PISA Eğitim Sistemlerinin Performansı Hakkında Bize Ne Söylüyor?

Abstract

Eğitim sistemlerinin performansı dünyada yoğun tartışmaların yapıldığı bir alanı oluşturmaktadır. Uluslararası Öğrenci Değerlendirme Programı (PISA) gibi uluslararası öğrenci başarı araştırmaları, öğrencilerin modern topluma ve işgücüne katılım için ne kadar hazır oldukları ile ilgili bilgi sağladığı için ülkeler arası başarı farkları politika yapıcılar için büyük baskı oluşturmaktadır. Bu baskı dolayısıyla, birçok ülke, başarı farklarının ulusal arka planına yeterince odaklanamadan eğitim sistemlerinde ciddi revizyona gitmektedir. Eğitim sistemlerinin bütününü izleyen ve değerlendiren ulusal izleme ve değerlendirme sistemlerinin olmaması da sorunların arka planını doğru tespit edememe riskini artırmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, özellikle PISA araştırmalarında ülkeler arası başarı farklarının arka planında işlev gören faktörler ele alınmakta ve ülkelerin kültürel ve sosyal bağlam farklarından bağımsız olarak öğrenci başarısında etkin olan en önemli faktörler belirlenmeye çalışılmaktadır. Bu bağlamda en önemli üç faktörün, öğretmen kalitesi, öğrencilerin okul ayrıştırmalarının geciktirilmesi ve özellikle dezavantajlı okulları daha fazla göz önüne alacak şekilde okullara kaynak dağıtılması olduğu görülmektedir. Ayrıca, uluslararası öğrenci başarı araştırma sonuçlarını sağlıklı değerlendirebilmek ve daha gerçekçi politikalar geliştirebilmek için eğitim sisteminin bütününe bakan bir ulusal izleme ve değerlendirme sisteminin kurulması önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• değerlendirme,öğrenci başarısı,okul ayrıştırma,PISA,sosyoekonomik statü

What Does PISA Tell Us About Performance of Education Systems?

Abstract

The performance of education systems is an area where intense discussions take place around the world. Since international student achievement researches, such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), provide information about readiness of students to modern society and participation to workforce differences in achievements between countries create great pressure for policy makers. Due to this pressure, many countries implement serious revisions in their education systems without adequately focusing on the national background of differences. Lack of national monitoring studies also increases the probability of inaccurate identifying the background of problems. In this study, the factors that function on the background of achievement differences between countries, especially in PISA studies, are tried to be determined and the most important factors that are effective in student achievement, which are independent of the cultural and social context differences of the countries, are tried to be specified. It is seen that the three major factors are teacher quality, delaying students' school tracking and allocating resources to schools, considering disadvantaged schools as priority. In addition, it is recommended to establish a national monitoring and evaluation system to evaluate international student achievement research results in healthier way and to develop more realistic policies.

Keywords

• assessment,PISA,school tracking,socioeconomic status,student achievement

References

1. Adams, R.J. (2003). Response to “Cautions on OECD’s recent educational survey (PISA)”. Oxford Review of Education, 29(3):377-389.
2. Akiba, M., LeTendre, G.K., & Scribner, J.P. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher, 36(7):369-387.
3. Altinok, A., & Kingdom, G. (2012). New evidence on class size effects: A pupil fixed effects approach. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74(2):203-234.
4. Ammermueller, A. (2013). Institutional features of schooling systems and educational inequality: Cross-country evidence from PIRLS and PISA. German Economic Review, 14(2):190-213.
5. Andrietti, V. (2015). The causal effects of increased learning intensity on student achievement: Evidence from a natural experiment. Working Paper, Economic Series 15-06. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.
6. Araujo, L., Saltelli, A., & Schnepf, S. (2017). Do PISA data justify PISA-based education policy? International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 19(1):1-17.
7. Barber, M., & M. Mourshed. (2007). How the world's best performing schools systems come out on top. McKinsey & Company. Bloom, N., Lemos, R., Sadun, R., & Van Reenen, J. (2015). Does management matter in schools? Economic Journal, 125(584):647-674.
8. Bol, T., & Van de Wefhorst, H.G. (2013a). The measurement of tracking, vocational orientation, and standardization of educational systems: A comparative approach. GINI Discussion Paper 81:1-42.

