America: The Land of the Free, and the Home of the Stagnate

8/13/2019 America: The Land of the Free, and the Home of the Stagnate

1/22


2/22


3/22

Walker 3

Introduction

America the land of the free and the home of the brave but after the release of the

OECD PISA report, the world might be singing another tune. Over the past 50 years, the United

States has experienced drastic changes to its economy, ethnic and social population, and most

importantly, its education system. However, policy experts and analysts have conducted an array

of research that might have label the US as the catalyst of stagnation at least when it comes

to education. The discussion of Americas declining commitment to education is nothing new to

us. So why havent things changed? or better yet, have they?

According to the Department of Educations Secretary, Arne Duncan, Americas high

school graduation rates have risen to their highest rate in more than 30 years. Moreover, there

has been a significant increase in the retention rates of high school students; approximately

700,000 nationwide. The U.S. Census Bureau recently estimated that the number of Latino

students in college increased by more than 50 percent from 2008 to 2012, with an additional 1.1

million Latino students enrolled today (Duncan). Additionally, on the 2013 National Assessment

of Education Progress (NAEP), reading and math scores moved up nationally to new ranks for

fourth and eighth graders. While the conversation and discourse on the diminishing quality of

education in America is very much an active conversation, it is clear that America has made

significant strides. How significant are these improvements when compared internationally?

Unfortunately, these signs of progress are only half of the story. The 2012 long-term NAEP

shows that American 17-year olds are not improving (Duncan). Moreover, the Programme for

International Student Assessment (PISA), shows that 15 year-olds are still behind their peers in

top performing nations.


4/22

Walker 4

Compared to other developed countries, such as Finland, Japan, Canada, Korea, and

Singapore, the United States falls far behind in mathematics and science. Among the 34 OECD

countries, the United States performed below average in mathematics in 2012 and is ranked 26 th,

while its science and reading score fell around the average ranking 1. Although the United States

may not be completely at the bottom of the barrel, policy-makers are concerned because data

trends have shown no significant changes. The main question for analysts and policy experts is,

why so stagnant? While other countries continue to progress what has caused the United States

to rollback on its progress? To fully understand this question, there are several factors that are

essential to analyze. In this paper, I will examine practices within the United States that mightnegatively affect our progress such as spending, migration, teacher preparation, and social

factors. While area that the cause of Americas stagnation ma y not be as simple as one cause, I

find that primary causes of the disappointing findings in PISA 2012 are caused by the

fragmentation of power and funding. Unlike other top performing countries, the United Sates

divides autonomy among localized districts. Moreover, the structure of localized funding can

vary drastically, not only state-to-state, but city-to-city. Funding has a sizeable effect on

resources, and how much students are able to learn. Lastly, I will compare Finland to the United

States and suggest practices that should be applied to the United States.

PISA

In 2000, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) created

a test, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which is administered every

three years to over half a million 15-year old students. The test is designed to measure st udents

ability to think critically, solve problems, and communicate effectively what they have learned.

1 In reading, the US ranked 17 th out of 65, while ranking 21 st in mathematics.


5/22

Walker 5

The areas in which students are tested in are mathematics, science, and reading. Moreover, the

assessment uses these subjects in a context where students will apply their skills similarly in

college and the workforce.

In 2012, the OECD administered PISA to students in sixty-five countries. The results

from 2012 will show which countries appear to be more successful in getting more of their

students to develop deeper learning competencies, and how these results compare with those in

the United States (Rothman 1). Moreover, it will also show which countries produce greater

equity in their educational outcomesthose countries with the narrowest gaps between high-

performing and low-performing students. The results focus on international ranking, which

shows which countries, on average, performed the best, improved their performance, or declined,

since the last test in 2009. Like in 2009, the results from this year were alarming. It shows a clear

partner of stagnation with the United States.

While there are countless assessments similar to PISA, critics question its relevancy

what makes PISA so important and different? There are several factors which distinguish

PISA from other assessments. One feature is the focus on deeper learning. Unlike many test,

PISA was designed to measure deeper learning competencies (Rothman 1). Moreover, PISA

questions test whether students can apply their knowledge to real-world problems. PISA looks at

evidence about the countries with large numbers of top performing countries to discover policies

and practices that seem to be associated with their ability to enable more students to develop

deeper learning competencies (Rothman 1). Deeper learning is the ability to transfer knowledge

to new settings. An extensive study by the National Research Council found that these

competencies are associated with improved educational, career, and health outcomes for adults

(Pellegrino and Hilton 38). For the first time in PISA history, the 2012 report included a


6/22

Walker 6

questionnaire that asked students whether they had encountered problems that asked them to

apply mathematics in real-world settings (Rothman 3). The results of PISA have made it a

relevant assessment worth examining.

