Freddie deBoer dismantles the most persistent myth in American education: the idea that the United States once led the world in student achievement and has since fallen from grace. In a landscape dominated by panic over declining test scores, deBoer offers a sobering, data-driven correction that reframes the entire crisis not as a national failure, but as a statistical illusion created by expanding access to education. This is essential listening for anyone tired of the doom-and-gloom narrative, as it shifts the focus from a phantom "golden age" to the very real, very specific inequalities that actually plague the system.
The Myth of the Golden Age
DeBoer begins by attacking the nostalgic foundation of the education debate. He argues that the belief in a past era of American educational dominance is simply false. "Both sides of that narrative are untrue - we never were a global leader in average educational outcomes, and we have not suffered any kind of a unique recent stumble that peer nations have not," he writes. This is a crucial distinction because it removes the emotional weight of "falling behind" and replaces it with the reality of a system that has always been mediocre on average but exceptional at the top.
The author points out that the historical data we rely on to make these comparisons is surprisingly thin. He notes that rigorous international assessments are a modern invention, with the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement founded only in 1958 and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) not beginning until 1969. "It's not that much of a stretch to say that these two institutions defined the subsequent landscape of modern comparative educational measurement," deBoer observes. Without these benchmarks, the idea of a "before" is purely speculative. He challenges the reader to consider that if you tested an average American in 1975 or 1950, the results would likely not suggest a lost paradise of academic preparedness.
This framing is powerful because it exposes how the expansion of compulsory education itself creates the appearance of decline. As deBoer explains, "Free compulsory K-12 education is the best thing this country ever did, but of course it had the consequence of average student performance looking far worse than it did when only the brightest children of the richest families were ever educated to begin with." By including every child in the data pool—regardless of background or ability—the average score naturally drops compared to a system that only educated the elite. Critics might argue that this statistical explanation lets policymakers off the hook for failing to support marginalized students, but deBoer's point is that the "crisis" is often a byproduct of success in democratizing access.
Free compulsory K-12 education is the best thing this country ever did, but of course it had the consequence of average student performance looking far worse than it did when only the brightest children of the richest families were ever educated to begin with.
A History of Mediocrity, Not Decline
The piece then moves to international comparisons, citing a 2011 Brookings Institution report that explicitly debunked the "myth of glory days." DeBoer highlights that in the 1964 First International Mathematics Study, the U.S. ranked 11th out of 12 countries. "The United States never led the world... it was never number one and has never been close to number one on international math tests," the Brookings report noted, a fact deBoer emphasizes to show that American students have always trailed peers in nations like Japan and the UK.
He provides a striking list of historical data points to reinforce this: in 1965, U.S. students placed last in a math study of 12 countries; in the 1980s, they ranked last in advanced industrial countries; and in the 1990s, they placed next to last among 15 nations. "We have never, ever done well in international educational comparisons," deBoer states bluntly. This relentless cataloging of past failures serves to neutralize the current panic. If we have always been average or below average compared to our OECD peers, then the current scores are not a collapse but a continuation of a long-standing trend.
However, deBoer makes a vital distinction regarding what these numbers actually mean for the nation's standing. He argues that "poor math performance by average students made no difference to our scientific and technological advantages; the performance of the most academically gifted and inclined are what matter in the world of high-stakes science and technology." This challenges the assumption that national competitiveness relies on the median student's test score. The U.S. economy and military prowess have thrived not because every student is a math whiz, but because the system produces a massive number of elite innovators.
Median Competence vs. Elite Dominance
Perhaps the most compelling part of deBoer's argument is the disconnect between public perception and data. He points to the paradox where parents consistently rate the national system as failing while rating their own child's school as excellent. "I would argue that it's not [irrationality]. Instead, it's a perfect rational take on a central fact: contrary to the 'failing schools' trope, the median American student performs quite well on the global stage, and our top performers are world-class," he writes.
Looking at the 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), deBoer notes that while U.S. math scores are low, American 15-year-olds scored above the OECD average in reading and science. More importantly, the U.S. produces a disproportionate number of top performers. "In Science, 11% of U.S. students were top performers compared to the OECD average of 7%," he notes. This elite excellence is further evidenced by recent dominance in international competitions, with U.S. teams sweeping the 2024 and 2025 International Mathematical, Physics, and Chemistry Olympiads.
The author's tone here is almost defiant: "Of course our top performers are awesome. This is the fucking United States of America. I'm no patriot, but I know that this country produces a vastly disproportionate number of the smartest people in the world." This is a bold claim, but the evidence he marshals—from the number of gold medals to the sheer volume of top-tier students—supports it. The real crisis, he argues, is not a general decline but the "ongoing, persistent, and specific failures of relatively small groups of disadvantaged students." By focusing on the average, we miss the fact that the system is successfully cultivating a world-class elite while failing to close the gap for the most vulnerable.
The Moving Goalposts of Curriculum
Finally, deBoer addresses the issue of curriculum inflation. He argues that comparing test scores across decades is flawed because the material being taught has become significantly more advanced. "Students today are attempting complex mathematics at ages where their parents were doing basic arithmetic," he writes. The push for "Algebra for All" has meant that nearly half of eighth-graders were taking Algebra by the early 2010s, a number that was only 16% in 1990.
This shift means that "7th grade math" today is not the same as "7th grade math" thirty years ago. "Constantly judging student performance against grade level risks obscuring the fact that curriculum grows more ambitious over time," deBoer warns. This adds a layer of complexity to the data: if students are tackling harder material at younger ages, a flat or slightly declining score might actually represent a gain in rigor. The narrative of decline often ignores that the bar has been raised, making it harder to achieve the same relative standing even as students learn more.
Critics might argue that pushing advanced curriculum on unprepared students leads to the very failures deBoer seeks to explain, creating a system where students are set up to struggle. Yet, deBoer's point remains that the "crisis" narrative is often a misreading of a system that is actually doing more, teaching harder, and producing more top-tier talent than ever before, even as it struggles with the inevitable challenges of universal inclusion.
We have never, ever done well in international educational comparisons. The perception of a fall from grace is a psychological phenomenon, not a statistical one.
Bottom Line
Freddie deBoer's argument is a necessary corrective to the education doom loop, successfully proving that the U.S. never had a golden age to lose and that its current "mediocrity" is actually a sign of expanded access. The strongest part of his case is the data showing that American elite performance remains unmatched globally, even as average scores lag. The biggest vulnerability, however, is that acknowledging the success of the elite can feel like a consolation prize when millions of disadvantaged students are still being left behind; the system may be working for the top, but it is still failing the many.