Deconstructing the US Math Education “Crisis,” Part I

Actual public school middle school math / US Dept. of Education, CC BY 2.0

75% of our nation's high school seniors probably aren’t mathematically incompetent, despite a recent recurrence of the nearly annual hysteria to the contrary.

Associated Press, May 7, 2014: US 12th graders make an "ABYSMAL showing" in math and reading according to the 2013 NAEP results.  "Only about one-quarter are performing proficiently or better in math and just 4 in 10 in reading." "America's high school seniors lack critical math and reading skills for an increasingly competitive global economy." (emphases added) 

PANIC!  CRISIS!  Blood in the streets! Dogs and cats getting married ...

BUT ... WAIT a minute.  Is this really a crisis?  Are 75% of our 12^th graders honestly mathematical nitwits, as reporting on the NAEP results seems to imply?  I wanted to know, so I mucked around the NAEP website. 

Based on what I gleaned from the NAEP Test Framework, the skills that the "Basic up to almost Proficient" students generally lack (compared to the "Proficient and Above" students) are unlikely to negatively impact their general readiness for college or work.  These skills are necessary in specific STEM-related positions where advanced mathematical concepts are utilized on a daily - or even monthly - basis.  "STEM-related" jobs are anticipated to number just 5.6% of all jobs in 2022.  

All hand-wringing aside, this is not a crisis. 

Q1: How is "Proficient" defined?  How does it fit into the rubric of the performance levels that the National Center for Ed Statistics uses?

WaPo Clintons' Net Worth Piece Corrected ...

... with a note at the end: "Our thanks to Selina Davis, who pointed out an error in how we were calculating net worth totals."  Being nit-picky sometimes has its perks, I guess. =) 

Calculation errors in WaPo piece distort estimates of Clintons' net worth

WaPo has an interesting post about the Clintons' finances circa the White House years, using publicly available asset/debt disclosures.  There are a few calculation errors however, resulting in ranges that are quite inaccurate for the significant debt years, 1998 to 2003.  

The author presents the debt figures as positive, rather than negative, numbers. To find the lower bound of the Clintons' estimated net worth in a given year, he adds together the lowest possible asset figures (given the disclosed range), than subtracts the lowest possible debt figures.  But the lower bound of net worth would be found by adding together the lowest possible asset values, then subtracting the greatest possible debt values.

In the alternative, you can keep things simple by assigning the debts negative values.  This makes it easier - the lowest number then is the actual lower bound for a category of debt. Then you can just sum the asset and debt figures to arrive at the actual lower bound for the Clintons' net worth in a given year.

For example, here's 1998 (using the figures WaPo provided):

Year	Type	Category	Amount (range) [Net Worth per Washington Post]	Net Worth Lower Bound (Lowest Asset & Greatest Debt Figures)	Net Worth Upper Bound (Highest Asset & Least Debt Figures)
1998	Assets	Trusts	$50,000 to $1,100,000	$50,000	$1,100,000
1998		Other	$99,000 to $2,910,000	$99,000	$2,910,000
1998	Debt	Legal	$2,350,000 to $10,750,000	-$10,750,000	-$2,350,000
1998		Other	$0	$0	$0
1998	Net worth	Net	-$2,201,000 to -$6,740,000	-$10,601,000	$1,660,000

The Washington Post arrives at a 1998 net worth between -$6.7mil and -$2.2mil.  But the accurate range would be -$10.6mil to +$1.6mil.

The error is repeated throughout. 

2000 net worth range per WaPo:  -$8.8 mil to -$1.5 mil 
     Actual range:  -$9.8 mil to -$519,000     

2001 net worth range per WaPo:   $4.7 mil to $24.6 mil 
     Actual range:  $464,000 to $29.9 mil

2002 net worth range per WaPo:  $350,000 to $3.7 mil 
     Actual range:  -$4.4 mil to $8.5 mil

2003 net worth  range per WaPo:  $431,000 to $3.8 mil  
     Actual range:  -$4.2 mil to $8.5 mil

The Clintons' debt figures in subsequent years are nonexistent or relatively negligible, so the calculation error doesn't significantly distort those estimates.