Search results

This paper presents a moderated discussion on popular misconceptions, benefits and limitations of International Large-Scale Assessment (ILSA) programs, clarifying how ILSA results could be more appropriately interpreted and used in public policy contexts in the USA and elsewhere in the world.

To bring key issues, points-of-view and recommendations on the theme to light, the method used is a “moderated policy discussion”. Nine commentaries were invited to represent voices of leading ILSA scholars/researchers and measurement experts, juxtaposed against views of prominent leaders of education systems in the USA that participate in ILSA programs. The discussion is excerpted from a recent blog published by Education Week. It is moderated with introductory remarks from the guest editor and concluding recommendations from an ILSA researcher who did not participate in the original blog. References and author biographies are presented at the end of the article.

Together, the commentaries address historical, methodological, socio-political and policy issues surrounding ILSA programs vis-à-vis the major goals of education and larger societal concerns. Authors offer recommendations for improving the international studies themselves and for making reports more transparent for educators and the public to facilitate greater understanding of their purposes, meanings and policy implications.

When assessment policies are implemented from the top down, as is often the case with ILSA program participation, educators and leaders in school systems tend to be left out of the conversation. This article is intended to foster a productive two-way dialogue among key ILSA actors that can serve as a stepping-stone to more concerted policy actions within and across national education systems.

In the days of our childhood we were told that the process of picking tea in China involved a preliminary purificatory ritual on the part of the picker. Thus, he ate no fish, indulged in baths, and dressed himself in clean clothes as essential preliminaries before pursuing his occupation. This may have been true so far as the tea that was to be consumed by the Chinese went. So far as this country was concerned, it is on record that somewhere about the year of grace 1850 the ingenious Celestial was sending us consignments alleged to contain silkworm‐dung faced with tea‐dust and a little Prussian blue, sand, and gum, and so forth, a decoction of this being drunk by certain inhabitants of this happy land under the firm belief that they were partaking of the “cup that cheers but not inebriates.” Such frauds were possible, as at that time but little attention had been paid to the subject of food chemistry, and no attention at all to the kind of food that was being eaten by the people of London and elsewhere. The subject of food was chiefly dealt with from the point of view of the requirements of the inland revenue, and so long as the Government obtained the duty that was demanded, but little heed was paid to the quality of the product taxed. Very recently we have had arriving at the docks a carge of foods from Hankow, China, consisting largely of frozen pigs. We are assured that these redoubtable porkers have been fed on rice, and while alive have been carefully tended. It is not stated that they were fed from golden troughs, or that they were slaughtered by, say, members of the Chinese aristocracy, but it is stated and assumed that they are all that any self‐respecting Englishman can possibly desire. A point in their favour is also made of the cheapness of the pork yielded by them. At the present time our food is nothing if not cheap, and “cheap food” has become a party cry whose success depends on the obsession of the minds of a large number of ill‐informed persons with the idea that the only attribute of a food which is worthy of consideration is its cheapness. The fact that we are receiving foodstuffs of the nature of meat from China is one that demands special and more serious consideration from the authorities in view of its possible prejudicial influence on public health, and the important changes that may take place in the nature and origin of our meat supplies. The consignment in question consists of game of various kinds, eggs, ducks, and pork. About 4,600 frozen pig carcases were unloaded. It is asserted that the pigs were fed on rice, or at all events on clean food, and there seem no grounds for disbelieving the truth of this statement; but the increase in this trade which is looked for from those financially interested in it does not necessarily mean that the goodness of future consignments is assured. The fact that the trade may greatly develop makes it difficult to see how a proper supervision can be maintained over the Chinese farmers who will presumably furnish the material of future consignments. Inspection in China is, however, imperatively demanded in the interests of public health on this side. Only a small proportion of the consignment we refer to has been put on the market up to the present, and this was subjected to a very careful and thorough inspection at this end before it was put on the market. The process of inspecting every carcase that may be landed is one that from the mere amount of time and labour involved presents serious difficulties, and the thawing process necessarily leads to a certain amount of deterioration. But if the trade in Chinese pork increases, and the resources of China to supply pigs to the world's markets are practically illimitable, we do not see how it will be possible to adequately inspect every consignment that comes across, while on the other hand no country requires more careful looking after than China in this respect. Inspection on the other side must apparently be left in the hands of the exporters, a most undesirable course to adopt, and one that should therefore not be encouraged. It need hardly be pointed out that the Chinese authorities can or will do nothing in the matter. For a system of inspection to be thorough and adequate, and such inspection is absolutely necessary in this case, it is needful to have inspectors who are experts at their work, capable of exercising independent judgment, and who are above suspicion. It is hopeless to expect to find such people among the ranks of the ordinary Chinese. The farmers whose stock and premises are to be inspected must also be people with some elementary notions of what is required of them. It need hardly he pointed out that no such state of affairs exists in China, and indeed, under present circumstances, is unthinkable, nor is it right that we in this country should run risks while a system of adequate inspection is worked out; in other words, that we should educate the Chinese farmer for his own benefit while running risks ourselves. It is stated that the stockyards and plant are well adapted for the work they have to do, and this we readily believe, but in an Oriental country in which there are no such things as health laws in existence, and where each man in this respect may do very much as seems right in his own eyes, the fact that we are obtaining from it an important article of food wherewith to feed large numbers of our poorer population is not one that can be viewed without serious apprehension as to the possible consequences. Stress has been laid on the fact that the pork is cheap, and that when an adequate system of inspection has been devised, the complete thawing out of the consignment will be no longer necessary and that Chinese pork will rank with the meat supplies that we obtain from the colonies. We have heard of the Greek Kalends, and it is possible that by the time they arrive the Chinese pig breeder and coolie will be a sufficiently cleanly person to be trusted with matters of this sort, but until that time does arrive we most strongly dissent from any line of action that would tend to shift any responsibility on to his shoulders. The pig is a dirty feeder, and the Chinese variety of the genus sus has the fullest opportunity for indulging his propensities for filth. He is also an animal peculiarly liable to various forms of disease of which swine fever is not the least objectionable. The care that is taken by the local authorities in this country regarding swine is sufficient evidence of this. But to make the British farmer conform to certain regulations while permitting pigs to be imported from China where no such regulations, or indeed, any at all, are enforced, seems to us to be the limit of hardship and absurdity. Sir PATRICK MANSON in the year 1881, at the request of the Chinese Government, made a careful examination of the bazaar pigs in Amoy. As a result of this examination he came to the conclusion that the flesh of such pigs was not sufficiently healthy to allow of its being safely eaten by Europeans at least. Though the proportion of pigs affected by Trichina spiralis was about 1 per cent., his conclusion was that with pork “cooked as the natives cook it, there can be little danger, but a roast leg of pork cooked in foreign style would certainly be a most dangerous dish.” The method adopted by natives was to cut the pork into small pieces and very thoroughly cook it. These were bazaar pigs, and of Amoy, which is far south of Hankow, but the bazaar pig in Hankow is probably not very different to his southern brother, and the conditions now in China are probably not much altered for the better since 1881. The pigs for the English market must be obtained from native breeders, and unless these breeders exercise unusual care in the feeding and housing of their stock, it is unlikely that any somewhat perfunctory system of inspection will do much towards‐mitigating the danger arising from The consumption of their pork It may be remarked that no people are more conservative than the Chinese, and to expect a Chinese peasant to radically alter his method of treating his stock, for reasons that he is entirely unable to appreciate, because there happens to be a market in England for the pork is really expecting too much. Nor does it seem that a consular invoice would be any real remedy. The time for insisting on consular invoices would probably be at the end of another series of “revelations,” and moreover, to attempt to make a consul professionally responsible for the soundness of large quantities of such pork, would be to impose a strange burden upon him.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Term. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