Addressing Skepticism

Many skeptics find it difficult to accept the reality that the Unites States is not among the

elite when it comes to education. In this section, I wish to dispel the widespread

counterarguments and critiques that have been presented to disregard the idea that the findings in

these reports, PISA and PIAAC, are irrelevant when it comes to the United States. One popular

argument is that Americas large number of poor and minority students are driving test score

down. Unfortunately, it is true that America has a large achievement gap. According to the most

recent findings in PISA although white 15 year-olds in the United States do significantly better

on average than students of color, white students are still not among the wo rlds top performers.

In fact, white students in the United States score below the average of all students in math in

international education systems like Shanghai, Singapore, and Korea. White students in America

also lag behind the average student from countries such as Estonia, Poland, Canada, Netherlands,

and Vietnam in math. Yet, Americas diversity fails to explain why the United States lags

behind.

Another argument is that American workers have managed to be highly productive, and

have been leaders in entrepreneurship and innovation; so therefore, the results from PISA must

not be relevant. However, what those skeptics fail to realize is that education is now a much

more pivotal component to success and well-being. As I will elaborate further in the paper, this

early investment in education and realization of its important for propelling economic growth is

one factor that has made Finlands economy th rive, and their students better skilled. A study by


7/22

Walker 7

Anthony Carnevale, the Director and Research Professor of the Georgetown University Center

on Education and the Workforce, found that in 2018 two- thirds of the United States jobs will

require some postsecondary education, including four-year colleges, two-year colleges, and

workplace training programs, compared with just over half in 1992 and one-third in 1973. Only

10 percent of jobs will be able to be done by high school dropouts (Carnevale). Secondly,

technology has changed the demand in the workplace. The expansion of technology in the

workforce means that the kind of work that can be performed by people with little education, has

declined. Computers can perform menial labor or the work can be outsourced to countries that

pay workers far less than the United States. But tasks that require expert thinking and complexcommunication are increasingly important, which means that workers with higher levels of

educational attainment and skills are in demand (Rothman 2).

Lastly, some skeptics argue that international assessments such as PISA and The

Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) are not

considerate of American heterogeneity and extensive size when compared to other countries,

which are much smaller. The logic is, if US states were compared individually to other countries,

than results would not reflect a poor score for the United States. Although this argument would

be proven true for some states, even Americas top performing states fall short of the strides

made by top performing countries. The percentage of high-performing students in

Massachusetts the United S tate highest performing state falls short of the percentage of

advanced students in top performing countries, such as Finland, Japan, Shanghai, Korea, and

Singapore. In math, 19 percent of Massachusettss students are high -performers, while 55

percent of students in Shanghai are high performers (Gurria). Moreover, there is a gap in


8/22

Walker 8

students performance in sc ience. In Massachusetts, 14 percent of 15-year olds are high

performers, while that number is nearly doubled at 27 percent for Shanghai (Gurria).

Critics and disbelievers need to be more concerned with the state of education in the

United States. They must realize that education is more important than it was in the 1960s and

1980s. The OECD recently launched a Survey of Adult Skills , which found that poor mathematics

skills severely limits peoples access to better paying and more rewarding jobs (Gurria).

Clearing Pre-research Perceptions

Research has shown that migration is becoming more widespread in affluent countries.

The number of immigrants to high-income countries has increased steadily since 1960, from

receiving just below two million immigrants, to as many as 23 million in 2010 ( Trends Shaping

Education 20). Therefore, it is fair to consider migration as a potential explanation for Ameri cas

stagnation in education. My assumption was that diversity in the classroom would be a threat to a

learning environment. Skeptics point out that Finland is culturally homogenous, and therefore,

has fewer barriers in the classroom. However, there are now schools in Helsinki where nearly


9/22

Walker 9

half the students are immigrants (Lessons from PISA 17). Although greater migration can be a

considerable factor, it cannot explain the gap in achievements between the United States and

Finland.

What Can America Learn From Finland?

