The Paradox of U.S. Public Education: Better Than Ever, but Not Good Enough

By: Malbert Smith, Ph.D., Jason Turner, Steve Lattanzio and Andrew Ashley September 2015

VISIT WWW.METAMETRICSINC.COM FOR MORE INFORMATION

The Paradox of U.S. Public Education 1

About MetaMetrics®

MetaMetrics, founded in 1984, is an educational measurement and technology organization

whose mission is to connect assessment with instruction. The company’s distinctive

frameworks for English and mathematics bring meaning to measurement and are used by

millions to differentiate instruction, individualize practice and improve learning across all

levels of education.

The Paradox of U.S. Public Education 2

The Paradox of U.S. Public Education

Since 1973, Gallup has annually polled the American public to gauge their confidence in various

public institutions. The institutions in question cut across a wide swath of public life—encompassing

such entities as congress, banks, small business, the military and the police. Included in the Gallup survey

are questions about confidence in K–12 public education. In 1973, the inaugural year for the survey, 58%

of the respondents expressed a ‘great deal’ or ‘quite a lot’ of confidence in public schools. Unfortunately,

that high degree of confidence has been steadily eroding ever since. Other than a few brief upticks in

confidence in the late 80s and early 90s, the confidence of the American public in K–12 education has

been trending downward at an alarming rate (Gallup, 2015).

Sadly, the 2014 Gallup survey brought the lowest degree of public confidence since the

survey began. Just 26% of respondents expressed confidence in public education (Gallup, 2014).

However, it is worth noting that declining confidence in public education reflected the growing

cynicism of citizens across most institutions. With the exception of the military and small business,

Americans have been steadily losing confidence in our public institutions at an alarming rate.

Figure 1

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 202025

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Public School Confidence

Year

Perc

ent

In fact, confidence in Congress hit an all-time low in 2014 by plunging into the single digits (a historical

first) at seven percent (Gallup, 2014). This year Congress fared about the same, ticking up just a notch to

eight percent (Gallup, 2015).

For 2015, however, the number of Americans expressing a ‘great deal’ or ‘quite a lot’ of confidence

in public schools experienced a slight rise from 26% to 31% (Jones, 2015). Though modest, this movement

upward is statistically significant and, we hope, could portend an upward trend. Of course, we should

be cautious in concluding one data point connotes a consistent positive swing. Yet given the assiduous

performances of our public educators and policy-makers around the country, we hope that this slight

improvement notes the beginning of a trend as citizens come to recognize and find confidence in the

successful work being done.

Since 2012 we have responded to each Gallup Public Confidence Survey, analyzing educational

data in an attempt to explain the public’s disheartening lack of confidence (see here, here and here). Our

work was informed by a pair of questions: within the realm of public education are things really as dire as

the low level of public confidence indicates, and, similarly, are public perceptions tethered to the reality of

our students’ academic performance? By our analysis, we have found that U.S. educational performance

is, in fact, improving, and that public education has made steady progress when considered across a wide

range of metrics (Turner, Smith, & Lattanzio, 2014). The fact that public confidence continues to erode

despite educational outcomes improving over the last three decades, argues for an explanation beyond

just the performance of our students.

In our earlier papers we argued that the reasons for the decline are multi-layered and

various, having little to do with the actual performance of U.S. students. When it comes to trust in

our leaders and faith in some of our long-standing institutions, the Gallup results point to a growing

cynicism and distrust among our citizens. In recent years, the negative and political firestorm ignited

by the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) helped fuel the perception that public education

was headed in the wrong direction. During that same period, many states adopted third-grade

reading policies that mandated third grade students be reading on grade level or be retained.

The Paradox of U.S. Public Education 3

Those policies were well-intentioned and bolstered by research demonstrating the importance of reading

on grade level by the end of third grade. Nevertheless, for some parents the consequences of those

policies seemed draconian and punitive, feeding the idea that something must be terribly wrong in the

sphere of public education (see Turner, Smith, & Lattanzio, 2014 for a detailed analysis).

