Connect with us

Economics

New numbers show falling standards in American high schools

Published

on

Listen to this story.
Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

SPRINGFIELD, in MASSACHUSETTS, might seem an improbable setting for an education miracle. The city with a population of 155,000 along the Connecticut river has a median household income half the state average; violent crime is common. Yet graduation rates at the city’s high schools are surging. Between 2007 and 2022 the share of pupils at the Springfield High School of Science and Technology who earned a diploma in four years jumped from 50% to 94%; at neighbouring Roger Putnam Vocational Technical Academy it nearly doubled to 96%.

Alas, such gains are not showing up in other academic indicators. At Springfield High scores on the SAT, a college-admissions test, have tumbled by 15% over the same period. Measures of English and maths proficiency are down, too. The pass rate on advanced-placement exams has fallen to just 12% compared with a national average of 60%.

Chart: The Economist

The trend at Springfield High is all too common. Between 2007 and 2020 the average graduation rate at public high schools in America leapt from 74% to 87%. During this period pupils notched up gains in course credits and grade-point averages. Yet SAT scores fell (see chart 1). Results from the latest Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), an international test of 15-year-olds, show that maths and reading literacy are flat or down. An analysis by The Economist suggests that schools are lowering academic standards in order to enable more pupils to graduate. And the trend is hurting low-performing pupils the most.

America has fretted about academic standards at its public schools for decades. In 1983 the Department of Education released a landmark report, “A Nation At Risk”, which warned of a “rising tide of mediocrity” in the country’s schools. The response was swift. Within five years 45 states had raised graduation requirements; and more than two dozen had introduced other reforms, including more comprehensive curriculums and higher salaries for teachers. Some states also started requiring graduates to pass “minimum-competency” exams, standardised tests introduced in the 1970s that evaluated pupils’ ability to do eighth- or ninth-grade level English and maths.

But as graduation requirements were toughened up, coursework was watered down. A survey conducted in 1996 by Public Agenda, a policy research group, found that just half of public high-school students felt that they were being challenged academically. Another survey in 2001 found that only a quarter of pupils thought that their teachers had high expectations of them. Even the federal government acknowledged again that academic standards were falling short. A report by the Department of Education found that more than a tenth of maths coursework taken by the class of 2005 consisted of primary- and middle-school-level material. Only a third of algebra 1 students and a fifth of geometry students received “rigorous” instruction.

Grading got easier, too. The best evidence for this comes from comparisons of classroom grades with performance on state exams taken at the end of the school year. A study by Seth Gershenson of American University found that between 2005 and 2016, 36% of North Carolina public-school students who received Bs in their algebra 1 courses failed their end-of-course exams. Pupils with Cs failed 71% of the time. Another study, by Chris Clark of Georgia College & State University, analysed maths courses at Georgia public high schools in 2007 and yielded similar results. “Some schools and school systems appear to be inflating course grades,” Mr Clark concluded, “while others appear to hold their students to higher standards.”

Such evidence suggests that academic standards at American high schools are too low. But are they getting worse? To answer this, The Economist assembled data on graduation rates and standardised test scores at 3,000 high schools across six states—Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan and North Carolina—for school years from 2007 to 2022.

Doing the maths

We found that four-year graduation rates in our sample increased during this period, even as test scores fell. Gains were greatest in high schools with the lowest test scores. In 2007 schools with scores on the sat or act, another college-admissions exam, in the bottom tenth of our sample graduated half of their pupils; in 2022 they graduated two-thirds. As low-performing schools have passed more pupils, the relationship between test scores and graduation rates has weakened (see chart 2).

Just how far has the academic bar been lowered? To quantify this, we conducted a regression analysis of graduation rates between 2007 and 2022 that controlled for average ACT or SAT scores, dropout rates and school year. If academic standards were consistent over time, we would expect no underlying trend in graduation rates from year to year. Instead, we found that graduation rates drifted upward, even after controlling for changes in test scores and dropout rates.

