Red Flags for Educators: Lessons for Canada in the PISA Results

J. Richards
{"title":"Red Flags for Educators: Lessons for Canada in the PISA Results","authors":"J. Richards","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3037129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) has deservedly become the benchmark for comparing national K-12 school systems. Since 2000, the OECD has, at three year intervals, organized PISA “rounds” to assess school system performance in member countries and in non-member partner countries, among upper-secondary students, age 15, in three core subjects. This Commentary summarizes major conclusions relevant to Canada from the latest round, in 2015. The policy recommendation of this Commentary is implicit: educators, administrators and parents should make use of PISA results as a guide to strategic priorities for education policy. Canada’s overall PISA score has consistently ranked well above the OECD average on the three subjects assessed (reading, mathematics, and science). In 2015, Canada ranked 10th in mathematics, 3rd in reading, 7th in science. Overall, our school system is faring well. However, PISA provides ample evidence to prompt some humility among Canadians. To be more specific: • Trends in mathematics: Since the inauguration of PISA, Canadian performance in mathematics has consistently declined from one round to the next, and the gap between 2003 and 2015 results is statistically significant. • Gender gaps: Canada is not faring well on this dimension; it is close to the OECD average. There exist in Canada modest gender gaps in mathematics and science that favour boys. A much larger gender gap in reading favours girls. • Mediocre outcomes for the six small provinces, for Manitoba and Saskatchewan in particular: From the base year for each subject to 2015, PISA score declines in all three subjects have been statistically significant for Manitoba and Saskatchewan. In all three subjects, the levels in these provinces are now below the benchmark year OECD average. There are reasons to speculate that the high proportion of Indigenous students in Manitoba and Saskatchewan is a key factor in explaining their PISA performance. Relative to these two Prairie provinces, outcomes are better in the four Atlantic provinces, but they, too, are not faring well. Each of the four has one 2015 score below 500; among the four, all scores are below the relevant national Canadian average.","PeriodicalId":169556,"journal":{"name":"Culture Area Studies eJournal","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Culture Area Studies eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3037129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) has deservedly become the benchmark for comparing national K-12 school systems. Since 2000, the OECD has, at three year intervals, organized PISA “rounds” to assess school system performance in member countries and in non-member partner countries, among upper-secondary students, age 15, in three core subjects. This Commentary summarizes major conclusions relevant to Canada from the latest round, in 2015. The policy recommendation of this Commentary is implicit: educators, administrators and parents should make use of PISA results as a guide to strategic priorities for education policy. Canada’s overall PISA score has consistently ranked well above the OECD average on the three subjects assessed (reading, mathematics, and science). In 2015, Canada ranked 10th in mathematics, 3rd in reading, 7th in science. Overall, our school system is faring well. However, PISA provides ample evidence to prompt some humility among Canadians. To be more specific: • Trends in mathematics: Since the inauguration of PISA, Canadian performance in mathematics has consistently declined from one round to the next, and the gap between 2003 and 2015 results is statistically significant. • Gender gaps: Canada is not faring well on this dimension; it is close to the OECD average. There exist in Canada modest gender gaps in mathematics and science that favour boys. A much larger gender gap in reading favours girls. • Mediocre outcomes for the six small provinces, for Manitoba and Saskatchewan in particular: From the base year for each subject to 2015, PISA score declines in all three subjects have been statistically significant for Manitoba and Saskatchewan. In all three subjects, the levels in these provinces are now below the benchmark year OECD average. There are reasons to speculate that the high proportion of Indigenous students in Manitoba and Saskatchewan is a key factor in explaining their PISA performance. Relative to these two Prairie provinces, outcomes are better in the four Atlantic provinces, but they, too, are not faring well. Each of the four has one 2015 score below 500; among the four, all scores are below the relevant national Canadian average.
教育工作者的红旗:加拿大在PISA结果中的经验教训
国际学生评估项目(PISA)当之无愧地成为比较各国K-12学校系统的基准。自2000年以来,经合组织每隔三年组织一次PISA“轮次”,以评估成员国和非成员国伙伴国家的学校系统在三个核心科目上15岁高年级学生的表现。本评论总结了2015年最新一轮谈判中与加拿大有关的主要结论。本评论的政策建议是隐含的:教育工作者、管理人员和家长应该利用PISA结果作为教育政策战略优先事项的指南。加拿大在国际学生评估项目(PISA)评估的三个科目(阅读、数学和科学)上的总体得分一直高于经合组织的平均水平。2015年,加拿大数学排名第10,阅读排名第3,科学排名第7。总的来说,我们的学校系统运行良好。然而,PISA提供了充分的证据,促使加拿大人保持谦逊。更具体地说:•数学趋势:自PISA启动以来,加拿大人在数学方面的表现一直在一轮接一轮地下降,2003年和2015年之间的差距在统计上是显著的。•性别差距:加拿大在这方面表现不佳;接近经合组织的平均水平。加拿大在数学和科学方面存在着有利于男孩的适度性别差距。阅读方面的性别差异更大,女孩更受青睐。•六个小省份的成绩一般,尤其是马尼托巴省和萨斯喀彻温省:从每个科目的基准年到2015年,马尼托巴省和萨斯喀彻温省的所有三个科目的PISA分数下降在统计上都很显著。在这三个科目中,这些省份的水平现在都低于经合组织的基准年平均水平。有理由推测,曼尼托巴省和萨斯喀彻温省土著学生的高比例是解释他们PISA表现的关键因素。相对于这两个大草原省份,大西洋四省的结果要好一些,但它们的情况也不太好。2015年,这四个国家都有一个得分低于500;在这四名学生中,所有的分数都低于加拿大全国平均水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信