For the past decade, Finland has been recognized as one of the worlds leaders in the

academic performance of its secondary school students. Surprisingly, despite the dramatic

increase in international migration it experienced in 2010, Finland has been able to equally serve

all students, regardless of family background, socio-economic status or ability ( Lessons from

PISA 117). How are the Finns able to do this? What polices are they implementing, or

techniques do they practice to make this possible? Finlands current success is the result of

steady progress, rather than as a consequence of highly visible innovations launched by a

particular political leader or party. To fully understand Finlands success, it is essential to

understand the countrys political ideology and the history of its education reform.

HistoryAfter receiving its independence from the Soviet Union in 1917, Finland experienced a

period of tremendous and innovative reform. In 1945, Parliament created three successive reform

commissions. The first of the commissions focused on the primary school curriculum. The

second commission, launched in 1946, focused on the organization of the system and the

creation of a common school; however, the recommendation did not pass. In 1950, there were

two types of middle grade education civic or grammar school, which both led to different

paths. One led to vocational training, while the other to a university. However, during this time,

most young Finns left school after six years of basic education. Only about a quarter of students

in 1950 had access to the grammar school path, and two-thirds of the grammar schools were


10/22

Walker 10

privately governed (Lessons from PISA 119). Over the next decade, enrollment in grammar

schools increased because of the government subsidies schools received. Furthermore, Finnish

parents possessed a stronger desire for their children to be educated. In 1968, the Finnish

Parliament enacted legislation to create a new basic education system that was built around the

development of a common comprehensive school for grades one through nine 2 a system that

spread to every municipality in the nation by 1977 (Porter-Magee). The establishment of the

comprehensive schools inspired three new and distinct standards: the development and adoption

of a mandatory national curriculum that ensured all students were held to the same rigorous

standards, dramatic changes in teacher preparation and certification requirements, and a centralstate inspectorate that evaluated school-level teaching and learning (Porter-Magee).

Economic Success The evolution of Finlands education reform is closely intertwined with the countrys

economic development. Despite Finlands late industrializatio n, Finns were determined to

accomplish the same level of economic prosperity as other developed countries. Two major

events occurred in the early 1990s that caused a drastic shift in the economic development

strategy; these being Finlands acceptance into the European Union in 1995, and the economic

recession of the early 1990s. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Finland had no choice but to

diversify its export strategy and begin to move away from its historic reliance on forest products

and other traditional industries (Lessons from PISA 121). The second was the economic

recession Finland experienced in the early 1990s. However, the government used the crisis as an

opportunity to develop new polices and a telecommunications sector. As a result, the number of

2 This proposal triggered a very substantial debate about core values and beliefs. Finns began to wonder: could allstudents be educated to a level that only those who currently had access to grammar schools were expected toachieve?


11/22

Walker 11

workers in research and development grew. Moreover, the increase in research and development

led to partnerships between education and employers.

The Professionalization of Teaching

The quality of teachers and teaching has been the driving force behind Finlands educational

success. What separates Finland from other countries is its mix of culture and policies that places

its teachers, and their training, as high priority. In 1979, Parliament decided to move teacher

preparation into the universities and make it substantially more rigorous (Lessons from PISA

124). This made education as a profession much more competitive o nly 15 percent of those

who apply for teaching programs are admitted. Teachers receive a three-year graduate-level

preparation program, entirely free of charge and with a living stipend (Darling-Hammond).

However, in the United States, circumstances different.

In the United States, teachers either go into debt to prepare for a profession that will pay

them poorly or enter with little or no training. These factors create low incentives for people to

enter the teaching profession. Finland made the decision to invest in a uniformly well-prepared

teaching force by recruiting top candidates and paying them to go to school. As a result, primary

school teaching is now the most popular profession among Finnish young people. It attracts the

top quartile of high school graduates into its highly competitive teacher training programs

(Lesson from PISA 117). Aside from investing in teacher education and training, in the 1980s,

the government increased the levels of authority and responsibility for education to schools.

Many speculate this policy decision was in direct response to an economic crisis (Porter-Magee).

Moreover, teachers were free from assessment and inspections, which ultimately gave them more

autonomy.


12/22

Walker 12

ObservationsAfter analyzing economic and educational reform that has taken place in Finland, I made

several observations that could explain Finlands educational advantage over the United States.

The first is its commitment to education. Finland provides its teachers with resources that ensure

that they are qualified to meet the needs of all students. Raising the bar for teachers created a

cultural shift that caused education to become a social priority. Moreover, this societal shift led

to new modes of thinking for pedagogy. Pairing rigorous qualifications, along with greater

autonomy and control over classrooms, has made teaching the single most desirable career

choice among Finns. I believe that investment in teachers is likely to be the major factor that

accounts for the high level of consistent performance across Finnish schools.