The latest information from the magazine chemist is extremely valuable. He has dealt with milk‐adulteration and how it is done. His advice, if followed, might, however, speedily bring the manipulating dealer before a magistrate, since the learned writer's recipe is to take a milk having a specific gravity of 1030, and skim it until the gravity is raised to 1036; then add 20 per cent. of water, so that the gravity may be reduced to 1030, and the thing is done. The advice to serve as “fresh from the cow,” preferably in a well‐battered milk‐measure, might perhaps have been added to this analytical gem.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

There are very few individuals who have studied the question of weights and measures who do not most strongly favour the decimal system. The disadvantages of the weights and measures at present in use in the United Kingdom are indeed manifold. At the very commencement of life the schoolboy is expected to commit to memory the conglomerate mass of facts and figures which he usually refers to as “Tables,” and in this way the greater part of twelve months is absorbed. And when he has so learned them, what is the result? Immediately he leaves school he forgets the whole of them, unless he happens to enter a business‐house in which some of them are still in use; and it ought to be plain that the case would be very different were all our weights and measures divided or multiplied decimally. Instead of wasting twelve months, the pupil would almost be taught to understand the decimal system in two or three lessons, and so simple is the explanation that he would never be likely to forget it. There is perhaps no more interesting, ingenious and useful example of the decimal system than that in use in France. There the standard of length is the metre, the standard of capacity the cubic decimetre or the litre, while one cubic centimetre of distilled water weighs exactly one gramme, the standard of weight. Thus the measures of length, capacity and weight are most closely and usefully related. In the present English system there is absolutely no relationship between these weights and measures. Frequently a weight or measure bearing the same name has a different value for different bodies. Take, for instance, the stone; for dead meat its value is 8 pounds, for live meat 14 pounds; and other instances will occur to anyone who happens to remember his “Tables.” How much simpler for the business man to reckon in multiples of ten for everything than in the present confusing jumble. Mental arithmetic in matters of buying and selling would become much easier, undoubtedly more accurate, and the possibility of petty fraud be far more remote, because even the most dense could rapidly calculate by using the decimal system.

Chester Whitney Wright (1879–1966) received his A.B. in 1901, A.M. in 1902 and Ph.D. in 1906, all from Harvard University. After teaching at Cornell University during 1906–1907, he taught at the University of Chicago from 1907 to 1944. Wright was the author of Economic History of the United States (1941, 1949); editor of Economic Problems of War and Its Aftermath (1942), to which he contributed a chapter on economic lessons from previous wars, and other chapters were authored by John U. Nef (war and the early industrial revolution) and by Frank H. Knight (the war and the crisis of individualism); and co-editor of Materials for the Study of Elementary Economics (1913). Wright’s Wool-Growing and the Tariff received the David Ames Wells Prize for 1907–1908, and was volume 5 in the Harvard Economic Studies. I am indebted to Holly Flynn for assistance in preparing Wright’s biography and in tracking down incomplete references; to Marianne Johnson in preparing many tables and charts; and to F. Taylor Ostrander, as usual, for help in transcribing and proofreading.