Search results

A recent study showed that the 2000 PISA results have had an influence on policy reform in the majority of participating countries/economies (Breakspear, 2012). This was not the case in France by far, a country where PISA methodology was under strong criticism at the time the PISA 2000 results were released. However, improvements came progressively: first, national curriculum standards were introduced a few years later that aimed at drastically changing the educational goals in France. Second, an evaluation based on PISA’s methodology was introduced for eighth graders. Third, at the time of the third and subsequent PISA surveys, the validity of PISA as a tool was recognized. Finally, the policy impact of PISA reached its highest level at the time of the fifth survey in 2012. Yet, many teachers and school principals do not know much about PISA. This chapter seeks to analyze the reasons why it took France so long to fully recognize the value of PISA.

Over the past two decades, scholars have noted an increasing global convergence in the policy and practice of education that predominantly contains Western ideals of mass schooling serving as a model for national school systems (Bieber & Martens, 2011; Goldthorpe, 1997; Spring, 2008). A number of transnational organizations contribute disproportionately to global educational discourse, particularly the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) through its international comparative performance measure, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). This study conducted a critical discourse analysis of the OECD document PISA 2012 Results: Excellence through Equity (OECD, 2013) to examine the ways that PISA and the OECD conceive of educational equity in a global context. Given the growing convergence of global educational policy, the way that transnational educational organizations address equity has crucial implications for the ways that the world intervenes in schooling to promote or diminish equitable outcomes. Analysis revealed that the OECD and the PISA foreground economistic notions of educational equity, which diminishes the role of other factors (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender, immigration status, language) that mediate equity in schools. Findings and implications are discussed.

This study considers the structure of PISA penetration into education policy through a comparative analysis of Japan and Norway. Many studies on PISA’s impact tend to emphasize the character of PISA result as a norm, such as the concept of “governance by comparison.” This study regards PISA as a norm of educational contents and analyzes the structure of PISA penetration into educational contents policy, with respect to the national curriculum. In describing the situations around PISA in the two countries, the background of the acceptance of PISA, the nature of national curriculum in education policy and its character, and the structure of PISA penetration with the focus being on how PISA is integrated into the national curriculum are analyzed through related documents and literatures. As a result of comparative analysis, three common features are found. First of all, PISA penetration occurred in the context of “PISA Shock” since the importance of PISA itself was recognized. Second, the system of management by objectives was included in the educational system and PISA penetrated into that system as objectives. Third, in relation with this second point, PISA as a norm of educational contents was integrated into existing educational goals or subjects. These features are evident only in the comparison of two countries, so a deeper analysis of PISA penetration will be needed in a future study.

In 2006, Kyrgyzstan entered the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) competition and the results were very poor, with it securing the last position among all participating countries. However, to date, there are no in-depth studies examining the results and the impact of the PISA test on the quality of secondary education in Kyrgyzstan. This chapter attempts to fill this gap. The study was conducted in post-Soviet Central Asian education context where standardized tests are only emerging and what their far-reaching implications are not yet known. The data were collected using semistructured interviews and document analysis. Respondents to semistructured interviews included representatives of government, education officials, specialists from the independent testing center, representatives of international development organizations, university professors, school administrators and teachers, community members, and students. The study showed that the poor results of PISA 2006 awakened many policymakers, education officials, and educators about the current state of the country's education. However, the findings of the study also showed that the lessons and implications were not analyzed systematically and, as a result, rather fragmented and less coordinated efforts and initiatives were undertaken.

Finland's performance in PISA has created considerable interest in the country's education system, to ascertain what has made Finland so successful in the survey. In reference to the phenomenon, this chapter discusses cross-national attraction, policy borrowing, the effect of Finland in PISA, and its influence on education policy. This chapter explores at length the theoretical background of cross-national attraction and policy borrowing, also investigating cases that have already occurred. It discusses Finland's role as the new object of cross-national attraction and eventual policy borrowing. The chapter incorporates research into the reasons for Finland's success in PISA, the possibilities of policy transfer from Finland, and delves into the likelihood of policy implications as a result of Finland in PISA. This cross-national attraction denotes the first stage in policy borrowing; however, comparative educationalists, for years, have warned about the uncritical transfer of education policy. Research in Finland has revealed many reasons for the country's PISA success stem from contextual factors: those related to historical, cultural, societal, and political features of Finland. Therefore, policy borrowing from Finland needs to heed warnings of past comparativists. The new phenomenon of Finland in PISA has generated much curiosity from those in education, educational policy, and politics. Policymakers are keen to incorporate Finland's educational features into their education systems. PISA and Finland's performance in the survey influence educational policy. This illustrates the importance the warnings of past and present comparative educationalists in order to prevent uncritical policy borrowing.

