The lessons from PISA are very clear and are being repeated by numerous pundits. Odds are that policy-makers will continue to ignore them, because it means shifting from superficial 'reform' efforts to something more substantive. Here are the lessons, as found by yet another pundit:
- The best performing school systems manage to provide high-quality education to all children.
- Students from low socio-economic backgrounds score a year behind their more affluent classmates. However, poorer students who are integrated with their more affluent classmates score strikingly higher. The difference is worth more than a year's education.
- In schools where students are required to repeat grades (such as with promotion requirements), the test scores are lower and the achievement gap is larger.
- Tracking students ('ability grouping') [a.k.a. 'streaming'] results in the gap becoming wider. The earlier the practice begins, the greater the gap. Poor children are more frequently shunted into the lower tracks.
- Systems that transfer weak or disruptive students score lower on tests and on equity. One-third of the differences in national performance can be ascribed to this one factor.
- Schools that have autonomy over curriculum, finances and assessment score higher.
- Schools that compete for students (vouchers, charters, etc.) show no achievement score advantage.
- Private schools do no better once family wealth factors are considered.
- Students that attended pre-school score higher, even after more than 10 years.
- The best performing school systems manage to provide high-quality education to all children.
- Students from low socio-economic backgrounds score a year behind their more affluent classmates. However, poorer students who are integrated with their more affluent classmates score strikingly higher. The difference is worth more than a year's education.
- In schools where students are required to repeat grades (such as with promotion requirements), the test scores are lower and the achievement gap is larger.
- Tracking students ('ability grouping') [a.k.a. 'streaming'] results in the gap becoming wider. The earlier the practice begins, the greater the gap. Poor children are more frequently shunted into the lower tracks.
- Systems that transfer weak or disruptive students score lower on tests and on equity. One-third of the differences in national performance can be ascribed to this one factor.
- Schools that have autonomy over curriculum, finances and assessment score higher.
- Schools that compete for students (vouchers, charters, etc.) show no achievement score advantage.
- Private schools do no better once family wealth factors are considered.
- Students that attended pre-school score higher, even after more than 10 years.
Today: 1 Total: 1112 [Direct link] [Share]
