PISA

Matthew Lynch published in International Education

PISA results: four reasons why East Asia continues to top the leaderboard

This article was writteb by Mark Boylan

The results speak for themselves. The latest Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) have been released – and, once again, East Asian countries have ranked the highest in both tests.

Over recent years, other countries’ positions have gone up and down in the tables but East Asian education – which includes China, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan – continues to dominate. And the gap between these countries and the rest of the world is getting wider.

The reasons why East Asian countries are way ahead of the pack as far as education is concerned has long been debated – but it essentially seems to come down to the following four factors.

1. Culture and mindset

There is a high value placed on education and a belief that effort rather than innate ability is the key to success. East Asian researchers usually point to this as the most important factor for this regions high test results.

The positive aspect of this approach to education is that there is an expectation that the vast majority of pupils will succeed. Learners are not labelled and put into “ability” groups – as they are in England, where this is the norm even in many primary schools. So, in East Asian countries, everyone has the same access to the curriculum – which means many more pupils are able to get those high grades.

Formal schooling is also supplemented by intensive after-school tuition – at the extreme this can see children studying well into the night – and sometimes for up to three hours of extra school in the evening on top of two hours of homework a day.

But while this intensive after school study can get results, it’s important to recognise that in many East Asian countries, educators worry about the quality and influence these “crammers” have on the mental health and well-being of children. And many studies looking at pupils’ experiences in these schools have reported high levels of adolescent stress and a sense of pressure to achieve – for both the students and their parents.

The crème de la cram.

2. The quality of teachers

Teaching is a respected profession in East Asia, where there is stiff competition for jobs, good conditions of service, longer training periods and support for continuing and extensive professional development.

In Shanghai, teachers have much lower teaching workloads than in England – despite the bigger classes. And they use specialist primary mathematics teachers, who teach two 35-40 minute lessons a day. This gives the teachers time for planning – or the chance to give extra support to pupils that need it – along with time for professional development in teacher research groups.

In Japan, “lesson study” is embedded in primary schools. This involves teachers planning carefully designed lessons, observing each other’s teaching, and then drawing out the learning points from these observations. And lesson study also gives teachers time to research and professionally develop together.

3. Using the evidence

Ironic though it may be, much of the theoretical basis for East Asian education has been heavily influenced by research and developments in the West. For example, Jerome Bruner’s theory of stages of representation which says that learners need hands-on experiences of a concept – then visual representations – as a basis for learning symbolic or linguistic formulations.

This has been translated in Singapore as a focus on concrete, pictorial and abstract models in mathematical learning. For example, this might mean arranging counters in rows of five to learn the five times table, then using pictures of hands that each have five digits, before writing multiplication facts in words, and then adding in numerals and the multiplication and equals signs.

Teaching is a highly respected job in East Asia.

4. A collective push

In the 1970s, Singapore’s educational outcomes lagged behind the rest of the world – the transformation of Singaporean education was achieved through systemic change at national level that encompassed curriculum development, national textbooks and pre-service and in-service teacher education.

Similarly in Shanghai and South Korea educational change and improvement is planned and directed at a national level. This means that all schools use government approved curriculum materials, there is more consistency about entry qualifications to become a teacher and there is much less diversity of types of schools than in the UK.

The success of East Asian education has turned these countries into “reference societies” – ones by which policymakers in the UK and elsewhere measure their own education systems and seek to emulate. Interest in East Asian education in the UK has informed the current “mastery approach” which is used in primary mathematics. Teaching for mastery uses methods found in Shanghai and Singapore and has been the basis of many recent research projects – some sponsored by government funding and others promoted by educational charities or commercial organisations.

But of course, only time will tell if some of the success of these two education systems can be reproduced in the UK, while avoiding some of the negative experiences – such as stress and burnout – associated with the East Asian approach to education.

The Conversation

Mark Boylan, Reader in Education, Sheffield Hallam University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

For Australia to improve in maths, policymakers need to make a plan and stick to it

This article was written by Vincent Geiger

Australia is struggling to improve its performance in maths due to a lack of continuity in policymaking.

While Australia tends to plan in three-year cycles, the countries that are performing the best – or making significant improvements – in international rankings for maths, such as Singapore, Finland and Japan – tend to revise their maths curriculum every five to six years.

This allows teachers to become fully acquainted with new initiatives and provides time for the bedding down of any changes to previous practice. It also allows curriculum developers and system administrators to evaluate the effectiveness of innovations.

