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