PISA and Education Reform in Europe: Cases of Policy Inertia, Avoidance, and Refraction

Abstract

The present analysis examined the relationship between PISA results and their influence on policy development within a select group of European nations which included Estonia, Italy, France, and Finland. These countries reflect four distinct outcomes in relation to PISA results: (1) high achievement and high equity (Estonia); (2) stagnant performance (Italy); (3) low achievement and low equity (France); and (4) a negative equity trend (Finland). The discussion argues these outcomes can be associated with cases of policy inertia, avoidance, and refraction.

Introduction

Since the initial administration of the Programme in International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2000, researchers and policymakers have increasingly turned to this triennial global benchmark measure to examine reading, mathematics, and science literacy outcomes in 15-year-old students across the globe. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which is responsible for the design and administration of PISA, has also pioneered assessment in areas such as financial literacy, collaborative problem-solving and global competence, and is working on new tools to assess creativity and critical thinking. As noted by the OECD Director for the Directorate of Education and Skills, PISA has become the “world’s premier yardstick for comparing quality, equity and efficiency in learning outcomes across countries, and an influential force for education reform” (Schleicher, 2018, p. 4). PISA results have also become a tool for predicting economic growth within nations, based on the premise that educational quality reflects the underlying human capital and knowledge (skills) potential within a nation (e.g., Hanushek & Woessmann, 2007). While such predictive models have been deeply criticized as both flawed and eurocentric, (e.g, Komatsu & Rappleye, 2021; Rappleye & Komatsu, 2021), we align ourselves with Komatsu and Rappleye (2021) premise that PISA results can “become one way of locating alternatives that reveal different possibilities for ‘good’ education and a wider horizon from which to think about what ‘good’ education might mean” (p. 9).

As noted above, and perhaps in response to previous critiques, PISA has expanded its survey beyond measures of reading, mathematics, and science knowledge to include a number of other student and educational outcomes that reflect educational success. Although debate continues as to what makes for a “successful” education system, the OECD’s position is that effective education systems are those that possess high achievement and high equity amongst different subgroups of their student population in relation to PISA performance (Volante, 2016, 2018). Based on the perspective that equity is the result of directing needed supports and resources to enable all students to meet educational goals, the OECD considers equity from a national perspective. Our interests in equity focus on achieving equitable student outcomes in the presence of socioeconomic inequality. For our research, countries/economies are considered more equitable when differences on PISA scores are not attributable to differences in students’ affluence—a construct measured by the OECD’s Economic, Social and Cultural Status Index (ESCS), which is based on: the International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status, parent’s level of education (years of education), and the PISA developed indices for family wealth, educational resources in the home, and possessions related to culture in the home (OECD, 2003).

The recent administration of PISA in 2018 included 600,000 students, representing 32 million 15-year-olds in 79 participating countries and/or economies (OECD, 2018a). PISA 2018 results indicated the 10% most socioeconomically advantaged students outperformed their 10% most disadvantaged peers by a staggering 141 score points across OECD countries (Schleicher, 2018). PISA reports that one grade level is roughly equivalent to 30 score points. Admittedly, this is not an accurate measure of grade level differences, but these results suggest the difference between high and low SES students may be as much as four to five grade levels. Overall, 12% of the variation in reading performance in PISA 2018 was associated with socioeconomic status, with 20 countries at 15% or more, and 31 countries at less than 10% (OECD, 2018b). These results underscore a range of outcomes that exist cross-nationally in relation to socioeconomic status and PISA performance.

The Prominence of PISA in Policy Discourses

There is no shortage of research in education that espouse specific policies and/or practices when contemplating large-scale education reforms. For the most part, these studies are often undertaken within a specific national context and have limited external validity when applied to cross-national jurisdictions. As an international organization, the OECD addresses this perceived limitation in gauging the quality of national education systems by launching what has been referred to as “one of the largest non-experimental research exercises the world has ever seen” (Murphy, 2014, p. 898). Since its initial administration in 2000, PISA has garnered priority status in popular media and policy spheres and sometimes muted the importance of other international achievement test results such as those associated with the Trends in International Mathematics Study (TIMSS) and the Progress in International Reading and Literacy Study (PIRLS) (Volante, 2016). Indeed, the prominence of PISA as a driver for global and transnational policy is undeniable and established in a multitude of studies (e.g., Breakspear, 2012; Grek, 2009; Volante, 2018).

