536 (2.4) 3 3
Canada 527 (2.4) 3 4 4 5
New Zealand 521 (3.0) 3 5 4 6
Ireland 517 (3.5) 4 6 5 8
Australia 513 (2.1) 5 7 6 9
Liechtenstein 510 (3.9) 6 11
Poland 508 (2.8) 6 10 7 12
Sweden 507 (3.4) 6 10 7 13
Netherlands 507 (2.9) 6 10 8 13
Belgium 501 (3.0) 8 13 10 17
Estonia 501 (2.9) 10 17
Switzerland 499 (3.1) 9 14 11 19
Japan 498 (3.6) 9 16 11 21
Chinese Taipei 496 (3.4) 12 22
United Kingdom 495 (2.3) 11 16 14 22
Germany 495 (4.4) 10 17 12 23
Denmark 494 (3.2) 11 17 14 23
Slovenia 494 (1.0) 16 21
Macao-China 492 (1.1) 18 22
Austria 490 (4.1) 12 20 15 26
France 488 (4.1) 14 21 18 28
Iceland 484 (1.9) 17 21 23 28
Norway 484 (3.2) 16 22 22 29
Czech Republic 483 (4.2) 16 22 22 30
Hungary 482 (3.3) 17 22 23 30
Latvia 479 (3.7) 24 31
Luxembourg 479 (1.3) 20 22 26 30
Croatia 477 (2.8) 26 31
Portugal 472 (3.6) 22 25 29 34
Lithuania 470 (3.0) 30 34
Italy 469 (2.4) 23 25 31 34
Slovak Republic 466 (3.1) 23 26 31 35
Spain 461 (2.2) 25 27 34 36
Greece 460 (4.0) 25 27 34 36
Turkey 447 (4.2) 28 28 37 39
Chile 442 (5.0) 37 40
Russian Federation 440 (4.3) 37 40
Israel 439 (4.6) 38 40
Thailand 417 (2.6) 41 42
Uruguay 413 (3.4) 41 44
Mexico 410 (3.1) 29 29 41 44
Bulgaria 402 (6.9) 42 50
Serbia 401 (3.5) 44 48
Jordan 401 (3.3) 44 48
Romania 396 (4.7) 44 50
Indonesia 393 (5.9) 44 51
Brazil 393 (3.7) 46 51
Montenegro 392 (1.2) 47 50
Colombia 385 (5.1) 48 53
Tunisia 380 (4.0) 51 53
Argentina 374 (7.2) 51 53
Azerbaijan 353 (3.1) 54 54
Qatar 312 (1.2) 55 55
Kyrgyzstan 285 (3.5) 56 56

Source: OECD PISA 2006 database. Figure 6.8b, PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World.
12 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/142046885031

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/51/39317423.pdf

Education at a Glance 2007
Briefing Notes - United States

What is Finland doing that is so right, educationally?

http://www.edu.fi/english/frontpage.asp?path=500
http://www.edu.fi/english/SubPage.asp?path=500;4699

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland

(btw - notice that the students get free meals during primary and secondary years - This is a major issue to success or failure that I can well attest)

Persons who have not Integrated the Concepts & Operations of Emergent Evolution into their Personal Construct Systems are at a disadvantage for fully recognizing and utilizing the Sciences in
Democratic and Humanitarian Ways...the power of the Sciences are thus, too often left to the non-democratic and non-humanitarian (autocratic & dogmatic) Networks that are driving the train (Influencing the Social System). One of the most delightful courses I've ever taught was Seventh Grade Geography. They either don't teach it any more or it doesn't take...or we, as a Nation, wouldn't be so much up to our a$$ in aligaitors...

serious or ironic?

btw, oscd also compares various data on countries' education and the way it's run - some in the posts in this thread, some at their site. some reading, if you're really interested...

Serious and Ironic in "one of the wealthiest nations" on the planet. Don't think there are American children going to school with nothing on their minds but being hungry? THINK again. Obesity in America? The symptom of a larger socioeconomic issue with the perpetuation of ignorance, violence, and poverty at it's core.

The Perpetuation despair,

The Perversion of ideals,

The Poisoning of the spirit of hope,

The Persistence of ignorance:

VIOLENCE.
POVERTY.
rinse, repeat.

there are various influences determining any outcome: you can't really call that thing a reason for falling behind azerbaijani, can you? or slovak? or poland? there are kids from poor families in every country - but to excuse a disagreeable standing of 'us' with that?? it'd make sense if the test had been taken by selected economic groupes, not by all