Ideas@TheCentre
Overrated PISA envy
Australia’s comparative performance in the recently released Trends in International Maths and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Progress in Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) was weaker than anyone predicted. The worst results were for Year 4 literacy, in which Australia ranked lowest of all English-speaking countries and was significantly outperformed by 21 countries. The best results were for Year 8 maths and science, in which Australia ranked 12th out of the 45 participating countries, being significantly outperformed by six countries in maths and nine countries in science.
Australia’s fall from the top tier of countries in recent years in another international test, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), has also created a good deal of angst, with the prime minister setting a goal for Australia to be among the top five countries by 2025.
Are international assessments appropriate benchmarks for educational quality? And is it valid to draw conclusions about education policy based on country comparisons in these assessments?
PISA and TIMSS are sound and reliable instruments, and are implemented well. The data they provide are useful but have limitations – PISA and TIMSS capture a relatively narrow range of skills and abilities. Another limitation is that although performance in PISA and TIMSS can point to strengths and weaknesses in abilities and knowledge among students, there is little to be gleaned about education policy by making simple comparisons between countries. Numerous factors influence education policy and student performance, not all of them within the remit of education systems.
Countries participating in PISA and TIMSS have widely differing cultural, demographic, social, economic and linguistic characteristics. These factors have influenced the historical development of education systems and continue to influence student achievement. Finland is often held up as an example for Australia to follow. Finland’s system of common public schools is typically credited with the high equity in Finnish students’ results. However, the high equity in Finnish society likely plays a role too. Schools reflect and reproduce societies. The equity challenges for Australian schools, with double the child poverty rate of Finland, are much greater.
Australia clearly has work to do. Students at the top and bottom of the range are underperforming. While a close examination of Australia’s results in student assessments is a positive endeavour, policymakers must be careful to look beyond the obvious.
Jennifer Buckingham is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies. Her forthcoming report, Keeping PISA in Perspective: Why Australian Education Policy Should Not Be Driven by International Test Results, will be released next week.