Second, Finland focuses equally on development in vocational education and training (VET).

Unlike the United States, Finland invested aggressively in polytechnic colleges, which created a

pathway into post-secondary education for VET students. This makes education a much more

attainable and attractive goal to students. Although there are VET programs in the United States,

they are not as de veloped as the ones in Finland nor do they establish such explicit paths into post-secondary education. As a result, 43 percent of young Finns in their twenties are enrolled in

tertiary education, well above the OECD average of 25 percent, and the highest percentage in

Europe (Lessons for PISA 121).

The Finnish have also established a solid partnership between education systems and

employers. Finnish employers send very strong signals to the schools about the kinds of

knowledge, skills and dispositions young people needed in order to be successful in the new

economy (Lessons from PISA 122). Moreover, industry leaders also communicate to educators

the importance of creativity, problem-solving, teamwork and cross-curricular projects in schools.

Recently, this same strategic partnership method has been discussed by non-profit organizations


13/22

Walker 13

and policy-makers in Washington D.C. During a panel discussion on adult skills, Harry Holzer

stated, The best models are sectoral programs, career pathway programs, and other programs of

this nature that involves partnerships between our community and four-year colleges,

Department of Education, Department of Labor, etcetera (Holzer). Comprehensive schools have

already begun developing some of the traits that employers in the new Finnish economy are

seeking. In fact without this kind of communication and partnership, Finlands economy would

not have grown up so quickly in the 1990s if the Finnish schools hadnt already been producing

graduates with the kind of flexibility and openness to innovation that the industry was

demanding (Lessons from PISA 122). The development of these kinds of qualities is as much afunction of the culture and climate of schools as of the formal curriculum.

Finlands dedication to the well -being of children has created a culture that allows students to

strive, and has tightened the achievement gap. Finnish educators are trained to identify children

who are having difficulty and to intervene before the children get discouraged and fall too far

behind their classmates (Lessons from PISA 122). The Finns have coined this role the special

teacher. The job of the special teacher is to partner with teachers to identify students who may

need extra help. I find this practice more effective than practices done in the United States, which

consists of isolating low performing students, and retaining them. While 8 percent of Finlands

children are deemed as having special education needs, only half of them are placed in special

schools; the other half are mainstreamed (Lessons from PISA). My hypothesis is that if the

Finnish mode of the special teacher were to be implemented in US schools, we would see a

shortening of the achievement gap between students.


14/22

Walker 14

What Can We Learn from Ourselves?

Some contend that the value of educational comparisons for the United States is limited

due to the fact the United States is unique among the family of nations. In regards to

demographic and socio-economic factors, the United States is not unique. In fact, the United

States has many socio-economic advantages. The United States is wealthier than any of the

comparison countries and spends more money on education than any of them, parents in the

United States have a higher level of education than those in most countries, and the share of

socio-economically disadvantaged students is around the OECD average. On the other hand,

what the comparisons do show is that socio-economic disadvantage has a particularly strongimpact on student performance in the United States. Seventeen percent of the variation in

student performance in the United States is explained by stude nts socio -economic background,

while only 9 percent in Japan (Lessons from PISA 11).

The Effects of Local FundingA key component that has an effect on learning outcomes is funding. Property taxation and

school funding are closely linked in the United States, with nearly half of all property tax

revenue used for public elementary and secondary education (Kenyon). However, why might this

be a problem? To fully understand the severe consequences of property taxation funding for

education, I will provide an example of how property taxation had a negative effect on

education. In the 1960s, California was seen as a national and international leader for public

education because of its commitment to providing a feasible and accessible education system. To

maintain high standards with low cost, California made a commitment to fund education through

tax support. However, that changed in 1978 when Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann, two anti-tax

activists, introduced Proposition 13, the Peoples Initiative to Limit Property Taxation .

Proposition 13 changed how property tax revenue were calculated, and how state and local


15/22

Walker 15

government functioned. Local government property tax revenues in the 1978-79 fiscal year alone

fell by roughly $7 million (Walker 2). Proposition 13 created an ongoing issue over public

finance between voters and public officials, with state and local governments seeking creative

ways to increase their revenues and taxpayers frequently using the initiative process to prevent it.