This year, by contrast, a slightly higher percentage of respondents reported ‘a great deal’ or

‘quite a lot’ of confidence in K–12 public education (Jones, 2015). That is good news. When we consider

educational performance across a wide range of metrics we find that the U.S. has been steadily improving

for at least three decades. Consider, for example, our performance on the National Assessment of

Educational Progress Long Term Trends (NAEP LTT). In Figure 2 we mapped the NAEP LTT math and

reading performances onto the public confidence graph as a way to contrast academic performance and

public perception. Although new long-term trends from NAEP data will not be available until 2016, Figure

2 illustrates performance for both nine-year-old and 13-year-old students. Despite small dips throughout

the 1980s, scores for nine- and 13-year-old students rebounded in the 1990s and have been rising ever

since to currently sit at an all-time high for both reading and mathematics (National Center for Education

Statistics, 2010).

The Paradox of U.S. Public Education 4

Figure 2

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 202025

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

NAEP Math (13-year-olds) Public School Confidence

Year

Perc

ent

Scor

e

NAEP Math (9-year-olds)

NAEP Reading (13-year-olds)

NAEP Reading (9-year-olds)

Graduation rates provide even more evidence of success. Graduation rates in the U.S. have risen

steadily over the past 20 years. In 1999 the graduation rate was 66%, and by 2009 it had risen to 73%

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). By 2013 graduation rates had risen to 81%—a 15 point

jump in just 14 years (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014).

Additionally, the drop-out rate has declined from 17% in 1967 to just seven percent in 2013, even

as the number of Title 1 schools and low-income students have increased (Child Trends Data Bank, 2014).

In 2002, there were around 47,000 schools identified as Title 1 schools in the U.S. (U.S. Department of

Education, 2002). Ten years later, that number had risen to almost 67,000 (National Center for Education

Statistics, 2012). In 1989, less than 32% of students were identified as low-income. Twenty-four years later

that number had risen to 51% (Bidwell, 2015). In other words, even as the number of low-income students

increases, U.S. educators continue to reduce the drop-out rate and graduate even higher numbers of

students.

In addition to higher graduation rates and lower drop-out rates, a greater number of U.S. students

are enrolling in Advanced Placement (AP) courses. In 2013, for example, over 2.2 million students took

an AP exam, of which 275,864 were low-income students. That is a dramatic jump from 10 years earlier in

2003 when less than 59,000 students took an AP exam. In 2014, the number of AP exams continued to rise,

growing by almost seven percent to 4.1 million exams. Even more compelling is the fact that the number

of students scoring a three or higher continues to climb. In 2003, only 12% of the test takers scored a

three or higher. Last year, in 2014, that number was close to 60% (College Board, 2015).

While it is true that our domestic performance offers much to celebrate, many have argued

(including us—see here and here) that our performance on the international stage has been less than

stellar. While the U.S. has made incremental gains in some areas, we have lost ground in others. In terms

of international comparisons, there are three major assessments that are most often cited: Trends in

International Mathematics and Science Study, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study and the

Program for International Student Assessment.

The Paradox of U.S. Public Education 5

A review of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) reveals that the

actual score in mathematics for U.S. fourth-grade students has risen rather dramatically from a score of

518 in 1995 to 541 in 2011.1 While not as dramatic, U.S. eighth-grade student’s average math score has

risen from 492 in 1995 to 509 in 2011.2 On the science front scores for fourth-grade students have been

relatively stable over time, whereas scores for eighth-grade students have risen from 513 in 1995 to 525

in 2011.3 Scores and international rankings from TIMSS are displayed in Table 1 (National Center for

Education Statistics).