9. Brunello, G. (2004). Stratified or comprehensive? Some economic considerations on the design of secondary education. CESifo DICE Report 4:7-10.
10. Burroughs, N.A., & Plucker, J.A. (2014). Excellence gaps. In J.A. Plucker & C.M. Callahan (Eds.). Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 255-265). Waco, TX: Profrock Press.
11. Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the “highly qualified teacher” challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(3):1-53.
12. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Securing the right to learn: Policy and practice for powerful teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 35(7):13-24.
13. Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). What can PISA tell us about U.S. education policy? New England Journal of Public Policy, 26(1):1-14.
14. Darling-Hammond, L., Burns, D., Campell, C. & et al. (2017). Empowered educators: How high-performing systems shape teaching quality around the World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15. Ehrenberg, R., Brewer, D., Gamoran, A., & Willm, D. (2001). Class size and student achievement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(1):1-30.
16. Gundlach, E., Woessmann, L., & Gmelin, J. (2001). The decline of schooling productivity in OECD countries. Economic Journal, 111(471):C135-C47.
17. Gür, B.S., Çelik, Z., & Özoğlu, M. (2012). Policy option for Turkey: A critique of the interpretation and utilization of PISA results in Turkey. Journal of Education Policy, 27(1):1-21.
18. Hanushek, E.A., & Woessmann, L. (2006). Does educational tracking affect performance and inequality? Differences-in-differences evidence across countries. Economic Journal, 116(510):C63-C76.
19. Hanushek, E.A., & Woessmann, L. (2012). Do better schools lead to more growth? Cognitive skills, economic outcomes, and causation. Journal of Economic Growth, 17:267-321.
20. Hanushek, E.A., Link, S., & Woessmann, L. (2013). Does school autonomy make sense everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA. Journal of Development Economics, 104:212-232.
21. Hanushek, E.A., Peterson, P.E., & Woessmann, L. (2013). Endangering prosperity: A global view of the American school. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
22. Hanushek, E.A., & Woessmann, L. (2015). Universal basic skills: What countries stand to gain. Paris: OECD Publishing.
23. Harris, A., & Zhao, Y. (2015). Should the PISA be saved? The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer- sheet/wp/2015/04/19/pisas-potentially-dangerous-problems-and-what-to-do- about-them.
24. Horn, D. (2009). Age of selection counts: A cross-country analysis of educational institutions. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(4):343-366.
25. Jacobs, B., & Wolbers, M.H.J. (2018). Inequality in top performance: An examination of cross-country variation in excellence gaps across different levels of parental socioeconomic status. Educational Research and Evaluation, 24(1-2):68-87.
26. Lavy, V. (2015). Do differences in schools’ instruction time explain international achievement gaps? Evidence from developed and developing countries. Economic Journal, 125(588):F397-F424.
27. Marks, G.N. (2005). Cross-national differences and accounting for social class inequalities in education. International Sociology, 20(4):483-505.
28. Marks, G.N. (2006). Are between-and within-school differences in student performance largely due to socioeconomic background? Evidence from 30 countries. Educational Research, 48(1):21-40.
29. Meyer, H., Lori, A., Ball, S. J., Barber, M., Beckett, L., Berardi, J., … Zhao, Y. (2014). OECD and PISA tests are damaging education worldwide – academics. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/may/06/oecd-pisa-tests- damaging-education-academics.
30. MoNE (2019). PISA 2018 Turkey report. Education Analysis and Evaluation Report Series No.10. Ankara: Ministry of National Education Publishing.
31. NESC (2012). Understanding PISA and what it tells us about educational standards in Ireland. National Economic & Social Council.
32. OECD (2013). PISA 2012 results in focus: What fifteen-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. Paris: OECD Publishing.
33. OECD (2018). Effective teacher policies: Insights from PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing.
34. OECD (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. Paris: OECD Publishing.
35. Ozer, M., & Perc, M. (2020). Dreams and realities of school tracking and vocational education. Palgrave Communications, 6:34.
36. Pekkarinen, T., Uusitalo, R., & Pekkala, S. (2006). Education policy and intergenerational income mobility: Evidence from the Finnish comprehensive school reform. IZA Discussion Paper 2204, Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn.
37. Prais, S.J. (2003). Cautions on OECD’s recent educational survey (PISA). Oxford Review of Education, 29(2):139-163.
38. Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, schools and academic achievement. Econometrics, 73(2):417-458.
39. Reichelt, M., Collischon, M., & Eberl, A. (2019). School tracking and its role in social reproduction: Reinforcing educational inheritance and the direct effects of social origin. The British Journal of Sociology, 70(4):1-26.
40. Roemer, J.E. (1998). Equality of opportunity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
41. Sahlberg, P. (2011). PISA in Finland: An education miracle or an obstacle to change? C.E.P.S Journal, 1(3):119-140.
42. Schneeweis, N. (2011). Educational institutions and the integration of migrants. Journal of Population Economics, 24(4):1281-1308.
43. Schütz, G., Ursprung, H.W., & Woessmann, L. (2008). Education policy and equality of oppurtunity. Kyklos, 61(2):279-308.
44. Takayama, K., Waldow, F., & Sung, Y.K. (2013). Finland has it all? Examining the media accentuation of ‘Finnish education’ in Australia, Germany, and South Korea. Research in Comparative and International Education, 8:307-325.
45. Takayama, K. (2015). Has PISA helped or hindered? Reflections on the ongoing PISA debate. THF Lecture Series. The HEAD Foundation.
46. Trohler, D. (2013). The OECD and Cold War culture: thinking historically about PISA. In H. Meyer & A. Benavot (eds.) PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance (pp. 141-161). Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
47. Woessmann, L. (2005). Educational production in Europe. Economic Policy, 20(43):446-504.
48. Woessmann, L. (2009). International evidence on school tracking: A review. CESifo DICE Report, 1:26-34
49. Woessmann, L. (2014). The economic case for education. EENEE Analytical Report 20, EENEE, Institute and University of Munich.
50. Woessmann, L. (2016). The importance of school systems: Evidence from international differences in student achievement. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3):3-32.
51. Zimmer, R. (2003) A new twist in the educational tracking debate. Economics of Education Review, 22(3):307-315.