So what impact has a lack of continuity had on maths education in Australia?

Slipping standards in maths

The last two international tests revealed that Australia is failing to improve in maths education.

In the 2015 version of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Australia was 22nd in Year 4 maths, and 13th in Year 8 maths, a decline from 18th and 12th respectively in 2011.

In the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Australia was 18th in maths, down from 12th in 2012.

The results of these assessments indicate that the performance of Australian students is declining in both an absolute sense and in comparison to students from an increasing number of other nations.

The government and opposition have blamed each other for the situation, claiming the failure of respective policy direction and its implementation.

Impact of continuity in policy

It is hard to ignore the fact that there are nations that have made changes to their approach to maths education and made significant comparative progress.

In the case of Singapore, revision of the curriculum does not mean throwing out all aspects of previous practice and beginning again. Rather, it means a meticulous process of reviewing what has been effective and what needs to be improved or added to prepare students for the world they will move into – not just the world as it exists.

Curriculum is based on knowledge and practices that have served students well in the past, but is also future orientated.

This period of time also provides an opportunity for curriculum developers and system administrators to evaluate the effectiveness of innovations.

The approach to curriculum development is national, focused, carefully coordinated and then thoroughly evaluated.

In Australia, however, education is the responsibility of the respective states and territories. This poses a serious challenge for a coherent coordination of our curriculum development efforts.

Development of an Australian curriculum

The Australian Curriculum was heralded as a landmark in national cooperation in education.

Through the process of negotiation for its development and implementation, however, has emerged a determination by states and territories to preserve their differences and distinctiveness.

Some states have been accused of making superficial efforts to align with a national approach.

State efforts at curriculum development have a tendency to respond to whatever political pressure point is being stimulated at any time. For example, the most recent performance on NAPLAN results are prone to quick fix solutions.

Such flightiness brings into question how any long-term effective change brought about and rigorously evaluated.

Consequently, when looking at our national effort, it appears to be disjointed, unfocused, somewhat ad hoc in its development and close to impossible to evaluate in terms of student outcomes.

Introduction of teaching standards

Australia has created a number of measures to help improve its performance in maths. These include:

  • The introduction of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) national teaching standards, which include a requirement that all graduating teachers have the ability to promote students’ numeracy capabilities across the curriculum.
  • A numeracy (and literacy) tests for initial teacher education students to ensure graduating teachers have the necessary level of personal numeracy to be effective in classrooms.
  • National programs aimed at strengthening initial teacher education students’ mathematics and science knowledge, such as Enhancing Training of Mathematics and Science Teachers (ETMST).
  • Restoring the Focus on STEM in School Initiative, which aims to support the teaching of science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects in primary and secondary schools.

These initiatives demonstrate the commitment of considerable federal resources for the purpose of enhancing the nation’s mathematical (and scientific) capabilities.

Taken as a suite, this list seems to represent a comprehensive approach to improving students’ mathematics outcomes – all aspects of curriculum, teacher pre-service education and teacher in-service education receive attention.

So why has this (what appears to be) well thought-out plan proved to be seemly ineffective?

Continuity of funding

Having been part of a number of federally-funded programs aimed at strengthening the teaching capabilities, I think it is fair to say that most have been successful in what they set out to achieve.

Programs such as the Enhancing Training of Mathematics and Science Teachers, for example, were carefully scoped out and then thoroughly monitored throughout their implementation. They are now undergoing stringent evaluation.

But no matter how successful, no program has any chance of securing additional funding. We appear to set agendas, allocate funds, complete projects and then move on to something new – unlike many successful countries that value continuity in their approach to teacher professional learning.

While project leaders will always have in place plans for the sustainability of the work begun through a program, the hard reality is that without further funding those involved will be expected to find new projects and income streams and move on.

The Conversation

Vincent Geiger, Associate Professor and Research Fellow, Australian Catholic University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

Australia is very average when it comes to maths and science performance – here’s what needs to change

This article was written by Alan Finkel

As a school student, I awaited the arrival of the end-of-year report with a bracing mix of hope and fear.

Now, as Australia’s Chief Scientist, I’m worried once again about school reports.

Our proudly first-class country, with a prosperous economy and an egalitarian spirit, must not be fair-to-middling when it comes to science and maths in schools. On the evidence before me, we are.

Do I believe that international testing can capture everything of importance in Australian education? No.

But do I take these findings seriously? Yes, I do.

Be it the international studies Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), or the national scheme National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), the message is clear.