What remains less clear, is the degree of association between national education system performance, and the nature of proposed and enacted evidence-based education policy reforms. Further, while one may be naturally inclined to assume that national governments use PISA results to inform evidence-based policy decisions, this relationship is uncertain based on a closer examination of the antecedents of national education reforms (Volante, 2015; Volante, in press). Our purpose is not to add to the debate regarding the measures used by PISA, nor the underlying constructs these measures are intended to reflect. Rather, given the recognition that PISA has become a dominant international measure of education, it is important to continually examine how these results interact with educational policies if we are to moderate the use of PISA and other similar tools (e.g., Komatsu & Rappleye, 2021). Through the use of four European examples, we juxtapose the evidence associated with PISA results—to be discussed briefly in the next section—against national political discourses and government policy formation decisions within Europe. In doing so, we seek to more fully understand the conditions under which PISA is used as a policy lever and its uptake in the policy formation process.

System Effectiveness: Some Empirical Findings

The complexity of possible relationships that exist between student performance and various system characteristics is beyond the scope of our present analysis. Rather, we attempt to highlight some key components that have been shown to impact equity, either reducing or increasing differences in student outcomes, such as the quality of teaching, school choice and tracking, and social segregation (Gamoran, 2000; Marks et al., 2006; Perry, 2009; Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Thompson & Thompson, 2018). These components are particularly relevant given the examples we present, as each reflects evidence of quality teaching or critical educational policies related to school choice or tracking. These examples also seem to vary in the manner in which PISA results impact national and regional policies. With respect to quality of teaching, this is a critical dimension of every effective education system around the world. Indeed, the two highest performing European nations—Estonia and Finland—both require a Masters’ degree in order to become a teacher. Other top performing nations such as Singapore and Canada, also possess rigorous selection and training programs and provide on-going professional development opportunities. Overall, there is a broad research base and consensus that recognizes the robust relationship between teacher quality, preparation, qualifications, and professional development with enhanced student outcomes—particularly for disadvantaged student populations (see also Darling-Hammond, 2010; Hattie, 2012; Montt, 2011; Woong, 2018).

It is worth noting that the quality of teaching and learning environments also impacts non-cognitive skills (Garcia, 2014; Kautz et al., n.d.; OECD, 2014a; Rubie-Davies et al., 2015; Schleicher, 2018). Significant variations in test scores across countries can be explained by differences in these non-cognitive skills (Borghans et al., 2008; Elliott et al., 2019; Khine & Areepattamannil, 2016; Lee & Stankov, 2018; Zamarro et al., 2016). For example, the belief that success is largely determined by factors that reside within one’s control—also known as growth mindset—was not found in approximately 50% of the students who took part in PISA 2018 (OECD, 2018b). Although teachers tend to possess lower expectations for students in schools serving low socioeconomic communities, quality teaching and the promotion of affective skills such as growth mindset can temper the effects of poverty on student achievement (Berger & Archer, 2016; Claro et al., 2016; De Castella et al., 2013; Dweck, 2016; Erberber et al., 2015; Froiland & Worrell, 2016). Collectively, the quality of teaching has a significant influence on both cognitive and non-cognitive skills, which in turn, influence academic resilience (Agasisti et al., 2018).

Closely connected to the quality of teaching and learning environments and academic resilience are the related issues of school choice and tracking provisions. The empirical research suggests that education systems that offer a variety of school choice options, often possess significant social stratification that results in the concentration of disadvantaged students within particular schools (Volante et al., 2019a). Indeed, the OECD concluded that “school systems with low levels of competition among schools often have high levels of social inclusion … In contrast, in systems where parents can choose schools, and schools compete for enrolment, schools are often more socially segregated” (OECD, 2014b, p. 1). Perhaps more disconcerting is that instructional quality and resources are negatively impacted in less affluent schools and that disadvantaged students are more likely to be directed to lower ability tracks where those provisions exist (Volante et al., 2019b). Tracking students into schools with different post-secondary pathways is generally associated with lower national average performance and increased social segregation and inequality within schools (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2006; OECD, 2014a; Volante et al., 2019b). Education systems that group students into different ability groups and schools—particularly those which introduce these provisions early in a students’ schooling—tend to exacerbate inequality and negatively impact students’ abilities and motivations to pursue a full range of post-secondary career pathways (Burger, 2016).

