Gap between countries widens! Best become better, poor - poorer
Education International comments on PISA results

The OECD has just released its first results of PISA 2003, published under press embargo at a news conference in Brussels, December 6, 2004.

More than 250,000 students in 41 countries took part in PISA 2003, the second three-yearly survey of its kind. The survey involved pencil and paper tests lasting two hours, taken in the students schools. The main focus in PISA 2003 was on mathematics, but the survey also looked at student performance in problem-solving, science and reading and at students approaches to learning and atti­tudes to school.

Finland once again came out top in the study among 15-year-olds, as in 2000, with high results both in mathemat­ics and science and with the best results in reading literacy. Almost matching the results of Finland were Hong Kong, Korea, and Japan. However, lower-scoring coun­tries such as Mexico and Brazil, showed decreases on tests of student performance compared with PISA 2000.

What is measured?

OECD PISA provides a set of comparisons of results in sev­eral categories. It measures first, the overall performance of education systems, then the equity of distribution of results among schools and students in countries, consis­tency across the schools, gender disparities and founda­tions for life-long learning. We welcome such broad evalu­ation of achievement of education goals, particularly the emphasis on equal access to quality education.

PISA 2003 measures student performances in four areas -mathematics, science, reading literacy and, for the first time, problem solving.

It is important to note that PISA assesses the skills of students in applying their knowledge in real-life situations, selected and defined by PISA, not the cognitive skills as such. The tests were deliberately designed independently of national curricula, standards or methods used in classrooms. We should be aware that the results do not necessarily correspond to what teachers were required to achieve, or how they were expected to teach.

What are the results?

In mathematics, the Nordie countries (except Norway), East Asian countries, West European nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Czech Republic score higher than the OECD average. Austria, Germany, Ireland and Slovak Republic correspond to the average level. Below the average is Norway and Luxembourg, the groups of Eastern and South European countries, the United States and the Russian Federation, Turkey, Latin American and South Asian countries. The results are similar in science and reading literacy and have not much changed since 2000, demonstrating a pattern.

Poland is remarked upon as a country which has improved its results most significantly since 2000.

What are the factors in high PISA scores?

According to the PISA report, several factors determine 'successful performances':

• Overall, wealthier countries tend to perform better in this study than poor nations, but Korea, for example, has performed well on these education indicators in relation to a relatively low - but growing - level of national wealth. Mexico, which entered OECD at the same time as Korea, scores much lower. Non-OECD countries which participated in the study, such as Brazil, Tunisia, and Indonesia, show up at the lower end of the tables. OECD argues that high spending is not necessarily a key to success, providing examples of Czech Republic, Finland, Japan or Netherlands, performing better than average, while the US, with higher spending does not. We may agree that spend­ing alone is not only one determining factor, but it is a necessary precondition for sustainable educational development.

• OECD puts strong emphasis on a performance orien­tated culture in schools. It is argued that those sys­tems with high competitiveness attitudes among students, teachers and schools achieve better results.

• A strong and clear impact on results was shown by pre-schools attendance rates and duration of pre­school attendance. Those countries where more stu­dents attended pre-school and did so for longer periods, achieved better results on the PISA tests at age 15. This result carries a clear message for policy makers on the importance of pre-school education, accessible to all.

• The impact of inequalities of socio-economic back­grounds and school quality is rather mixed in the report. There are high performing countries with great inequalities among schools, as well as the opposite -low performing countries with generally equal levels of access and quality. However, we could note that equal access to quality education provides benefits that do not show up on test scores.

• The report also stresses the role of teachers, even though they were not the main focus of the study, PISA measures the student's evaluation of teachers' support for their learning. Students report the stron­gest teacher support in mathematics lessons in Australia, Canada, United States, Mexico, Brazil and the lowest support in Austria, Germany, Japan, Lux­embourg and the Netherlands. Some of these results may surprise the national education unions concerned, and merit further examination and debate. Teacher shortages are reported as a factor undermining math­ematics teaching in Luxembourg, New Zealand, Turkey, Indonesia, and Uruguay.

• Finally, OECD suggests that school systems with greater school autonomy, including financial responsibilities, teacher employment, and curriculum decisions, per­form better, even if there is very limited evidence of causal links. We should emphasise that there are many other factors playing a role in educational outcomes in general and student test scores in particular.

Recommendations to policy makers

We can predict that the PISA report will be used to make recommendations to policy makers on how to improve education systems. These recommendations will include greater use of indicator based standards and examina­tion systems, increased autonomy and responsibility of schools, and greater involvement of stakeholders in de­termining quality of education.