Chart: The Economist

Our analysis suggests that high schools are graduating thousands of students who, not long ago, might not have made the grade. Some states have lowered the bar more than others. In Illinois graduation rates are about one percentage point higher than we would expect based on academic performance alone; in North Carolina they are nearly eight points higher. Overall, we found that public high schools in our sample are inflating graduation rates by roughly four percentage points compared with 15 years earlier.

Sceptics will point out that the test-taking population is significantly different today than it was 15 years ago, and that this may be making test scores look worse than they actually are. “If more and more students are sitting for these tests,” says Thomas Dee of Stanford University, “the composition changes over time in ways that probably bias scores downward.” Such “compositional effects” do not appear to explain our results, however. The share of students taking the ACT or SAT in our sample actually fell from 78% in 2007 to 68% in 2022. This would suggest that, if anything, our estimates of graduation-rate inflation may be too low, rather than too high.

You might expect policymakers to be scrambling to shore up academic standards. In fact, they are doing the opposite. In May last year New Jersey’s board of education voted to lower the passing score on the state’s high-school graduation test, saying the current standards had “adverse impacts” on students. In November Oregon education officials scrapped its “essential skills” graduation exams in maths, reading and writing. At least four more states—Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York—are considering doing away with their own exit exams. In January Alaska’s board of education voted to lower proficiency standards for the state’s reading and maths exams.

The trend towards weakening standards can be blamed in part on No Child Left Behind, an education-reform law passed in 2002. It required states to track the share of students graduating in four years and set annual targets for improvement. Schools that failed to hit their targets faced sanctions, including possible closure. Although such policies were well-intentioned, they had perverse outcomes. To keep graduation rates up, teachers devised creative ways of raising grades: allowing students to retake exams, removing penalties for late assignments, adjusting grading scales. “We’re doing what I call ‘grading gymnastics’,” says Eric Welch, a social-studies teacher in Fairfax County, Virginia. “There’s a lot of pressure to hit the metric, regardless of how you do it,” explains Peter VanWylen, a data consultant and former teacher in Memphis, Tennessee. “Nobody wants to lose their job and so there’s this pressure to get the number where it needs to be.”

Other concerns are also at work. “The push for educational equity, and in particular racial equity, has been used in a lot of places to push against higher standards for high-school graduation,” says Morgan Polikoff of the University of Southern California. When New Jersey debated new testing benchmarks last year, one board-of-education member argued that a higher standard would be “unfair” to black and Latino students in urban districts. Oregon’s decision to drop its graduation exam in November was based in part on a report by the education department which concluded that the test produced “inequitable outcomes” for “historically marginalised” groups.

Must try harder

Lowering standards, it is thought, can help narrow such achievement gaps. Yet it may have the opposite effect. A recent working paper by Brooks Bowden, Viviana Rodriguez and Zach Weingarten of the Universities of Pennsylvania and Texas at San Antonio analyses how a more lenient grading policy introduced by North Carolina public high schools in 2014 affected effort and academic performance. The authors found that after schools implemented the new grading scale, which led to more As and fewer Fs, students with low test scores showed up to class less often and put in less effort. The attendance of high-scoring students did not change. Although the policy led to slightly higher graduation rates, it also contributed to wider gaps in GPAs and standardised test scores between high- and low-achieving students.

This suggests that policies that lower the bar may harm the very students they are meant to help. “I don’t think we’re helping anybody by handing out higher grades or giving out graduation certificates,” says Dr Bowden, one of the authors of the study. Better instead to set expectations high, reckons Dr Polikoff. “People rise to the expectations you set.” 

Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important electoral stories, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.

Economics

‘He should bring them down’

Published

on

U.S. President Donald Trump and U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

Win McNamee | Annabelle Gordon | Reuters

President Donald Trump on Friday lobbed his latest criticism at Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, as the White House’s discontent for the economic policy leader hits a fever pitch.

During a Friday afternoon question-and-answer session with reporters, Trump pointed to examples of prices going down.

“If we had a Fed Chairman that understood what he was doing, interest rates would be coming down, too,” Trump said. “He should bring them down.”

Trump has long argued that the Fed, which sets monetary policy in the U.S., should cut down interest rates. His latest comments come as the White House has ratcheted up its attacks on Powell in recent days.