Our performance in absolute terms is stalling, or in decline, and our position in global rankings continues to fall.

International comparisons

Canada now scores significantly higher across all PISA and Year 8 TIMSS domains. England has improved its TIMSS performance, while also decreasing the proportion of low-performing students.

Australia, by contrast, is one of only three countries with significantly decreased maths and science scores in this round of PISA. And the difference between children in Australia’s highest and lowest socioeconomic quartiles recorded by PISA is the equivalent of three full years of school.

While we demand to be top ten in sport, we are barely scraping top 20 in schools.

In PISA maths, we have fallen as low as 25. How much lower are we prepared to go?

My concern is not the temporary wound to national pride. It is the enduring harm we do when students leave school with malnourished potential – or worse, no interest at all – in disciplines that they require to navigate their world. We need to improve.

Let’s start by defining the aim: the best possible education in maths and science (and literacy) for every child, irrespective of gender, region, income or incoming ability.

In the 21st century, we can no more write off a child because “he’s not into numbers” any more than we would accept that “she’s not keen on the alphabet”.

Maths is not just the language of science and technology, but the foundation of commerce, the core of engineering, and the bread and butter of every trade from cooking to construction.

How can we hold governments to account if journalists can’t interpret data and citizens can’t make sense of charts?

How can we resist the prophets of the post-truth world? When everything we value is at stake, surely nothing less than our utmost will do.

So with that aim in mind, let’s agree to share the task: yes, we do bear individual responsibility; but, no, we cannot lay the blame solely on individuals, be they principals, teachers, parents or students.

There is no point in exhorting individuals to aim high unless we help them to make the leap. If we want excellence, we have to provide a system with the incentives, enablers and rewards for improvement built in.

Policy responses

For me, that comes down to a new three Rs for education.

Restore maths prerequisites for courses

Restore meaningful maths prerequisites for all university courses that, no-one could argue, need numbers.

This would reverse the exodus from advanced maths courses and set students up for success – in commerce and accounting, as well as science and engineering. Just as importantly, it would give principals a reason to make the quality of their maths programs a priority all the way from kindergarten to Year 12.

Respect teaching

The single most important factor in the classroom is the human up the front. The education system must be engineered around that fundamental premise, so that high-achieving students become highly qualified teachers with well-targeted professional development.

Crucially, teacher training and development need a strong discipline-specific focus. It should be expected that our science and maths teachers are experts in their fields, with both the technical and pedagogical knowledge to teach them well.

The Commonwealth Science Council strongly endorsed this principle at its last meeting in September, and requested the Department of Education to investigate options to bring it about.

Recognise the influence of school leaders

Principals set the tone in their schools and, with the right strategic focus, they can drive a culture of constant improvement. Without that senior leadership, it is simply too hard for individual teachers to keep the bar consistently high – another reality the Commonwealth Science Council has acknowledged.

Of course, ambitious aims have investment pathways attached. But money spent is not a proxy for effort invested, and it is certainly not a reliable predictor of success.

As a businessman, I learned that no project delivers what you want unless the how comes before the how much.

Face the hard truths, aim high, be strategic – and we might just receive a school report we can be proud to display.

The Conversation

Alan Finkel, Chief Scientist for Australia, Office of the Chief Scientist

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

Behind Singapore’s PISA rankings success – and why other countries may not want to join the race

This article was written by Amanda Wise

Singapore has topped the global Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings in maths, science and reading, while countries including Australia, France and the UK sit in the bottom batch of OECD countries for achievement in these areas.

So what is Singapore doing right, and do other countries want to emulate it?

Clearly there are things to learn. Singapore has invested heavily in its education system. Its teachers are the best and brightest, and it has developed highly successful pedagogic approaches to science, maths, engineering and technology (STEM) teaching, such as the “Maths Mastery” approach.

Culturally, Singaporeans have a strong commitment to educational achievement and there is a national focus on educational excellence.

Success in PISA rankings and other global league tables are an important part of the Singapore “brand”. Singaporean academic Christopher Gee calls this the “educational arms race”. Highly competitive schooling is the norm.

Role of private tuition

Public discussion in Australia around why we are not doing as well as the Singaporeans is largely focused on what goes on in that country’s schools.

Yet there is one thing missing from the reporting on Singapore’s success: the role of private tuition (private tutors and coaching colleges) and the part it plays in the overall success of students in the tiny city-state. Here are some startling figures:

  • 60% of high school, and 80% of primary school age students receive private tuition.
  • 40% of pre-schoolers receive private tuition.
  • Pre-schoolers, on average, attend two hours private tuition per week, while
    primary school aged children are attending, on average, at least three hours per week.

