PIRLS before the Press

Abstract

SURVEYS SHOW that Americans are pretty satisfied with their local public schools but think that the nation's schools are in crisis. Ever wonder why? Here's a clue. On 8 April 2003, the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) issued its Progress in Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), an international comparison of reading in 35 nations. American students always do well in reading studies, and in this one they finished ninth, with a score of 542. Only three countries had scores that were statistically significantly higher: Sweden, 561; the Netherlands, 554; and England, 553. And at 565, white students in the outscored Sweden. All other ethnic groups scored above the international average, a first in international studies, but still less than stellar performance because the average was lowered by the extremely low scores of some countries that were not balanced by any extremely high scores. The report was issued; no one knew. The Washington Post carried an AP wire story on the report on 1?12 of the back page of section A. Ads for a department store occupied the rest of the page. The New York Times did not print one word. Only 14, mostly small, newspapers and CNN.com carried the short AP wire story -- and some abbreviated even that. Only three papers actually wrote stories. The Washington Times printed the facts but added a lot of negative -- and irresponsible -- commentary from Reid Lyon. According to the Times, Mr. Lyon said the report shows 30% to 40% of fourth-graders are not proficient readers. It shows no such thing. The 40% figure is a mantra for the Bush Administration. (The Clinton people used it, too.) But it requires that you accept the achievement levels for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which have been rejected in studies by the Government Accounting Office, by CRESST (Center for Research in Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing), and by the National Academy of Sciences. Even the NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card says that these levels are no good. (So, are you wondering why they're still in use? Me too.) The levels are rejected, in part, because they never accord with the results of international studies such as PIRLS or TIMSS (Third International Mathematics and Science Study). PIRLS was released through Boston College, so the other two papers that ran actual stories were the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald. The Globe headline pronounced, U.S. Fares Well in World Reading Test, but the article took away even as it gave. The opening paragraph reminded readers that we've known for 40 years that American kids can't do math; then it said, They are faring better -- but still not outstanding -- at reading. …