_______________________

1 TIMSS fourth-grade math scores have had statistically significant increases (2-tail, alpha = 0.05) between consecutive administrations 2003 – 2007 (p = 1.00) and 2007 – 2011 (p = 1.00), and also between the first and last administration, 1995 – 2011 (p = 1.00). 2 TIMSS eighth-grade math scores had a statistically significant increase (2-tail, alpha = 0.05) between the first and last administration, 1995 – 2011 (p = 1.00).3 TIMSS eighth-grade science scores have had statistically significant increases (2-tail, alpha = 0.05) between consecutive administrations 1999 – 2003 (p = 0.97) and also between the first and last administration, 1995 – 2011 (p = 0.95).

The Paradox of U.S. Public Education 6

Table 1

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

Mathematics Science

4th Grade 8th Grade 4th Grade 8th Grade

U.S. Score Ranking U.S. Score Ranking U.S. Score Ranking U.S. Score Ranking

1995 518 10/26 492 28/40 542 3/26 513 19/40

1999 502 19/38 515 18/38

2003 518 12/25 504 15/46 536 6/25 527 11/46

2007 529 11/37 508 9/50 539 8/37 520 11/50

2011 541 11/50 509 9/42 544 7/50 525 10/42

The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), which focuses exclusively on reading

scores of fourth graders has fewer data points. PIRLS has only been administered three years (2001, 2006

and 2011). While U.S. fourth graders’ average score fell from 542 in 2001 to 540 in 2006, those scores

rebounded to 556 by 2011.4 This improvement strengthened our relative ranking as well, moving us from

a position of 14th out of 39 countries to six out of 46 countries (National Center for Education Statistics).

The next PIRLS will be administered in 2016. The results will be published in December, 2017.

The third international assessment, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA),

which assesses 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics and science was last administered in 2012.

U.S. students’ average scores in reading, math and science have been relatively stable over the various

administrations from 2003 to 2012. Our reading scores over three testing periods have varied from 495 to

500; our science scores have been as low as 489 and as high as 502; and our math scores have been as low

as 474 and as high as 487. Our scores and ranking on PISA tests are displayed in Table 3. It is important to

note that these rankings are highly influenced not only by our performance, but the composition of the

participating countries.5

_______________________

4 PIRLS fourth-grade reading scores have had statistically significant increases (2-tail, alpha = 0.05) between consecutive administrations 2006 – 2011 (p = 1.00) and also between the first and last administration, 2001 – 2011 (p = 1.00).5 PISA 15-year-old math scores had a statistically significant decrease (2-tail, alpha = 0.05) between the consecutive administrations 2000 – 2003 (p = 0.96), relative to the OECD average.

The Paradox of U.S. Public Education 7

Table 2

Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

4th Grade

U.S. Score Ranking

2001 542 9/35

2006 540 14/39

2011 556 6/45

However, as Diane Ravitch has argued, we should be very careful about placing too much weight

on these international results. If one controls for poverty, U.S. students fare just as well, if not better, than

students from any of the other high-ranking countries.

Second, American students in schools with low poverty—the schools where less than 10

percent of the students were poor—had scores that were equal to those of Shanghai and

significantly better than those of high-scoring Finland, the Republic of Korea, Canada, New

Zealand, Japan, and Australia. In U.S. schools where less than a quarter of the students

were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (the federal definition of poverty), the reading

scores were similar to those of students in high-performing nations. (Ravitch, 2013)

Ravitch argues that the idea that our poor performance on international assessments augers dire

economic consequences for our nation has simply proven to be empirically false. Ravitch references

Keith Baker, a retired analyst from the U.S. Department of Education, whose article “Are International

Tests Worth Anything?” appeared in Phi Delta Kappan. Baker’s study serves as a rejoinder to all those

claiming that American student’s low scores on international tests were predictors of an economic

doomsday (Ravitch, 2013). Baker rightly observes that the idea that the results of international tests

are predictive of a nation’s future success suffers from the correlation fallacy. That is, just because

assessments within a nation often serve as good predictors of economic success, employment, future

opportunity, etc… it does not mean that assessments between nations offer the same predictive

power (Baker, 2007). Baker goes on to analyze student performance on a host of international

