[soganess]

>Really tough problem to solve, but the data does not support the conclusion that the American maths education system is "behind" or "failing" as a whole.

Wait, what? That is exactly what it means. If the groups that are least likely to get external support (ie a tutor, prep, whatever) are under-performing that implies the _standalone_ system is broken. Sure, it is not so broken that it can't be patched with outside aid, but that is true of many things we consider "a failure."

This is akin to saying "Of course my car can get across the country. All I need is the occasional tow-truck, you know, for when it overheats."

[humanizersequel]

>If the groups that are least likely to get external support (ie a tutor, prep, whatever) are under-performing that implies the _standalone_ system broken.

Is there reasonable evidence to show that whites and asians receive "external support" at a rate high enough to convincingly explain a 50 to 100 point disparity on this test?

[soganess]

One second google search: https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai21-367...

I only skimmed it (read the abstract, checked the graphs, reviewed what stuck out as I scrolled), but quick take aways:

(1) The # of private tutoring centers has tripled to 10k since 1997!

(2) The utilization of the _new_ tutoring centers is primarily by the wealthy (which obviously skews white). In fact, utilization of private tutors by low income folks has gone down in the same period.

(3) They have a section summarizing how Asian-American utilization of tutoring center is high. They even summarize/mention other work that implies tutor usage as primary factor for the high test scores of Asian American students.

I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the second-half of that last point, but finding information from a credible source (Harvard/BU/Brown) wasn't hard.