As a result, funding for education became polarized. Those in more affluent areas were able to

maintain the resources they needed while schools in low price-value neighborhood suffered. The

disparity in resources had a profound effect on learning outcomes.

Although some policy-makers argue that property tax revenue for schools is

fundamentally sound, I find that California and Proposition 13 make it evident that it is not. We

much establish a more cohesive and centralized method of funding to ensure all students receive

the same resources. Failure to do so will continue to perpetuate the large achievement gap the

United States has been recognized for.

Plans for Action & Policy Recommendations

The United States has already worked on taking steps to improve its educational

performance through President Obamas Race to the Top program. This initiative encourages

American states to adopt internationally benchmarked standards and assessments to help prepare

students success in college and in the workforce, to empower and reward teachers, to build

useful student data systems, and to help low-performing schools (Gurria). However, there are

several other areas where the United States can push for policy change.

Early Childhood Education and CareOne practice that is common among top performing countries is the investment in early

childhood education. Early childhood education and care, in most cases, is manifested by

concerned parents. Unlike in America, investment in early childhood is more widespread in


16/22

Walker 16

Europe. A logical explanation for more strongly developed pre-primary provision in the

European than in the non-European countries of the OECD is because of public-funding

(Education Today 19). Early education programs in Europe tend to be free and often located in

schools. The United States invests the most per student than any country other, but perhaps

looking at where we invest is more important than how much. Investment in early education

should be a priority because of the results it produces. PISA results (2009) show that in all

OECD countries 15-

year-old students who

attended early childhoodeducation for more than

one year on average

outperformed students

who did not (Education

Today 20). Investment in

early childhood

education and care also increase the likelihood that students will stay in school longer. In

Finland, Iceland and Sweden, children aged 5 today may expect, on average, to continue to study

for 19 additional years or more (Hows Life 54).

Well-being, early development, and learning should at the core of early childhood

approaches. Moreover, staff qualifications, training and working conditions need to be improved.

In order to improve policy for early childhood education, governments must provide autonomy

to educators to plan and choose their own curriculum for children in their care. Although

enrollment in pre-primary schools is increasing, the rate of the increase is higher among


17/22

Walker 17

advantaged students than disadvantaged students (Schleicher 27). This means that the socio-

economic gap between students who attend pre-primary school and those who have not has

widened over time. Policies that ensure that disadvantaged students and families have access to

high-quality early childhood education and care can help reverse that trend. Governments should

ensure that quality early childhood education and care is available locally, especially when

disadvantaged families are concentrated in certain geographic areas, and should develop fair and

efficient mechanisms for subsidizing early childhood education to ease the financial burden on

families (Schleicher 27).

Inves tme nt in Lea der sh ip

As noted previously, one practice that has made the education system in Finland so

successful is the investment of great teachers. Top school systems focus on teacher selection,

retention, and provide strong pathways for career growth; therefore, it is safe to say that teachers

are central to the success of schooling and their role in educational change. One distinction that I

have noticed between teachers in top performing countries and the United States is the teachers

approach to learning. Some teachers see their job as helping students to actively develop and

construct their knowledge, while others concentrate on transmitting content only. There needs to

be a shift in atmosphere. Teachers should be allowed, and encouraged, to work in an

environment that allows them to be innovative. Instead of requiring standardization and

compliance, top performing countries enable teachers to be inventive; instead of looking in the

bureaucracy, they took outwards to create networks of innovation across teachers and schools

(Gurria). This practice or pedagogy certainly is not the case in the United States. Instead,

teachers are limited in their creativity and autonomy, and are continuously answering to an

administrative chain of command.


18/22

Walker 18

Ac tive Engag ement

Education systems need to foster students interest in science, mathematics, engineering,

and technology. It is evident that the future of the workforce is becoming more technologically

basedbut what will happen if our students are not equipped to take on the dema nds? At an

event helped by the Center for America Progress, for the release findings of the 2013 OECD

Skills Outlook, Harry Holzer, Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown McCourt School of

Public Policy, stated that employers will not create jobs if they do not have qualified employers

to fill them ( Holzer). If there are not policies implemented to ensure to quality of teaching

within STEM, it will have severe consequences on our economy.

Parents must become more engaged in other to ensure development and positive

outcomes for achievement. Parental involvement in their childs school is associated with greater

student engagement in school, including participating in activities such as meeting with teachers

or school principals or volunteer work at school (Education Today 85). Parents have become too

detached from their childrens education. Unlike in other top performing education systems,

many parents in the United States transfer their responsibilities onto the teachers. Disadvantaged

parents ten d to be less involved in their childrens schooling. Schools should prioritize their links

with parents and communities, including communication strategies to align school and parental

efforts (Education Today 112). Parents must begin to play an active rol e in their childrens

education.