European Policy (in) Actions

An ongoing challenge with international assessments and surveys such as PISA is the largely untested assumption these tools reflect similar constructs across widely different cultural contexts. Indeed, we largely agree with the criticisms leveled against PISA by authors such as Goldstein (2017) and Komatsu and Rappleye (2021). In recognition of these vast cultural differences and the challenges of examining Western concepts across contexts, our work focuses on nations within the European member states. We further recognize the cultural differences that arise across member nations of the EU; nevertheless, these nations do tend to share relatively similar perspectives across the educational constructs for which we are interested. It is difficult to faithfully capture, summarize, and compare the policy related issues of all the European nations that participated in the latest administration of PISA 2018. These countries undoubtedly vary substantially in terms of relative achievement and equity rankings, geographical region, and history of participation in international testing—to name but a few characteristics. The present analysis focused on a limited number of examples, whose results vary in relation to the key dimensions of achievement and equity. We selected these examples based on the following criteria: (1) each nation participates in PISA; (2) their educational structures have a clearly defined secondary education system; and (3) these countries have been recognized for the quality of their teaching or have explicit policies related to school choice and/or tracking. Most importantly, with respect to the OECD measure of equity as related to students’ affluence, these countries reflect four distinct outcomes: (1) high achievement and high equity (Estonia); (2) stagnant performance (Italy); (3) low achievement and low equity (France); and (4) a negative equity trend (Finland). Further, we argue these outcomes can be associated with policy inertia, avoidance, and refraction.

Through our exploration of these educational jurisdictions, we attempt to explicate the dominant political narratives that have accompanied PISA results. Additionally, by purposefully selecting European cases that vary in relation to the OECD’s two key dimensions of effective systems, we attempt to examine the extent to which research and related policy prescriptions factor into evidence-based decision-making within a bounded regional context. It is worth noting that the ensuing classifications are based on trends over time noted in the OECD’s Education GPS national profiles (see https://gpseducation.oecd.org/Home) as well as more detailed reports (see European Commission, 2020; OECD, 2018b). The proposed classifications are also based on performance in relation to other European nations—not necessarily other countries/economies such as Singapore, Korea, and/or Hong Kong (China)—which have typically served as global reference societies (Volante, in press).

It is also worth noting at the outset that none of the proposed cases are mutually exclusive. That is, all educational jurisdictions within and outside of the EU, including the ones highlighted below, possess examples of policy inertia, avoidance, and refraction to varying degrees in relation to educational reform. Our short case studies are primarily meant to highlight the potential disconnect that can occur between available evidence and policy formation in relation to international benchmarking results such as PISA—not to offer rigid categories for classification purposes. In some respects, our discussion is meant to help counter the dominant narrative that the euro zone is in fact governing by numbers (see Grek, 2009). Rather, as our analysis and ensuing discussion make clear, the processes of policy diffusion and adaption are much more complex and largely dependent on national policy traditions which often result in the selective use of evidence.

Estonia: Europe’s New Reference Society

Estonia possessed one of the highest mean PISA 2018 performances in the world. Coupled with their high reading, mathematics, and science achievement results, they are also one of the most equitable systems in relation to socioeconomically advantaged versus disadvantaged students. For example, Estonia possessed one of the smallest percentages of low performers in reading among socioeconomically disadvantaged students (16.1%) as well as one of the largest percentages of top performers in reading among socioeconomically disadvantaged students (7.4%). Overall, socioeconomic status explained just 6% of the variance in reading performance in PISA 2018, as opposed to 12% for the OECD average. These impressive results are part of a steady ascension since Estonia first participated in PISA in 2006. This small nation has supplanted Finland and is now recognized for having the best education system in Europe (Roberts, 2019).

National curricular developments in Estonia have largely followed competence-oriented approaches to educational reform recommended by both the OECD and European Commission (Läänemets, 2018). For example, while all European education systems introduce some form of tracking, the earliest at 10 years of age, Estonia is at the “other extreme” with the introduction of educational pathways at the age of 16 (European Commission, 2019). The Vocational Education and Training (VET) system attracts about one quarter of upper secondary students, a relatively small proportion in comparison to the rest of Europe. More importantly, through a series of recent reforms, the VET system is highly focused on occupational standards that require significant levels of education and training (Musset et al., 2019).

Recognizing the importance of PISA results for “national pride”, the Ministry of Education encourages teachers and school heads to align their teaching with national assessments administered in the 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th grades, which are composed entirely of open-ended questions similar to those found on PISA (Carnoy et al., 2015). The strong desire to join the EU and be part of the West, which has embraced the emerging global value system of PISA rankings, helped provide the impetus for education policies that emphasized the professional development of teachers and school principals (Boman, 2020; Khavenson & Carnoy, 2016). Overall, PISA-led reforms in Estonia have largely aligned with the available evidence base on effective education systems and served important national legitimacy purposes.