White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said Friday that Trump and his team are assessing whether they can remove the Fed chair. Powell has said previously that he cannot be fired under law and intends to serve through the end of his term as chair in May 2026.

“The president and his team will continue to study that matter,” Hassett said at the White House after a reporter questioned if firing Powell “is an option in a way that it wasn’t before,” according to Reuters.

Trump posted on Truth Social on Thursday that “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough.” His post included the nickname of “Too Late” for Powell, a continuation of Trump’s habit of giving satirical titles to political rivals.

His use of the word “termination” raised questions around if Trump was referring to Powell’s potential removal from his post ahead of schedule. Hassett said on Friday the administration will look at if there’s “new legal analysis” that would allow for Powell’s firing.

Powell appeared to irk Trump after saying Wednesday that the president’s contentious tariff plan could drive up inflation in the near-term and create challenges for the central bank in managing goals of high employment rates and price stability. Powell said Trump’s levies — many of which are currently on pause — are “likely to move us further away from our goals.”

“We may find ourselves in the challenging scenario in which our dual-mandate goals are in tension,” Powell said in prepared remarks before the Economic Club of Chicago. “If that were to occur, we would consider how far the economy is from each goal, and the potentially different time horizons over which those respective gaps would be anticipated to close.”

Powell also said that the Fed was “well positioned to wait for greater clarity before considering any adjustments to our policy stance.”

The Federal Open Market Committee has its borrowing rate currently targeted in a range between 4.25% and 4.5%, where it has sat since December. Fed funds futures are pricing in a more than 90% likelihood that the central bank holds rates steady again at its policy meeting next month, according to CME’s FedWatch tool.

As Trump’s team has scaled up criticisms, some Democrats have gone on defense. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., warned on Thursday that a president firing the Fed chief would be dire for U.S. financial markets.

“Understand this: If Chairman Powell can be fired by the president of the United States, it will crash markets in the United States,” Warren said on CNBC.

Continue Reading

Economics

China targets U.S. services and other areas after decrying ‘meaningless’ tariff hikes on goods

Published

on

Dilara Irem Sancar | Anadolu | Getty Images

China last week announced it was done retaliating against U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, saying any further increases by the U.S. would be a “joke,” and Beijing would “ignore” them.

Instead of continuing to focus on tariffing goods, however, China has chosen to resort to other measures, including steps targeting the American services sector.

Trump has jacked up U.S. levies on select goods from China by up to 245% after several rounds of tit-for-tat measures with Beijing in recent weeks. Before calling it a “meaningless numbers game,” China last week imposed additional duties on imports from the U.S. of up to 125%.

While the Trump administration has largely focused on pressing ahead on his tariff plans, Beijing has rolled out a series of non-tariff restrictive measures including widening export controls of rare-earth minerals and opening antitrust probes into American companies, such as pharmaceutical giant DuPont and IT major Google.

Before the latest escalation, in February Beijing had put dozens of U.S. businesses on a so-called “unreliable entity” list, which would restrict or ban firms from trading with or investing in China. American firms such as PVH, the parent company of Tommy Hilfiger, and Illumina, a gene-sequencing equipment provider, were among those added to the list.

Its tightening of exports of critical mineral elements will require Chinese companies to secure special licenses for exporting these resources, effectively restricting U.S. access to the key minerals needed for semiconductors, missile-defense systems and solar cells.

In its latest move on Tuesday, Beijing went after Boeing — America’s largest exporter — by ordering Chinese airlines not to take any further deliveries for its jets and requested carriers to halt any purchases of aircraft-related equipment and parts from U.S. companies, according to Bloomberg.

Having deliveries to China cut off will add to the cash-strapped plane maker’s troubles, as it struggles with a lingering quality-control crisis.

In another sign of growing hostilities, Chinese police issued notices for apprehending three people they claimed to have engaged in cyberattacks against China on behalf of the U.S. National Security Agency.

Chinese state media, which published the notice, urged domestic users and companies to avoid using American technology and replace them with domestic alternatives.

“Beijing is clearly signaling to Washington that two can play in this retaliation game and that it has many levers to pull, all creating different levels of pain for U.S. companies,” said Wendy Cutler, vice president at Asia Society Policy Institute.

