Content uploaded by Miguel Pereyra
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Miguel Pereyra on Sep 11, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Pisa Under Examination: Changing Knowledge, Changing Tests, and Changing Schools
Abstract
From the 23rd to 26th of November 2009 in La Palma island, in the Canaries, the Comparative Education Society in Europe (CESE) organized an international symposium entitled PISA under Examination: Changing Knowledge, Changing Tests, and Changing Schools. During four days seventeen leading scholars of Europe and America presented their contributions to debate the different problematiques of the remarkable phenomenon represented by the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment or PISA. PISA is not merely an educational event. It is also a media circus which involves the public rehearsal for reasons for failure or success; and even, in some cases, public and political and academic explanations about why 'failure' was not really that, and why 'success' was not really that either. At the centre of all these indications, we find the growing influence of international agencies on education and schooling which is decisively contributing to a marketisation of the field of education, in the context of an increasingly multilevel and fragmented arena for educational governance based on the formulation, the regulation and the transnational coordination and convergence of policies, buttressed at the same time by the diffusion of persuasive discursive practice. Organized in four sections entitled The Comparative Challenges of the OCDE PISA Programme, PISA and School Knowledge, The Assessment of PISA, School Effectiveness and the Socio-cultural Dimension, PISA and the Immigrant Student Question, and Extreme Visions of PISA: Germany and Finland, the contributions of this book offers a comprehensive approach of all these challenging and significant issues written from different and distinct research and academic traditions.
Chapters (13)
PISA or the Programme for International Student Assessment of OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) is one of the most famous educational events of the last decades. Thousands of students from sixty-two different countries (the OECD countries plus country partners which signed a contract with this institution) have been recently involved in its tests for the 2009 PISA (the fourth report of this kind was presented in December 2010).
In the early nineties Ivan Illich reminded us that it was time to celebrate the 500 year anniversary of the creation of the educational sector and hence schooling as a system of ideas for power and control over knowledge (Illich, 1981). What he referred to was the first idea to establish a state control system over written texts and thereby mastering the degree of literacy. This distinguish idea was presented at the Spanish court the 18th of August 1492. The month of August that very year is often remembered as the time when Queen Isabel of Spain gave up after all the nagging of Columbus and allowed him to sail to India.
In Buddhism the term “Duhkha”, related to suffering, is difficult to translate. It consists of a feeling of discontent, dissatisfaction, discomfort, disillusion or frustration, normally produced by not having something one desires or misses. We can say that the reaction to the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in the Ibero-American countries has been one of “dissatisfaction”.
The context in which results from PISA tests (the Program for International Student Achievement) are interpreted is exactly the same as that for the results of TIMSS (Trends in International Math and Science Study), or the results of the NAEP (the National Assessment of Educational Progress) and our many state and national test of achievement.
The research on which this paper is based was not originally intended to examine directly the PISA problématique – rather, in studying a different topic, it has, so to speak, met PISA on its way, and in the ensuing interaction of the themes it opened up a perspective which seemed worth a closer analysis.
International comparative achievement studies like PISA have various functions. First and foremost, they serve as macro-level monitoring instruments, providing information to policymakers and other stakeholders on how students in their country compare, in terms of academic achievement, to students in other countries. Their methodological design entails that they are conducted at regular three-year intervals, which allows them to reflect developments at the macro-level—for example, changes in average achievement levels, in the homogeneity of achievement, or changes in group size at individual competence levels.
The rationale underpinning this chapter draws on four interrelated domains of scholarship in educational research. The first relates to the well documented accounts of the disproportionate patterns of underachievement with respect to equality of outcomes among working-class populations as evidenced by data from national assessments (Mac Ruairc, 2009) and larger scale assessment such as PISA, PIRLS and TIMMS. What is questioned here is not the construct of large scale assessment itself, but rather the need to engage fully with the key issue of social class in terms the content, design, structure and process of conducting assessments of this genre, particularly when one considers the persistent and reproduced patterns of asymmetrical attainment between social class groups.
The aim of this paper is not to add any additional criticism regarding PISA data to the already existing mass of technical comments by journalists, policy-makers and, often in a very relevant manner, by researchers (e.g. see Goldstein, 2004, and the contributors of this book). Rather, we will discuss the important issue of what role PISA data can and cannot play in the more global objective of assessing the quality of education systems.
In most countries, the public sector considers basic education as a preferential good which is essential for getting the development of a worthy life. Since the Second World War until now, many countries have introduced free, compulsory, and sometimes decentralized educative systems, which have contributed to their economic development.
Migration is a universal reality. The United Nations estimated that, in 2010, approximately every tenth person living in the more developed regions of the world was born in another country (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs [UN DESA], 2009). Accordingly, the integration of immigrants and their descendants is of considerable concern worldwide. School systems play a central role in the integration process.