Italy: Policy Inertia

Italy scored below the OECD average in each of the reading, mathematics, and science literacy domains in PISA 2018. These achievement results are consistent with fairly stagnant performance results since the initial administration of PISA in 2000. It is also worth noting that national achievement averages obscure some significant, ongoing performance differences amongst various Italian regions—most notably the large differences observed between northern and southern Italy. In terms of equity, similar to Finland, 9% of the variance in reading performance can be explained by socioeconomic status in Italy. The relatively stagnant results, albeit with very modest improvements, make Italy a unique context to consider in relation to policy discourses—particularly given the role PISA plays in regional policy debates (Checchi & Verzillo, 2018) and the relative role of evidence in spurring large-scale reforms.

Unlike their Estonian counterparts which have embraced PISA’s role in spurring national education reforms, Italy is most aptly described as a national context with poor policy coherence, implementation, and monitoring processes—largely due to the frequent changes in ministerial portfolios and governing parties. For instance, from 2006 to 2016, five Ministers of Education succeeded each other, of whom two were in power for less than two years (Damiani, 2016). Under such political instability, policymakers have predominantly avoided introducing structural reforms that could bring about lasting innovations (Checchi & Verzillo, 2018), resulting in an ongoing reliance of previous practice and the “inertia” enabling these practices to continue.

There is scant evidence, based on a review of available government documents, that serious consideration has been given to revising the tripartite model which has persisted in Italy since the Fascist regime in 1942, where strong differences in the curricula, prestige, selectivity, and social profiles of the various tracks have persisted (Pensiero et al., 2019). Poorer students are disproportionately represented in less selective academic tracks, which in turn negatively impacts higher education opportunities and results in a high degree of persistence in intergenerational inequalities (see Barone & Ruggera, 2018; Braga et al., 2015), again maintaining long established inequities. It is also worth noting that the regional disparities in economic stability are also mirrored in the educational achievement results related to track choices, with only the Northern regions showing a mild reduction in inequality in achievement by social origin (Pensiero et al., 2019).

Italy has consistently fallen below the EU average in all three of the PISA achievement domains and exhibits persistent regional differences in achievement. In spite of the access to the numerous reports published by both the OECD and the European Commission, these data and information have not served as a catalyst to initiate and sustain significant reforms to the compulsory school sector. This inaction and continuation of previous policies has helped contribute to a host of negative educational and social trends that extend well into adulthood, as evidenced by the plethora of relatively poor education benchmarks related to educational attainment, graduation expectancy, adult learning, and social outcomes—to name only a few (see https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?primaryCountry=ITA&treshold=10&topic=EO). Overall, the Italian national context has been characterized as one where politicians “barely and infrequently” follow scientific research indications and where there is a very limited number of institutional policy documents using empirical evidence to justify political proposals (Fiore & Poliandri, 2020).

France: Policy Avoidance

France’s achievement results are slightly above the OECD average, but lag behind many of their Western European neighbors. Equity is a particular challenge as 18% of the variance in reading performance in France can be explained by socioeconomic status. Moreover, the reading score difference between students in the top quarter of the ESCS and those in the bottom quarter is one of the largest among PISA-participating countries and economies. This achievement gap equaled 107 PISA points between more and less affluent French student groups—a three and a half grade level difference according to PISA metrics. When considered alongside related research showing poor social mobility tied to education (see Volante & Jerrim, 2018), these results illustrate that France is an important context to examine PISA related policy debates.

Unlike the Italian context which has suffered from constant changes in governing parties, for the most part France has been politically stable since the inception of PISA. Thus, it is somewhat surprising that very little attention has been devoted to addressing notable school choice and tracking issues within the French context. For example, while the distinction between high- and low-quality schools largely overlaps with urban segregation—as it tends to in many other European nations—middle- and upper-class families have been able to use strategies such as choosing rare curricular options to avoid attending assigned schools—thereby further contributing to social segregation between schools (van Zanten & Maxwell, 2015). Similarly, despite being legally forbidden, ability grouping remains a common practise in secondary schools with approximately half of lower secondary schools employing this deleterious practice (Herbaut et al., 2019). These practices have benefited those with the greatest influence on French society and governance, resulting in an avoidance of new policy implementation that may ameliorate the longstanding inequities that exist. Collectively, social stratification within the French education system has negatively impacted both cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes (e.g., motivation to learn). As an example, 61.9% of French students reported they do not feel they belong at school, the highest percentage reported within the EU (European Commission, 2019).