The Paradox of U.S. Public Education 8

Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)

15-year-olds

Mathematics Science Reading

2003 483 27/40 504 14/41 495 18/42

2006 474 35/57 489 29/57

2009 487 33/65 491 18/40 500 17/65

2012 481 27/40 502 17/65 498 24/65

Table 3

assessments and cross-references those performances to other markers, like GDP, wealth, productivity,

quality of life, democracy and creativity (using patents as a proxy for creativity). What he found was

startling! There was no correlation between those markers and poor performance on international

assessments. In fact, nations with the highest assessment scores scored the lowest in markers like

democracy, creativity and wealth. As Baker writes, “No matter how you look at it, high test scores in

1964 were not positive predictors of how the world would turn out. At best, international test scores are

useless and may well be harbingers of failure, rather than success” (Baker, 2007).

Assuming that national tests are good predictors of future economic and academic success, and

that, therefore, international tests must likewise serve as a bellwether for how the nation as a whole will

fare is an understandable fallacy. This assumption is what has led so many policy-makers and educators

to argue that we are trailing the rest of the world in considerable ways (Ravitch, 2013). That bell has

persistently echoed since A Nation at Risk was first published in 1983, even as the U.S. economy continued

to grow into the largest in the world.

We would argue that U.S. education has greatly improved since Gallup first began conducting its

survey, and that public education continues to improve along a host of important benchmarks. So given

the level of disconnect between our actual performance and public perception, what can account for the

public’s declining level of confidence?

First, the recent conflagration in many states over the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

has fostered a negative impression of what is happening within the sphere of education. Drafted

in 2010 and rapidly adopted by 46 states, the CCSS were quickly integrated into school districts

throughout the U.S. and implementation efforts were underway before parents and media ever took

notice. In 2011, there were 86 mainstream news stories written on the Common Core. In 2012 that

number rose to 252 stories, which is still a miniscule amount relative to other stories populating the

news cycle. In 2013 the CCSS began to take on a political hue as the existence and implementation

of the CCSS began to filter down to parents, local media and local political leaders. As parents

and political leaders became aware of the CCSS and implementation efforts were underway

The Paradox of U.S. Public Education 9

in earnest, that number rose to over 2,700 stories in 2014. As of June 2015, there were already over 2,100

stories.

Some have argued that the CCSS are simply a clever way to implement national standards, wresting

education from state and local control. Others worry that the CCSS will lead to unfair methods for

assessing teacher effectiveness and that seasoned educators will be ejected in the transition. Though the

CCSS was a non-partisan effort authored by the National Governor’s Association and the College Board,

and partially financed through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the standards have proven to be a

flashpoint for many school districts and state legislators have felt the heat. Fueled by the multitudinous

negative coverage, many parents have voiced passionate concern over the CCSS and have lobbied hard

to have the new standards repealed or watered down.

Second, much of the media continues to espouse that our children are woefully unprepared for

college and career. US News & World Report observed that more than 60% of 2012 graduates did not meet

ACT’s benchmark for college readiness (Sheehy, 2012). A recent article in Education World argued that

employers report that students lack the technological skills that make them suitable for the workplace

(Caron, 2011). A survey in Education Week reported that 83% of college students reported some gaps

in preparation in one or more subject areas (Adams, 2014). With so many stories labeling our public

schools a failure and propagating the idea that today’s students are deficient and unable to embrace the

challenge of college and career, it is little wonder that so many Americans report so little confidence in

public education.