In spite of the many criticisms to which PISA can and should be legitimately subjected, it is difficult to deny that this large and highly successful OECD project is a blessing for research in Comparative Education, as it provides strictly comparable data on inputs, processes and results for most educational systems in the world. The outcomes of analyzing these enormous data sets are rather disappointing for those who had expected from it quick and solid adjudications among rival theories.
Media visibility and the political use of global rankings have highlighted the topicality and relevance of comparative studies in education. This popularity has not entailed the development of theoretical instruments in the field, however. Conversely, non-historical and decontextualised concepts such as efficiency, accountability and quality are colonising the educational world undisputed and uncontested, largely due to the fact that they have been internationally advocated.
In the October/November issue of 2002 the University of Heidelberg newsletter Unispiegel announced a series of public lectures dedicated to the question: “Are we still a people of poets and thinkers?”, with the subtitle providing the information that the university’s Studium Generale lecture series in winter semester 2002/2003 would focus on educational questions (Bildungsfragen) (Unispiegel, 2002). Ten different scholars were invited, including even one scholar from abroad, as the announcement proudly emphasized.
... Thus realism explains more than just 'cross-national attraction in education' (Phillips 1989), the inclusion of state administrators in our iconography (Phillips 2020a) and the making of 'reference societies' (Schriewer 1990) and 'counter reference societies' (Takayama 2018a). It explains the rise of political crises and sudden international attention to 'un-noticed' countries, such as Finland, and a frenzy of research on their 'successful' education systems (Pereyra, Kotthoff, and Cowen 2011), as well as the projection of 'eager' and 'slow learners' given the willingness of 'low-performers' in international assessments to emulate the models of 'high-performers' (Grek 2019). It also explains the field's 'scientific turn' in the 1970s that was aimed at perfecting policy import (Silova 2012), and thus, at increasing the possibility of international ascendancy or survival. ...
... Some others are interested in international large-scale assessments (e.g. Pereyra, Kotthoff, and Cowen 2011) and their impact on education in national settings (e.g. Martens and Niemann 2013). ...
... In several OECD countries, these shifts in foci have been introduced through the "backdoor" following delegitimising international comparative assessments of school performance. In Norway, the country's scores in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) were consistently below the OECD average from the initial assessment in 2000 through the period under discussion, a trend that began to challenge the prevailing idea of an educational system of exceptional quality and consequently led to major public debate at the beginning of the 2000s (Bergem, 2018;Helsvig, 2022;Meyer & Benavot, 2013;Pereyra et al., 2011). Soon after came the rise of a new policy regime and in consequence the replacement of an educational system informed by the expertise of the teaching profession through an increasingly bureaucratic and technocratic system. ...
This article presents an in-depth case analysis of Norwegian teacher training, exploring the intricate dynamics between global blueprints, national problem constructions and local realities. As Norwegian educational policy has aligned itself with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s recommendations, the study uncovers a loose coupling between educational policy, university and university college teacher training and school teaching practices. Starting from a neo-institutional perspective, our research utilised white papers and qualitative interviews with 65 stakeholders involved in teacher training. The findings reveal a complex relationship between policy and practice, with a tendency to overemphasise problems and understate the strengths of Norwegian teacher training. A document analysis and three empirical examples illustrate how this misalignment has contributed to misunderstandings regarding teachers’ competences and challenges in the field. The study also reflects on the global influences that shape domestic policy and the implications of focusing on international educational rankings. By shedding light on these nuanced connections, the article offers critical insights that recognises both the global trends and local specificities of the Norwegian educational system.
... The School-based Management System have also added a high degree of autonomy to individual schools (Kim, 2005). Second, 'for what' of the governance, a large amount of research unveiled that, in many countries, various comparative international tests and international organizations like the OECD have decisively contributed to education marketization, and the fierce competitions among countries have fuelled the internalization of education (Henry et al., 2001;Pereyra et al., 2011). On the other hand, in Korea, although international competitiveness has been a critical driving force, the number of people, who think that it is time to educate individual students for their growth and happiness, not education for national development, has been consistently increasing. ...
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has instigated educational changes and reforms globally, in particular, introducing and intensifying neoliberal logic and governance in test-taking countries and beyond. PISA outcome impacted upon the educational governance of South Korea as well, however, the changes deviated from what have been observed in other contexts. Framed by institutionalism, and drawing on research reports and literature published on Korea, the paper explores how PISA outcome was appropriated to sustain progressive educational agendas against conservative party’s turn to elitism and competition at a critical juncture. After reviewing the context, Korea’s responses to PISA outcome as captured in educational policies are presented, along with their shapers. The paper highlights how the policy responses parted ways with those of most countries by rehumanizing the curriculum, while acknowledging that its planned new relationship with PISA may turn their course.