19/22

Walker 19

Conclusion

While searching to prove my hypothesis, I found more than what I had

anticipatedcomplexity. My understanding of education policy was simple. What worked for

one country, could surely work for another. However, I discovered that one policy fits all, is

not always the case. National and state education systems are very complex. The way they

function is highly dependent on their interaction with other systems that are no less complex, and

with cultural, political, social, and economic factors that have a direct bearing on the goals and

effectiveness of education systems (Lessons from PISA 288). Moreover, some countrys success

is simply inevitable it cannot be replicated. For instance, one social factor that allows Finlandto achieve high rates of educational success, is trust. Finnish citizens place a lot of trust in their

education system. How would the United Sta tes be able to legalized trust?t he answer is, we

would not. Some practices and factors that give top performing countries an advantaged are so

deeply intertwined with its history, politics, and culture, that it because extremely difficult to

mimic.

On the other hand, there are some practices that could be applied to the United States

education system. America is started to catch on to some of the practice used by top performing

countries. For instance, during a question and answer panel at the Center for American Progress,

Whitney Smith, Employment Program Director at the Joyce Foundation, shared:

I think we are getting better with partnership between labor and education. One

of the initiatives that Im watching really closely is called the National STEM

Consortium, which is a set of ten colleges and nine states that came together in

response to a Department of Labor funding opportunity through the Trade

Adjustment Act. They are building five new one-year college level certificates


20/22

Walker 20

that are STEM focused. In this partnership allow, they have industry counsels for

each of the five certifications, they have multiple colleges, funding from the

Department of Labor, and private funding. I think this is a good example of what

it is going to take to solve these problems.

After the reports have been released, and the panels have been closed, the most

important thing for the Unites States to do is benchmarking, continue discussions, and

record the process these partnerships and projects have on our society.


21/22

Walker 21

Works Cited

Arne Duncan, The Threat of Educational Stagnation and Complacency, U.S. Department of Education . (accessed 3 Dec. 2013).

Carnevale, A.P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2010). Help wanted: Projections of jobs and education requirements through 2018. Washington, DC: Center on Education and the Workforce

Darling-Hammond, Linda. "What We Can Learn from Finland's Successful School Reform." National Education Association . N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2013.

Education at a Glance: 2013 . Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2013. Print.

Education Today 2013: The OECD Perspective. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2012. Print.

Gurria, Angel. "Launch of the 2013 Report on the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA): An International and USA Perspective on PISA Results." Secretary GeneralOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development . OECD, n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2013.

Holzer, Harry, Allyson Knox, Josephine Reed-Taylor, and Whitney Smith. "Boosting Adult Educational Skills Can Grow the Middle Class." Boosting Adult Educational Skills Can Grow the Middle Class. Center for American Progress, District of Columbia. 12 Nov. 2013. Lecture.

How's Life? 2013: Measuring Well-being. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2013. Print.

Innovative Learning Environments. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2013. Print.

Kenyon, Daphne A. The Property Tax, School Funding Dilemma . Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2007. Print.

Lessons from PISA 2012 for the United States . Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2013. Print.

OECD Employment Outlook 2013. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2013. Print.


22/22

Walker 22

OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2013. Print.

Pellegrino, James W., and Margaret L. Hilton. Education for Life and Work: DevelopingTransferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century . Washington, D.C.: National

Academies, 2012. Print.

PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do (Volume I) Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science . Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, 2013. Print.

Porter-Magee, Kathleen. "Real Lessons from Finland: Hard Choices, RigorouslyImplemented." The Thomas B. Fordham Institute . N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2013.

Rothman, Robert. "The Deepest Learners: What PISA Can Reveal About the Learning That Matters." Alliance For Excellent Education . N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2013.

Schleicher, Andreas. PISA 2012 Results in Focus: What 15-year-olds Know and What They Can Do with What They Know . Paris: OECD Publishing, 2013. Web. 2 Dec. 2013

Trends Shaping Education 2013 . Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2013. Print.

Walker, Brandon. Proposition 13: More to the Story . Working paper no. 1. Riverside: University of California, Riverside, 2012. Print.

Documents

America: The Land of the Free, and the Home of the Stagnate