This study investigates national trends in students’ science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) occupational expectations by using Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2000, 2003, and 2006 data. The analyses in this study revealed several noteworthy national trends in STEM occupational expectations. In many countries students’ computing or engineering (CE) occupational expectations changed between PISA 2000 and PISA 2006, while students’ health service (HS) occupational expectations remained constant. In particular, many developed countries experienced downward national trends in CE occupational expectations among top performers in science. This study also found gender differences in national trends in STEM occupational expectations. In many countries boys’ CE occupational expectations decreased between PISA 2000 and PISA 2006, while girls’ occupational expectations remained unchanged in both CE and HS fields. Finally, the gender gaps in CE occupational expectations converged in many countries, but this convergence was not due to increases in CE occupational expectations among girls, but rather decreases in expectations among boys. Because one of the policy goals in many countries is to promote engagement in STEM education and occupations among students, especially academically talented students, the current findings – national declines in CE occupational expectations among top academic performers – will most likely be viewed as problematic in several countries. Future research should use data collected over longer periods to investigate whether students’ interest in STEM education and occupations increased or decreased in a variety of countries, and whether these patterns varied by student characteristics and performance levels. Moreover, future research must focus on factors that can explain the national trends in student interest in STEM education and occupations.

This chapter focuses on a new school-level instrument for international benchmarking and policy learning – the OECD’s PISA-based Test for Schools (“PISA for Schools”) – and how it helps to constitute new global spaces and relations of education policymaking and governance. Unlike main PISA, PISA for Schools assesses school performance in reading, mathematics, and science against the schooling systems measured by the main PISA test. Schools are thus positioned within a globally commensurate space of measurement and comparison, and are encouraged to engage with, and learn from, the policy expertise proffered by “high-performing” international schooling systems and the OECD itself. Drawing suggestively across literature and theorizing around new spatialities associated with globalization, the “becoming topological” of culture and “power-topologies,” and informed by document analysis and interviews with 33 policy actors from across the PISA for Schools policy cycle, the chapter examines how PISA for Schools helps the OECD to directly “reach into” local schooling spaces. This respatialized PISA for Schools, or “PISA to Schools”, provides the OECD with the means to influence how schooling is practised and conceived at the level of local policy implementation, while limiting mediation by national and/or subnational politics. Moreover, the school-to-system performance comparisons enabled by PISA for Schools arguably provide one of the first – if not the only – international data-driven catalysts of school-level reform. This furthers the relevance and diffusion of “lessons” from main PISA and the OECD to schools themselves, and helps extend the epistemic communities through which the OECD practices its global epistemological governance of education.

Over the past two decades, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has become an influential actor in the education sector. This has been accomplished, partly, by the administration of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) since 2000. Overall, PISA is intended to inform the public, parents, teachers, and those who run education systems of the status of education in their country. Research shows that policymakers draw on PISA results when they launch and design education reforms. To date, however, we know very little about whether PISA is successfully informing the general public, which is the main sponsor and benefactor of PISA. Using public opinion surveys from the United States and Israel, this chapter examines knowledge and perception of PISA. Recent reports suggest that both countries are in the middle ranks of all countries participating in PISA, with the United States being in the middle ranks of OECD countries and Israel being in the lower ranks of this group. Findings from public opinion surveys reveal three interesting patterns. First, in both countries, the public tend to underestimate how well 15-year olds perform on international standardized tests. Second, college graduates are more likely than those with less education to underestimate the performance of teens on international standardized tests. Third, although the public seems to be misinformed about PISA results, we find considerable public support for PISA and international standardized tests more generally. Implications of the findings for policy and future research in the field of international and comparative education are discussed.

The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the educational impact of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on South Korea, focusing on the global implementation of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). By analyzing how the system of reasoning embedded in the OECD and PISA has re-territorialized the education space of South Korea, this chapter problematizes present-day OECD educational policy as a new global education norm, and its way of making educational truths. This chapter specifically discusses the changes in South Korean education policy, national curriculum, and examination system in terms of reference reasoning, politics of knowledge, and regime of testing. The chapter further discusses that the impact of the OECD in a global space is not unidirectional; rather, it is a multi-directional phenomenon occurring in both individual country and the global governance that the OECD created.

Since the publication of its first results in 2000, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) implemented by the OECD has repeatedly been the subject of heated debate. In late 2014 controversy flared up anew, with the most severe critics going so far as to call for a halt to the programme. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the methodological design of PISA and the ideological basis of scientific and policy arguments invoked for and against it.

The authors examine the soundness of the survey methodology and identify the conflicting interpretations and values fuelling the debate.

The authors find that while PISA has promoted the focus on the important subject of children's education worldwide there are legitimate concerns about what PISA measures, and how. The authors conclude that the OECD should be more transparent in the documentation of the methodological choices that underlie the creation of the data and more explicit about the impact of these choices on the results. More broadly, the authors advise caution in the attempt to derive and apply evidence-based policy in the domain of education; the authors furthermore propose an alternative model of social inquiry that is sensitive and robust to the concerns of the various actors and stakeholders that may be involved in a given policy domain.

The issues and tensions surrounding the PISA survey can be better understood in the framework of post-normal science (PNS), the application of which to the PISA controversy offers a potential solution to a stalemate.