DEVELOPMENT

The reciprocal dependence of the problems faced
by countries and their economies has resulted in
the need to standardise the output of education and
increased the hope that by benchmarking, it is possible
to increase the efficiency of one’s educational
system (Ozga, Dahler-Larsen, Segerholm, Simola
2011). In order to satisfy these needs, policymakers
are ever more frequently employing the OECD and
IEA surveys for assessing educational performance. The
most important of these is measurement of the level
of knowledge at the second level of basic education
(14- to 16-year-old), in the subjects that are considered
important for the economy, such as mathematics,
sciences and functional literacy. The PISA performance
scores are included in the OECD Better Life Index and
the targets of the EU’s Education and Training 2020
framework. It is worth noting that the OECD measures
the knowledge score (i.e. achievement), although the
European Union measures the percentage of students
with low performance levels (i.e. social cohesion). The
most influential IEA surveys are the TIMSS, which is
a comparative study of mathematics and the sciences
and the PIRLS, which measures the reading skills of
fourth graders. Unlike the PISA’s age-based sample
(15-year-old students), the IEA surveys are grade- and
curriculum-based (4 th and 8 th grades). Therefore, the
IEA is supposedly a better instrument for measuring
educational policies and teaching practices, and evidence-based
intervention in planning. However, the
PISA surveys provide better information on the preparedness
of students for the workplace.
When comparing the result of the IEA and OECD
PISA surveys, it seems generally that the same countries
are among the top dozen, regardless of the specific survey.
Hong Kong is in the top five in all the surveys in
seven cases out of a possible eight; and Singapore in three
cases out of a possible four. South Korea and Finland
are constantly in the top three, except for one unsuccessful
performance by each. The results of most of the
post-Communist countries in various surveys fluctuate,
but Estonia is the exception with its stable good results.
At the same time, Estonia’s participation in comparative
surveys is limited, which is why fundamental generalisations
cannot be made.
Against the background of the educational success
of Southeast Asia, little attention has been paid to the
unevenness of the European countries in the PISA surveys
(Figures 1.3.7; 1.3.8; 1.3.9). Coherent regions like Scandinavia
or Eastern Europe do not form a uniform group in
regard to the efficiency of basic education. Thus, Finland’s
performance is among the best in the world, while Sweden’s
and Denmark’s performances are middling. In Eastern
Europe, Estonia is the only one to be above average
in mathematics, sciences and reading, while Slovenia, the
Czech Republic and Hungary is sometimes above average
and sometimes below average. In the case of Estonia, the
phenomenon of a “strong average” can also be noticed.
This means that Estonia generally placed 10 th to 15 th in
the rankings, but, in comparison to countries at the same
level, we have few very weak students (which is Estonia’s
strength) and also few very smart children (which is Estonia’s
weakness).
Table 1.3.3
The education systems in the world with the highest
performances (TOP10) based on the OECD and IEA surveys,
place in the ranking is indicated.
PISA 2006
PISA 2009
TIMSS 2003 (math)
Finland 1 3 - - 8 1 - 3
Hong Kong 2 4 3 1 4 7 2 1
South Korea 11 2 2 - 1 3 - -
Singapore - 5 - 2 2 - - 4
The Netherlands 9 10 10 9 - 15 12 13
Taiwan 4 23 4 3 3 22 9
Estonia 5 13 8 - - 12 - -
Hungary 21 26 9 15 11 - 8 20
Slovenia 12 31 21 19 13 15 28 24
Russia 35 43 11 6 6 19 1 2
1.3.3
The search for a successful educational
model
Based on Estonia’s relatively successful international
testing, some causes for concern have also appeared.
Firstly, along with the high performance results, the
students and teachers are troubled by discontent and
doubts about their own success (HTM, PISA 2009). Secondly,
in international comparisons, the Estonian school
system is able to mitigate the impact of background
characteristics on study performance quite well, but the
differences in schools is discernible in the study results
of almost 20% of the students (Kitsing 2012). Estonia’s
less successful schools are located in socio-economically
poorer areas and the language of instruction is often
Russian. Therefore, an accumulation of negative factors
may occur – the positive effect from school may not
compensate for to the shortcomings related to the home.
Results from the current PISA surveys do not indicate
such an accumulation.
Although, the students from poorer families
usually have a harder time getting ahead in school,
there are always those whose learning performance
is significantly better than one might assume from
their backgrounds (“positively capable” students). The
top-performing countries are characterised by a large
percentage of “positively capable” students. The schools
of Hong Kong and South Korea significantly increase
the percentage of the positively capable; Finland, Estonia,
Taiwan and the Netherlands are also successful
in this regard. However, Hungary and Russia are not
able to increase the capability of children in disadvantaged
circumstances (OECD 2011). Based on studies by
Woessmann et al. (2009), the relatively greater success
of children with poor socio-economic backgrounds is
related to several traits of the education system, such as
the accountability systems of the schools, the in-school
TIMSS 2007 (math)
TIMSS 2011 (math)
ICCS 2009
PIRLS 2006
PIRLS 2011
Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013
35