“With high tariffs and other restrictions in place, the decoupling of the two economies is at full steam,” Cutler said.

Targeting trade in services

China is seen by some as seeking to broaden the trade war to encompass services trade — which covers travel, legal, consulting and financial services — where the U.S. has been running a significant surplus with China for years.

China Beige Book CEO: U.S. needs to articulate what they want from China

Earlier this month, a social media account affiliated with Chinese state media Xinhua News Agency, suggested Beijing could impose curbs on U.S. legal consultancy firms and consider a probe into U.S. companies’ China operations for the huge “monopoly benefits” they have gained from intellectual-property rights.

China’s imports of U.S. services surged more than 10-fold to $55 billion in 2024 over the past two decades, according to Nomura estimates, driving U.S. services trade surplus with China to $32 billion last year.

Last week, China said it would reduce imports of U.S. films and warned its citizens against traveling or studying in the U.S., in a sign of Beijing’s intent to put pressure on the U.S. entertainment, tourism and education sectors.

“These measures target high-visibility sectors — aviation, media, and education — that resonate politically in the U.S.,” said Jing Qian, managing director at Center for China Analysis.

While they might be low on actual dollar impact given the smaller scale of these sectors, “reputational effects — such as fewer Chinese students or more cautious Chinese employees — could ripple through academia and the tech talent ecosystem,” he added.

Nomura estimates $24 billion could be at stake if Beijing significantly step up restrictions on travel to the U.S.

Weekly analysis and insights from Asia’s largest economy in your inbox
Subscribe now

Travel dominated U.S. services exports to China, reflecting expenditure by millions of Chinese tourists in the U.S., according to Nomura. Within travel, education-related spending leads at 71%, it estimates, mostly coming from tuition and living expenses for the more than 270,000 Chinese students studying in the U.S.

Entertainment exports, encompassing films, music and television programs, accounted for just 6% of U.S. exports within this sector, the investment firm said, noting that Beijing’s latest move on film imports “carries more symbolic heft than economic bite.”

“We could see deeper decoupling — not only in supply chains, but in people-to-people ties, knowledge exchange, and regulatory frameworks. This may signal a shift from transactional tension to systemic divergence,” said Qian.

Can Beijing get more aggressive?

Analysts largely expect Beijing to continue deploying its arsenal of non-tariff policy tools in an effort to raise its leverage ahead of any potential negotiation with the Trump administration.

“From the Chinese government’s perspective, the U.S. companies’ operations in China are the biggest remaining target for inflicting pain on the U.S .side,” said Gabriel Wildau, managing director at risk advisory firm Teneo.

Apple, Tesla, pharmaceutical and medical device companies are among the businesses that could be targeted as Beijing presses ahead with non-tariff measures, including sanction, regulatory harassment and export controls, Wildau added.

Shoppers and staff are seen inside the Apple Store, with its sleek modern interior design and prominent Apple logo, in Chongqing, China, on Sept. 10, 2024.

Cheng Xin | Getty Images

While a deal may allow both sides to unwind some of the retaliatory measures, hopes for near-term talks between the two leaders are fading fast.

Chinese officials have repeatedly condemned the “unilateral tariffs” imposed by Trump as “bullying” and vowed to “fight to the end.” Still, Beijing has left the door open for negotiations but they must be on “an equal footing.”

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump is open to making a deal with China but Beijing needs to make the first move.

“In the end, only when a country experiences sufficient self-inflicted harm might it consider softening its stance and truly returning to the negotiation table,” said Jianwei Xu, economist at Natixis.

Continue Reading

Economics

Donald Trump’s approval rating is dropping

Published

on

EVEN WHEN Donald Trump does something well, he exaggerates. He won the popular vote last November for the first time in three tries, by a 1.5 point margin. “The mandate was massive,” he told Time. In fact it was the slimmest margin since 2000, but it was an improvement on Mr Trump’s two previous popular-vote losses, by 2.1 points in 2016 and 4.5 points in 2020. (He was elected in 2016 through the vagaries of the Electoral College.)

Continue Reading

Trending