That’s right. Eight out of ten primary school aged students in Singapore receive private tuition, either by way of private tuition or coaching colleges.

In 1992, that figure was around 30% for high school and 40% for primary school. The hours spent in tuition increase in late primary school, and middle-class children attend more hours than less well-off families.

The number of private coaching colleges has also grown exponentially in the last decade, with 850 registered centres in 2015, up from 700 in 2012.

Impact on family income

According to Singapore’s Household Expenditure Survey, private tuition in Singapore is a SGD$1.1 billion dollar industry (for a nation with a population of about 5.6 million) almost double the amount households spent in 2005 ($650 million). How does that look at the household level?

34% of those with children currently in tuition spend between $500 (AU$471) and $1,000 (AU$943) per month per child, while 16% spend up to $2,000.

Considering the bottom 5th quintile of households earn about $2,000 (AU$1,886) per month – the next quintile around $5,000 (AU$4,716) – this is a very large chunk of the family budget.

Imagine a family with two or three children and we get a sense of the potential socioeconomic inequalities at work when educational success depends on private tuition.

Surveys show that only 20% of those in the lowest two income brackets (a monthly income of less than $4,000) have a child in tuition.

One of the major tuition centre chains with outlets in shopping malls across Singapore. Author provided

Tuition centres

Tuition centres and coaching colleges range from more affordable neighbourhood and community based centres to large national “branded” coaching colleges with outlets in major shopping malls across the island.

The quality of tuition received is very much linked to how much one can afford to pay. It is big business.

The marketing strategies of the coaching colleges are very good at inducing anxiety in parents about fear of failure unless they are willing to pay to help their children get ahead.

Many parents complain that the schools “teach beyond the text”. That is, there is a perception that some teachers assume all the kids in the class are receiving tuition and thus teach above the curriculum level. Imagine the impact on those few children who are not receiving extra help.

Why does this start in pre-school and primary?

Singapore’s Primary School Leaving Exam (PSLE) is a seriously high-stakes exam that determines not just what high school a child will enter, but whether a child is streamed into a school that will fast track them to university.

Singaporeans do not have an automatic right to enrol their children into the “local” high school.

All high schools are selective and the best schools have the pick of the PSLE crop.
Primary students are streamed into four types of high school : the top ones feed students direct to university via the A-Level exams, while the bottom “technical” and “normal stream” schools feed into the institutes of technical education and polytechnics, with a much more complex pathway towards university.

Advertising poster for one of Singapore’s leading chain of coaching colleges ‘Mindchamps’. Author provided

The PSLE exam induces in 11 and 12 year olds the same level of anxiety seen in teenagers sitting the Higher School Certificate (HSC) or Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) in Australia.

Many middle-class parents believe the “race” starts early.

Parents are increasingly expected to have their pre-school aged child reading and writing, and with basic maths skills before they even enter school – and this is frequently achieved through private pre-schools and “enrichment” tuition.

While there is much to genuinely admire about Singapore’s educational success story, there is a question about the role of private enterprise (private coaching colleges) in shaping childhoods and stoking parental anxieties.

A potential concern when private tuition reaches saturation point is that schools come to assume the level of the “coached child” as the baseline for classroom teaching.

Many Singaporean parents I have spoken to bemoan the hyper-competitive environment that forces their children into hours of extra tuition, impacting on family time and relationships and reducing opportunities for childhood free play, developing friendships and simply getting some decent rest. Many feel they have no choice.

Singaporeans have a term for this pathology: “Kiasu”, which means “fear of falling behind or losing out”. Policymakers, and indeed reporting, needs to be cognisant of exactly what produces these outlying educational success stories.

This is not to argue Singapore’s success is entirely due to out of school coaching. Singaporean schooling excels on many fronts. However given the levels of private tuition, it needs to be seen as a key part of the mix.

The Conversation

Amanda Wise, Associate professor, Macquarie University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

PISA results don’t look good, but before we panic let’s look at what we can learn from the latest test

This article was written by Stewart Riddle and Bob Lingard

The 2015 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) results have been released – and on first glance, it does not look good for Australia.

On global comparisons, Australia performed equal 10th in science (down from 8th in 2012), 20th in maths (down from 17th) and 12th in reading (down from 10th).

There is a steady decline in the results since 2000, both in terms of overly simple international comparisons and absolute mean scores.