The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a vehicle for promoting students’ learning that plays a significant role in basic education reform globally. Few studies have used the transnational academic achievements of PISA as evidence to systematically summarize the primary motivation behind PISA’s participation in global decision-making and the core issues of PISA’s impact on education reform. Using a systematic review approach, we aimed to analyze findings from empirical research about the impact of PISA on global basic education policies and to provide an overview of the effects of PISA on global basic education reform. The Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and Scopus databases were searched for empirical research written in English, focusing on basic education, and including search terms such as PISA, educational reform, and policy. A total of 85 studies were included in the review and systematically synthesized to determine the effect of PISA on global basic education reform. PISA drives policy discussions on education quality and equity through its pursuit of educational quality, data-based comparative analysis, and evidence-based research paradigms. PISA’s impact has extended far beyond its original function of measuring the quality of education among countries, and it profoundly affects global education governance through ‘soft’ governance of the education system. We present a specific mechanism model of PISA’s impact on the development of education policies that demonstrates the two-way interaction between PISA and education reform, providing a theoretical reference for future academic research on education reform linked to PISA.
This chapter argues that PISA helps to strengthen the hegemony of the ruling groups. Still, at the same time, it generates political opposition from local actors and criticism from scholars. It displays the contents in six sections. First, it provides a brief background on the rise of the OECD and PISA and describes the content of the test. Second, it portrays the Global Education Reform Movement (GERM) and the role of the OECD in its promotion. Third, it presents an analysis of how the OECD and the governments that applaud its action use the parsing of science. It aims to strengthen the ideas that good education is only one in which 15-year-old students answer questions about language, mathematical understanding, and science. Fourth, it sets the speculation that on why teachers are the main piece of the reforms’ purposes and, consequently, provoke rejection and opposition to PISA. Fifth, it exhibits the case of how the Mexican government ask for the OECD help to launch an education reform in 2009. However, the Department of Education rejected the OECD proposal in 2010. Afterwards, the government that took office in 2012 made a move following the OECD commendations. Still, the new administration rejected them again in 2018. Sixth, it discusses whether PISA meets the characteristics of normal science, that is, a paradigm that helps solve problems that education did not disentangle before. Or, if it is another tool, with sophisticated methodology, to reinforce the dominant ideology.
This chapter argues that PISA helps to strengthen the hegemony of the ruling groups. Still, at the same time, it generates political opposition from local actors and criticism from scholars. It displays the contents in six sections. First, it provides a brief background on the rise of the OECD and PISA and describes the content of the test. Second, it portrays the Global Education Reform Movement (GERM) and the role of the OECD in its promotion. Third, it presents an analysis of how the OECD and the governments that applaud its action use the parsing of science. It aims to strengthen the ideas that good education is only one in which 15-year-old students answer questions about language, mathematical understanding , and science. Fourth, it sets the speculation that on why teachers are the main piece of the reforms' purposes and, consequently, provoke rejection and opposition to PISA. Fifth, it exhibits the case of how the Mexican government ask for the OECD help to launch an education reform in 2009. However, the Department of Education rejected the OECD proposal in 2010. Afterwards, the government that took office in 2012 made a move following the OECD commendations. Still, the new administration rejected them again in 2018. Sixth, it discusses whether PISA meets the characteristics of normal science, that is, a paradigm that helps solve problems that education did not disentangle before. Or, if it is another tool, with sophisticated methodology, to reinforce the dominant ideology.
The OECD global governance of education has been gradually increasing. Its field of interest is currently expanding from educational evaluation through PISA to curriculum reform through the Education 2030 project. Here, it is interesting to note that the nature of the terms the OECD has been creating reveals a ‘humanistic turn’. This shows up well in the frequent occurrence of terms such as ‘well-being’, ‘attitudes and values’, ‘inclusiveness’, ‘responsibility’, and ‘sustainability’ in the ongoing Education 2030 project. Perhaps this new humanistic discourse increases the likelihood of the smooth adoption of the OECD’s proposed curriculum redesign in more countries. If the OECD’s new discourse captures and transforms contemporary people's ways of thought and practice about education, then this is related to the problem of colonialism in our era. It is also worth noting that language plays a vital role in colonization. In particular, the need for translation between different languages serves as a useful means for colonization. Conversely, it is also seen as having a potential decolonizing power. In this context, I would like to examine the new language the OECD has adopted, specifically regarding student experience and the nature of knowing. Next, I shall attempt to criticize the underlying educational assumptions in the OECD’s pronouncements. Following this, I shall explore how the OECD’s new discourse has been translated in South Korea, taking this as an example of wider experience in the East Asian context and possibly elsewhere. Finally, I shall conclude by considering the direction of curriculum decolonization in terms of translation.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.