The recent ascent from 26% to 31% of Americans expressing confidence in public schools

may be the start of a positive trend. Since we wrote our response last year, the educational tide

has shifted across many states and 17 states have either repealed or renamed the CCSS (Quinlan,

2015). The CCSS has never been free of the notion that it is a federally mandated curriculum. As

a point of fact, such a federal mandate is completely false. Yet the idea persists and has become a

sort of cultural meme, propagating the idea that the feds authored and compelled the adoption

of the CCSS. Implementation efforts were well underway across the U.S. when grassroots

The Paradox of U.S. Public Education 10

efforts across a few scattered districts and municipalities to castigate and demonize the CCSS metastasized

and spread across the nation. A surprising coalition of tea-party conservatives, liberal educators and

teacher unions sought to make political hay of the conflagration and political leaders have swiftly

acquiesced in efforts to repeal or rename the standards. The end result of this shifting tide is that for

many parents control over education appears to be shifting from the federal level back to the state level

(Associated Press, 2014). Perhaps then, polling indicating a rise in confidence reflects this supposed

reacquisition.

An abundance of parents across the U.S. choose to ‘opt-out’ their children (that is, just not take the

state mandated assessment). This trend only bolsters the notion that parents not only have a deep well of

antipathy towards the CCSS, but want local control when it comes to curriculum and assessment. Sixty-

eight percent of parents do not believe that standardized tests help teachers teach (Hess, 2015). This year,

1.1 million students in New York opted out of their state test. There have been considerable numbers of

students opting out in states like Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, and Pennsylvania (Cassidy, 2015). Here is

Allison Hertog on the opt-out movement:

The reasons for opting-out of the tests are nearly as diverse as the people of this country.

Some, in Utah for instance, are opting-out because they see the new tests as commandeering

their God-given right to direct their child’s education. In New York, for example, many

refusers align the tests with a “corporate takeover” of the public education system. Others,

such as parents of struggling learners, simply object to holding their children to academic

standards that they believe they can’t, or haven’t been taught to, meet. (Hertog, 2015)

Having so many students opt-out is a constitutionally-afforded form of civil disobedience; and parents

(or students) are well within their rights to do so. What many parents may not realize is that by opting

out they are depriving the state of valuable data on student performance. Furthermore, Title 1 schools

rely on that data for their funding. In a state where over one million students simply refuse to take an

assessment—one that figures into educational funding formulas—parents are unintentionally skewing

the data and almost certainly guaranteeing that some low-income schools receive even less funding

(Strauss, 2015). Ultimately, that decision trickles down, hurting students and teachers.

The Paradox of U.S. Public Education 11

Across the country, state legislators have successfully framed the debate over the CCSS as the

archetypical David verses Goliath showdown, the battle between federal bureaucrats and local educators.

That sort of verbiage has caught on. As states repeal or rename the CCSS, the general public is left with

the impression that Washington bureaucrats have been bested and that control of education is back

where it belongs: in the hands of state and local leaders. Coupling the shifting tide of the CCSS with the

opt-out movement has, for many parents, fostered the idea that public education may once again be

on the right track. For some respondents this notion that the future of education has reverted to local

control may leave them feeling more positive and confident about the future of education.

This tension over federal, state and local control of public education is on full display in the

debate and drafting of bills for the reauthorization of the ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education

Act, or No Child Left Behind). The most current version of the bill (House and Senate) would maintain the

current annual federal testing schedule and the disaggregation of student achievement data, but would

eliminate the current accountability system (Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP) and allow states to instead

develop their own accountability models. The shift towards state control is also reflected in the fact that

both bills under consideration would not force states to evaluate their teachers and would prohibit the

U.S. Secretary of Education from requiring (or offering incentives to compel) states to adopt any specific

standards, including the Common Core.