No doubt, similar to the response to Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) results last week, the media, politicians and education commentators will go into a panic over Australia sliding down the international rankings, falling standards in classrooms, and poor quality teachers.

Beyond the panicked headlines, what can we actually learn from the results of an international test that compares 15 year olds’ science, maths and reading skills in 72 countries and economies?

We need to have a more considered discussion about these test results rather than leaping to quick conclusions about a failing education system.

Scientific literacy

The main domain of the 2015 test was scientific literacy – the application of scientific knowledge and skills to solve problems.

Australia’s average score was 510, significantly above the OECD average of 493.

However, there has been an overall decline of 17 points since 2006. With the exception of the Northern Territory and Tasmania, most states performed well above the OECD average.

Singapore achieved the highest score of 556, which equates to roughly one and a half years more schooling than Australia.

While 61% of Australian students achieved the National Proficient Standard, only 11% were high performers (OECD average was 8%) and 18% were low performers (OECD average was 21%). This suggests that the majority of students might be doing okay, but few are excelling.

Mathematical literacy

The OECD average for mathematical literacy was 490, with Australia achieving 494. This is significantly below 19 other countries, including Singapore at 564 points. This is the equivalent of two and a half years more schooling.

The number of students reaching the National Proficient Standard in mathematical literacy was 61% in the Australian Capital Territory, but only 44% in Tasmania.

Reading literacy

Singapore achieved the highest result of 535 in reading literacy, equating to about one year more of schooling than Australia’s score of 503. The OECD average was 493.

Once again, the Northern Territory and Tasmania performed significantly below the OECD average, while all other states gained much higher results. Also, the spread between the lowest and highest Australian performers was significantly wider than the OECD average.

What the results mean

It is unhelpful to use the single country ranking to determine how we are going as there are significant variances between states/territories and school sectors (government, independent, Catholic).

Instead, we need to carefully disaggregate the data and consider the social and economic factors that influence performance across states, between schools, as well as the correlations between gender, Indigeneity, class, race, geographical location, and so on.

Australia has one of the widest ranges of student achievement, with what can be described as a long tail of underachievement.

For example, the difference in performance of students from the Australian Capital Territory and those in Tasmania and the Northern Territory is worth considering.

These differences are similar to those evident in performance on National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN).

Furthermore, there is a difference of nearly three years of schooling between students in the highest socioeconomic quartile and the lowest, with similar differences when comparing Indigenous with non-Indigenous students.

Interestingly, boys only marginally outperformed girls on scientific literacy, with girls significantly outperforming boys on reading literacy, with no real difference on mathematical literacy.

It is also interesting to note that since the PISA tests began in 2000, the major federal education policy levers have included:

  • Significantly increased federal funding to private schools under John Howard, followed by a commitment by Julia Gillard that no school would lose a dollar.
  • Failure to implement Gonski’s needs-based funding of all schools.
  • The introduction of NAPLAN, MySchool, the Australian Curriculum and the AITSL national teaching standards by the Rudd-Gillard governments.
  • Increased emphasis on market measures for school provision, such as Independent Public Schools and school autonomy.

Yet over this time, the narrative of steady decline on PISA and TIMSS results continues, while educational inequality is on the rise.

Australia has one of the most segregated schooling systems in the world, and the OECD data provide a strong correlation between high-performing systems such as Singapore and factors of social cohesion and equity.

Further evidenced in secondary analysis of all PISA data over time is the strength of the correlation between equitable funding of schools and systemic performance on PISA.

If we want to address these sliding results then we must address the issue of educational inequality in Australia.

Social efficiency and social equity

There are competing tensions in the agenda of social efficiency and social equity, which is evident in how PISA results inform global and local education policy-making. This includes the emphasis on competing within a global knowledge economy.

It is worth noting how the economic rationalisation for greater educational equity plays out in the global policy field, particularly through testing regimes such as NAPLAN and PISA.

The challenge for policymakers, schools and teachers is how to respond to increasing pressure to lift test results on PISA, TIMSS and NAPLAN, while also addressing systemic inequality in order to ensure that every Australian student is given access to a meaningful
education.

Equitable funding of schools, including redistribution to schools serving disadvantaged communities, remains a pressing policy issue in Australia.

However, it is unlikely that we will see much more than panic and moral crusading in the media commentary over the coming days.

Once the hyperventilating dies down, we need to take a long, careful look at these results and what they mean for a more equitable and high-performing Australian schooling system.