It should be acknowledged that the policy avoidance previously demonstrated by France, may now be changing. France recently passed a national strategy referred to as the ‘law for a School of Trust’ in December of 2019. This law is primarily geared toward lowering compulsory instruction to 3 years of age, introducing a training obligation up to 18 years, and strengthening initial teacher training (see https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/france-passed-law-school-trust_en). Nevertheless, it still appears that policymakers have largely avoided structural reforms that would directly curtail the previously noted deleterious school choice and tracking issues. When one considers the growing gulf amongst social classes and the degradation of the cherished French notion of an “open society” (see Guilley, 2019), it is easy to understand how the role of education and related policies in ameliorating and contributing to inequality should not be understated.

Finland: Policy Refraction

One might be surprised by the classification of Finland as representing a context with a negative equity trend. Indeed, this Nordic country, which has been widely lauded as a stellar education system since the initial administration of PISA in 2000, still ranks favorably for overall achievement and equity. Along with Estonia, Finland possesses a favorable equity gradient in that only 9% of the variance in reading performance is explained by socioeconomic status. Nevertheless, Finland is also one of a handful of countries in which the socioeconomic achievement gap in reading widened significantly between 2009 and 2018 (see OECD, 2019). These negative equity trends are also replicated in the mathematics domain in which lower socioeconomic status student groups have seen a steady decline in their performance relative to their more affluent peers since PISA 2003 (Volante et al., 2019b). The changing social milieu of Finland, coupled with the increasing achievement gap, make Finland an important case to examine in relation to educational policies.

As previously noted, Finland has enjoyed a privileged status in policy spheres in Europe and the broader global community. Yet results from the most recent PISA cycles, coupled with related research, suggest that Finland—like their French counterparts, may also be experiencing challenges that threaten its position as an equalitarian society. Fairly recent studies indicate that Finnish students are more socioeconomically segregated than would be predicted based on assigned school catchment areas, with school choice options increasing socioeconomic segregation (Bernelius & Vaattovaara, 2016; Kosunen et al., 2020). Perhaps more disconcerting is that students from different SES backgrounds end up in different study paths in relation to the selectiveness of the comprehensive school they attend (Seppänen et al., 2015), and that peers with similar SES share similar educational aspirations (Kiuru et al., 2012). While Finland continues to promote its international reputation in terms of educational equity and high achievement, members of Finnish society who have the means are using school choice to provide increased opportunities for their children, further adding to the growing educational stratification. Finnish education policymakers must take these increasing inequality issues seriously and seek to address them in future reform efforts (Salmela-Aro & Chmielewski, 2019).

It would be misleading to suggest that Finnish policymakers have ignored equity issues in recent reform efforts. For example, the “New Comprehensive School” policy initiative does acknowledge declines in educational learning outcomes and equity. Nevertheless, the policy prescriptions for addressing these issues have largely focused on curriculum and pedagogy reform along with digitalization—rather than structural reforms that address increasing social stratification concerns in their education system. Interestingly, the Finnish Prime Minister’s Office recently announced a plan “to make Finland into a world class laboratory of new pedagogy and digital learning” (Seppänen et al., 2019, p. 150). Finland may be drawing inspiration from their Estonian neighbors, who are widely recognized as Europe’s leader in digital learning, but they do seem to be using a refractory lens to focus on some, but not all, salient elements that have contributed to their gradual slide in educational equity.

Reactivity, Political Prisms, and Moving Forward

The four countries highlighted above are not the exclusive focus of our work—rather they serve as useful examples that reflect educational policy trends that are largely congruent with the OECD’s own analyses based on their review of approximately 450 education reforms that were adopted across OECD countries between 2008 and 2014 (OECD, 2015). The OECD concluded that the reforms “needed” for coming close to the best performing countries and the actual reforms implemented were (very) weak. Certainly, we are not suggesting that European nations, nor any other country/economy that participates in PISA, rely solely on this benchmark measure to drive their educational policy development processes. We recognize such processes are ultimately about choices made within specific contexts. Nevertheless, policymakers do have a responsibility to act on the best available evidence, and governments should ideally gravitate toward reform proposals that seek to address the most robust available evidence and trends. The examples above illustrate that other factors may strongly influence the manner in which educational policies are considered, developed, or maintained in order to satisfy these external pressures.