In conclusion, there is ample evidence that, in terms of empirical student outcome measures,

our students are performing better today than they were in the 1970s when public confidence was at

an all-time high. Clearly the perception that our schools are broken is not warranted by the data. While

our schools are not broken—and in fact, performing better than any other time in our history—we have

dramatically altered the scorecard for success. Today the litmus test for public education is best described

in Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan’s assertion:

If we can dramatically increase high school graduation rates, if we can dramatically

increase the number of graduates who are college and career ready, that’s what this is

about. Everything’s a means to that end. That’s the Holy Grail here. Are our students being

prepared to be successful? (Education Week, 2009)

The Paradox of U.S. Public Education 12

Let us be clear: this is a momentous goal. No country in the world has ever achieved such a

paramount objective. Having every student graduate college and career ready will require us to pay

attention to both equity and excellence. Our schools with less than 10% low-income students perform as

well as any school in the world. Time will tell whether we will marshal the resources and commitment to

shore up the equity issues to achieve the “Holy Grail” of college and career readiness for all.

The Paradox of U.S. Public Education 13

Adams, C. (2014, December 18). High School Graduates Feel Unprepared for College and Work, Survey Finds. Retrieved July 2015, from edweek.org: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/college_bound/2014/12/high_school_grads_unprepared_for_future.html#

Associated Press. (2014, September 02). 50-State Look At How Common Core Playing Out In U.S. Retrieved July 2015, from huffingtonpost.com: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/02/50-states-common-core_n_5751864.html

Baker, K. (2007, October). Are International Tests Worth Anything?, Phi Delta Kappan, 101-104.

Bidwell, A. (2015, January 16). Most U.S. Students Live in or Near Poverty. Retrieved July 2015, from U.S. News & World Report: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/01/16/most-us-students-come-from-low-income-families

Caron, S. (2011). Tomorrow’s Workforce: What Students Need. Retrieved July 2015, from educationworld.com: http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/tomorrows-workforce-what-students-need.shtml

Cassidy, C. (2015, April 18). Thousands of Students Opt Out of Common Core Tests in Protest. Retrieved July 2015, from pbs.org: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/thousands-students-opt-common-core-tests-protest/

Child Trends Data Bank. (2014, October). High School Dropout Rates. Retrieved July 2015, from childtrends.org: http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=high-school-dropout-rates#_edn

College Board. (2015). AP Program Participation and Performance Data 2014. Retrieved July 2015, from research.collegeboard.org: http://research.collegeboard.org/programs/ap/data/participation/ap-2014

Education Week. (2009, December 2). An Interview with Arne Duncan. Retrieved July 2015, from edweek.org.

Gallup. (2015, June). Business: Confidence in Institutions. Retrieved June 2015, from Gallup.com: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx

Hertog, A. (2015, May 7). Parent Opt-Out Movement: Engine of Common Core Unraveling? Retrieved July 2015, from huffingtonpost.com: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-hertog/optingout-is-silly-but-pa_b_7214478.html

Hess, F. (2015, May 5). Opt-Out Parents Have a Point. Retrieved July 2015, from usnews.com: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/05/05/parents-opting-out-of-common-core-tests-have-a-point

Jones, J. M. (2015, June 15). Confidence in U.S. Institutions Still Below Historical Norms. Retrieved June 2015, from Gallup.com: http://www.gallup.com/poll/183593/confidence-institutions-below-historical-norms.aspx?utm_source=position5&utm_medium=related&utm_campaign=tiles

National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). International Data Exporer. Retrieved August 2015, from https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/international/ide/

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress and 2008 NAEP Long-Term Trends Mathematics Assessment. Retrieved July 2015, from NCES.ed.gov: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_140.asp

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Numbers and Types of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools from the Common Core of Data: School Year 2010-11. Retrieved July 2015, from nces.ed.gov: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/pesschools10/tables/table_02.asp#f4

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Projections of Education Statistics to 2021. Retrieved July 2015, from nces.ed.gov: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/projections2021/tables.asp

National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Public high school 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rate for the United States, the 50 states, and the District of Columbia. Retrieved July 2015, from National Center of Education Statistics: http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_2010-11_to_2012-13.asp

References

The Paradox of U.S. Public Education 14

National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Progress in International Reading Literacy Student. Retrieved August 2015, from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pirls/

National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Retrieved August 2015, from nces.ed.gov: http://nces.ed.gov/timss/

Quinlan, C. (2015, April 29). States Ditch Common Core Name But Keep Common Core Ideas. Retrieved July 2015, from thinkprogress.org: http://thinkprogress.org/education/2015/04/29/3652631/states-ditch-common-core-name-keep-common-core-ideas/

Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of Error. New York: Vintage Books.