The Conversation

Stewart Riddle, Senior Lecturer, University of Southern Queensland and Bob Lingard, Professorial Research Fellow, School of Education, The University of Queensland

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers

What’s the Secret to High PISA Test Scores? Top ranking BASIS Schools Say its Teachers

Author: Dr. Q. Mark Reford

Dr. Q. Mark Reford was born in Ireland. He was educated at Oxford and taught there, as well as Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC. He is CEO of BASIS Independent Schools (http://www.basisindependent.com/), and is currently opening two new private schools this fall in Silicon Valley and New York City.

There is a war in American education. The nation is deeply polarized: charter supporters vs. traditional public school supporters; standardized testing supporters, and parents who find them a scathing and useless routine. And then, there’s PISA.

PISA, the Program for International Student Assessment, is a triennial test given around the world to 15 year olds in 60 countries. The OECD uses PISA to rate countries’ school systems. It doesn’t just test rote knowledge, but critical thinking as well. To be frank, PISA makes the US look like educational paupers. According to the OECD, American students are falling behind the rest of the world in math, science and reading. Even when US students make gains, they do not keep up with the gains made by others in Finland and Shanghai China and Korea and Poland.

And now with the most recent results released last month and being distributed to schools up through July, administrators at US schools that volunteered to take the OECD test are in a rare state of agita waiting for yet another ranking about which to brag or explain away. The scary aspect about PISA is that it precisely measures the deeper learning and problem solving skills that all agree are needed by students to thrive in their future lives and careers.

PISA is now used by many nations as a benchmark to help them improve their education systems. It has not had that effect in the US. Our poor showings have been absorbed into our parochial arguments pitting testing against deep learning; creativity against rote learning; or project-based learning against traditional cumulative exams.

With such recent attention as Amanda Ripley’s “Smartest Kids in the World,” the academic rankings of PISA are beginning to gain attention. There is another attribute to the test that is more obscure… and all the more crucial: student satisfaction with their teachers and how those teachers help them learn and grow in confidence.
What a surprise that asking students about their own learning could help us see how we might improve our schools!

Look at that data and the countries that do well on the academic side of PISA begin to slip in student satisfaction – South Korea and Finland, for example. Plot student satisfaction against student academic achievement and you have a fascinating picture – not just more data to argue about – but a road map to improving learning for all students.

The American family of BASIS Schools, as reflected in Ripley’s book, have been participants in PISA since first eligible, and achieved scores described as “stratospheric.” In PISA, they ranked academically with the very best in the world. And in other arenas as well: BASIS students perform brilliantly on content rich Advanced Placement tests – a BASIS student was one of 11 students in the world who made a perfect score on the AP Calculus-BC exam last year – when he was in 9th grade.

How do BASIS schools beat the best in the world – in particular, how do American students at BASIS defy all the stereotypes?

It turns out that what matters is the quality of the teacher in the classroom. We know that student academic achievement is driven by our teachers. But how? Is it just all work, all homework, the return of Grad grind to the faculty lounge?

No – what PISA shows and BASIS demonstrates is that the best education in the world is grounded in excitement, and inspiration and curiosity and what Yeats called the “fascination of what’s difficult.”

BASIS Schools recruit only teachers who are expert in their field, who have a passion to pass on their love of economics (or logic or physics or music) to another generation, and who like children. According to BASIS.ed founder Michael Block, the “secret sauce” of BASIS is the teacher who loves to teach.

PISA can help us re-calibrate the arid shouting matches of our parochial American conversation about education. It tells us to steer clear of the Scylla and Charybdis of traditional (standardized testing) and progressive (creativity) ideologues. It says, close your ears to the siren call of technology in the classroom. Does anyone seriously believe it is anything but an opportunity for capital to finally monetize education?

Focus instead on finding the best teachers and holding them accountable – and rewarding them appropriately. BASIS teachers earn bonuses based on student performance – they share accountability with their students, creating a partnership in achievement.

But above all, focus on culture. Inspiration, challenge, support, creativity – they are not mutually incompatible with rigor and standards and thoughtful external cumulative assessments. The schools our students deserve are schools that sustain a culture in which fascinated, engaged and supported students tackle and master difficult stuff.

You cannot have one without the other. They are a Mobius strip, a single side masquerading as two. America has its road map to the educational culture offering results needed to empower our young with the opportunity to make great choices in their futures – we need to move as fast as we can to the upper right hand corner of this PISA graph.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share