The PISA data highlight the challenges of policies that are either partially implemented, implemented to meet a specific demand or desire, or even avoided. The current achievement patterns from national administrative data (see Volante et al., 2019a, 2019b) complement cross-national analyses across a broader range of international achievement measures. The growing inequities require a new level of boldness to enact policy reforms that address these inequalities. Fortunately, there is a recognition of these current challenges and the likely results if these challenges are not addressed through stronger and more direct policy initiatives. A recent European Commission (2020) analysis that included 42 education systems across 37 European countries determined that the most relevant policy measures for improving equity in schools included: (1) increasing public spending, especially in primary education; (2) increasing the participation of disadvantaged children in high quality early childhood education and care; (3) assigning students to different educational programmes or tracks at a later stage; (4) removing differentiation in school choice and admissions policies; and (5) and reducing grade repetition. As just one example, the deleterious impact of early tracking and school choice, consistently noted in the cases we have presented, highlight pervasive system features that adversely impact a nation’s ability to build a fairer society.

It is also worth mentioning that other features noted in the European Commission (2020) report, such as grade repetition, are also closely connected with established trends in the presented cases. For example, 17.1% and 28.4% of Italian and French students, respectively, reported repeating a grade as compared to the OECD average of 12.4% (OECD, 2014c). More than half a decade later, these patterns persist as both Italian and French students have three times the median rate of grade repetition across other European countries (see European Commission, 2020, Figure II.7.1). Overall, the deleterious impacts of many of the previously noted system policies are well established in the empirical literature and underscore why evidence is necessary, but insufficient, in spurring much needed structural reforms. The French and Finnish examples highlight that certain segments of society who benefit from current educational policies and practices have been able to shape policy development to their own benefit rather than to the broader society.

We fully acknowledge that policy development is a largely political process, but increasingly, evidence has also become political. Indeed, evidence—whether it comes from PISA, other international large-scale assessments such as those administered by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), national administrative data, and/or empirical studies—is ultimately interpreted through a political prism which may magnify, obscure, or even discount these key findings—largely to align with the political predilections of a governing party or those who influence both current and future governments. We further contend that we have entered a state of evidentiary symbolism with respect to educational policy, in which portions of the evidence, are presented or promoted in order to rationalize specific policies or policy directions. It must be conceded that the notion of sound evidenced-based decision-making remains an elusive goal in the field of education for many nations within and outside of Europe.

With few exceptions, the current global education reform zeitgeist appears to be increasingly skewed toward neoliberal solutions that emphasizes choice, competition, and the free market—despite evidence to the contrary. Indeed, the increasing availability of school choice options and tracking policies appear to have contributed to achievement gaps between high and low SES student populations. Along with the inequities we have described, this increased school segregation deprives children from opportunities to learn, play and communicate with other children from different social, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, ultimately threatening social cohesion (OECD, 2019). While choice and competition may lead to a better product in the private sector or for a select few, public education systems thrive when teachers collaborate within and across schools, thereby increasing the quality of teaching and learning environments for all students. Indeed, the current policy directions that focus on increasing achievement at the cost of educational equity will have long term negative impacts, and educational researchers need to work to minimize the use of evidentiary symbolism that have led to the policy inertia, avoidance or refraction we have highlighted.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

This research is supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Notes on contributors

Louis Volante

Louis Volante (Ph.D.) is a Professor of Education at Brock University, Professorial Fellow at UNU-MERIT/Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, and President-Elect of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE). His research is primarily focused on global education policy, performance monitoring and transnational governance, inequality in educational opportunities and outcomes, and impact evaluation of policies and programs. Louis’ scholarship is widely cited in academic and policy communities and has received generous funding from international and national agencies such as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). A frequent invited speaker around the world, Professor Volante also advises governments in North America, Europe, and the United Kingdom on a range of issues related to large-scale reform.

Don A. Klinger

Don A. Klinger (Ph.D.) is the Pro Vice-Chancellor of Te Wānanga Toi Tangata Division of Education, University of Waikato. Prior to his current role, Professor Klinger was at Queen’s University in Canada. His research explores measurement theory and the use of assessments to support teaching, learning, and policy across education contexts. Professor Klinger is especially interested in efforts to identify and reduce learning inequities exposed through large scale measures of educational outcomes. Amongst his accomplishments, Professor Klinger co-chaired the writing of the Classroom Assessment Standards and he served as the president for the Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE/SCEE).