Sheehy, K. (2012, August 22). High School Students Not Prepared for College, Career. Retrieved July 2015, from usnews.com: http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2012/08/22/high-school-students-not-prepared-for-college-career

Strauss, V. (2015, May 3). Why the Movement to Opt Out of Common Core Tests Is A Big Deal. Retrieved July 2015, from washingtonpost.com: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/05/03/why-the-movement-to-opt-out-of-common-core-tests-is-a-big-deal/

Turner, J., Smith, M. I., & Lattanzio, S. (2014, October). A Crisis of Confidence: How Public Educators Can Restore Faith in Public Education. Retrieved July 2015, from www.lexile.com: http://cdn.lexile.com/cms_page_media/122/A%20Crisis%20of%20Confidence.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2002, August). Fact Sheet on Title 1, Part A. Retrieved July 2015, from www.ed.gov: https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/title1-factsheet.pdf

The Paradox of U.S. Public Education 15

About the Authors

MALBERT SMITH III, PH.D., is President and Co-founder of MetaMetrics, where his vision for

common metrics and individualized learning has driven extensive partnerships throughout

education. Dr. Smith is a senior investigator on a U.S. National Center for Education Statistics

research study to examine National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) benchmark

scores in relation to university and career readiness. Dr. Smith also serves on the UNC School

of Education Foundation Board, the advisory board of Capstone Digital, and is a member of the

advisory board for EdSteps, a joint project of The Council of Chief State School Officers and The

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Dr. Smith is a research professor at the University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill and has taught graduate seminars in educational research and test design

at Duke University and UNC. Widely published, Dr. Smith speaks frequently around the globe on

issues related to educational research, measurement and technology.

JASON TURNER is the Professional Development Director at MetaMetrics, where he has played a

variety of roles. Mr. Turner has managed implementations of and professional development for

The Lexile® Framework for Reading and The Quantile® Framework for Mathematics. Additionally,

he has overseen various state and district outreach efforts and developed content and training

modules for the Lexile and Quantile Frameworks. Mr. Turner has also worked extensively in the

training and implementation of the Lexile and Quantile Frameworks in classrooms across North

America.

STEVE LATTANZIO is a Research Engineer at MetaMetrics where he specializes in the development

of new algorithms and data analysis. Steve has worked on algorithms that range from growth

modeling and forecasting of student ability to automatic essay scoring engines. Steve received

his B.S.E. and M.Sc. in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Duke University where he

performed research in the area of control theory and developed a passion for stochastic dynamic

processes, optimization and machine learning which he has applied to his work at MetaMetrics.

ANDREW ASHLEY is a Research Associate at MetaMetrics. He completed a BA in Comparative

Literature from the University of North Carolina. He is finishing an MA in Geography from the

University of Kentucky and starts an MA in Social Sciences from the University of Chicago in the

Fall of 2015. His research is on South Asian migration to the United States.

The Paradox of U.S. Public Education 16

www.MetaMetricsinc.comwww.Lexile.com

www.Quantiles.com

METAMETRICS®, the METAMETRICS® logo and tagline, LEXILE®, LEXILE® FRAMEWORK, the LEXILE® logo, QUANTILE®, QUANTILE® FRAMEWORK, and the QUANTILE® logo are trademarks of MetaMetrics, Inc., and are registered in the United States and abroad. Copyright © 2015 MetaMetrics, Inc. All rights reserved.