Comparing OECD educational models through the prism of PISA

Abstract

The PISA survey influences educational policies through an international competitive process which is not wholly rationally-oriented. Firstly, PISA league tables act normatively upon the definition of formal educational aims while the survey tests cannot evaluate the educational systems’ relative strengths with regards to such aims. We argue that they measure a kind of academic potential of the students. Secondly, errors in interpreting national success or failure stem from the causal inferences developed from observing national cases. In order to give such comparisons a stronger basis, we distinguish five main educational models within the OECD countries and compare their PISA 2006 results to their population’s socio-cultural levels as well as their performance recorded in an academic-programme-based survey such as TIMSS. Our conclusions contrast heavily with the usual lessons inferred from PISA, which follow OECD-promoted guidelines, and explain French students’ weakening as well as Finnish students’ success.

Notes

Cf. also Vrignaud (2008) on this subject.

We have ignored, for the purpose of evaluating these school models, the national examples which represent unique cases if we take into account recent political history, the economic situation or the demotion of a country to a city.

Cf. for example: http://ciu.northcarolina.edu/content.php/docs/southkorea.pdf; http://www.nctm.org/resources/content.aspx?id=1592.

This evaluation dates from 1994: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?cstdy:1:./temp/~frd_jN4o.

Cf. http://www.sedl.org/scimath/compass/v03n03/looking.html. The analysis of the video footage led to the following evaluation: 30% of a mathematics course in Japan had high-quality content, 23% in Germany and 0% in the United States (cf. Stevenson and Stigler 1992).

In order to be able to compare the values of the variables, the solution is to standardise them so that they may have a µ average of 0 and a σ standard deviation of 1: X_ESCS =(ESCS–µ_ESCS )/σ_ESCS and X_PISA =(I_PISA –µ_PISA )/σ_PISA . In order to make this comparison more meaningful, we have chosen to change the ESCS variable to ESCS_PISA with the same average and standard deviation as the average of the mathematics and reading scores of the OECD countries. µ_ESCS =0; σ_ESCS =0.39; µ_PISA =495 and σ_PISA =29. Hence ESCS_PISA =X_ESCS ×σ_PISA +µ_PISA =495+74.4×ESCS.

Cf. the detailed report OECD (2006, 117 and 180).

Japanese, social sciences, mathematics, science, music and art were reduced in the first stage of secondary education (collège) in proportions varying from 17% to 34% (cf. Cave 2001).

Cf. DEPP (2008). The data in question apply overall to three decades, i.e. 1987, 1997 for reading, 1999 for arithmetic, and 2007. The students’ results significantly worsened between the first and third period in reading, arithmetic, as well as spelling (the average number of spelling mistakes at the same dictation went up from 10.7 to 14.7), with a strong increase in the number of no answers to questions which required some writing effort. For reading, the decline was noted in the last period. For arithmetic, the decline pertains mostly to the first period.

Cf. the statistics published by the Ministère de l’Education Nationale (2006), Repères et références statistiques sur les enseignements, la formation et la recherche, http://media.education.gouv.fr/file/40/4/2404.pdf; and also the detailed analyses of Daniel Duverney (2006) with regard to the science section: http://smf.emath.fr/en/Publications/Gazette/2006/110/smf_gazette_110_65-78.pdf.

French students went up from 75% success at the general baccalaureate in 1995 to 88% in 2007, which has allowed for the issuing of a further 5% of diplomas to one generation and has masked the reduction of access to the general baccalaureate.

The students of so-called ‘transition classes’ (special education) had not in fact been integrated into the heterogeneous classes, as required by the reform.

Links to main official texts can be found on: http://www.mapreps.com/pagetextesofficiels.htm and http://www.sauv.net/reforme.htm.

These institutes replaced three structures: primary teacher training colleges (écoles normales d’instituteurs), national vocational teacher training colleges (écoles normales nationales d’apprentissage) and regional educational centres (centres pédagogiques régionaux) which trained primary school teachers, vocational school teachers and secondary school teachers respectively.

For some details see http://mde.idf.free.fr/EPLE2/IV.3.%20renovation%20colleges.htm.

See the statistics published by the Ministère de l’Education nationale, Repères et références statistiques sur les enseignements, la formation et la recherché, http://media.education.gouv.fr/file/2001/89/5/rers2001_27895.pdf and http://media.education.gouv.fr/file/2009/87/3/chap4-4_117873.pdf.

See also concerning these questions the literature developed around the notion of ‘school effectiveness’ [see Cresswell (2004) for a synthetic bibliography].

Since 1979 teachers, no matter the level they practise at, have to complete a university ‘Masters’ course. The most important changes concern the transition in teacher training from teacher colleges and small-town seminaries to university education departments. Thus, their higher education training was doubled and saw itself crowned with a specialisation in education science dominated by one subject: didactics.

Inspections, detailed national curricula and control over time management disappeared. The only thing that was kept was the number of hours allotted to each subject taught in each school. Schools were now free to choose and the mechanisms for evaluation reinforced. Teachers were in particular being put in charge of developing the curriculum. The increased heterogeneity of students’ knowledge requires, on their part, conducting more social work and can explain why the number of tutored students has grown considerably in just over a decade (Webb et al. 2004).

Cf. Statistics Finland, http://www.stat.fi/til/erop/index_en.html.

Also see the Finnish National Board of Education’s website: http://www.oph.fi/english.

Cf. http://solmu.math.helsinki.fi/2005/erik/KivTarEng.html: ‘Severe shortcomings in Finnish mathematics skills’; and http://solmu.math.helsinki.fi/2005/erik/PisaEng.html: ‘The Pisa survey tells only a partial truth on Finnish children’s mathematical skills’. A survey conducted in the polytechnics dedicated to applied sciences shows, for example, that 65% of the Finnish students tested, i.e. 1560 of 2400, were not able to solve a basic problem which required that one fraction be subtracted from another and the result be divided by a whole number.