OTRAƎDUCACION: learning

Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta learning. Mostrar todas las entradas

Latin America oversatisfied with public education

(en español: Satisfacción excesiva con la educación en América Latina)

"Traditionally, the concept of quality of life has been viewed through objective indicators. Beyond Facts: Understanding Quality of Life looks at quality of life through a new lens, namely, the perceptions of millions of Latin Americans. Using an enhanced version of the recently created Gallup World Poll that incorporates Latin America-specific questions, the Inter-American Development Bank surveyed people from throughout the region and found that perceptions of quality of life are often very different from the reality. These surprising findings have enormous significance for the political economy of the region and provide a wealth of information for policymakers and development practitioners to feast upon."

A pioneer study by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), which used the 2007 Gallup World Survey (40 thousand people in 24 Latin American countries answered it) revealed that Latin Americans were in general satisfied with their lives and, in particular, with public education.

The distance between realities and perceptions was especially big in the case of education. While Latin America is well known for the low quality of its education and its poor learning outcomes - as revealed by national tests (prepared in each country), regional tests (such as (LLECE) and international tests (such as PISA) - satisfaction with public education is much higher than that of citizens in countries with an overall better schooling and learning situation.

Over-satisfaction applies also to health, but it is much more prominent in the case of education. People with lower levels of education (generally associated with lower economic status) tend to have a better opinion of educational services than those with more years of schooling (theoretically associated with more critical attitudes). “Do you think the majority of children are getting a good education?" was responded positively by people with primary and incomplete secondary education. Venezuela, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Honduras and Dominican Republic reported levels of satisfaction similar to those in developed countries. Haiti, Peru and Argentina were the least satisfied.

Is is also known as "aspirations paradox": those who have the least, those who get the education of the lowest quality, are the ones that are most satisfied, those who thank anything they get and, thus, those in the most unfavorable position to identify and demand quality education. The paradox applies to many other fields.

“The majority of Latin Americans are satisfied with their education systems because they value discipline, security and the physical infrastructure of schools more than the academic scores their children get” (Preface, Beyond Facts: Understanding Quality of Life).

Discipline

Many parents expect the school to do what they cannot: discipline their children. Norms, instructions, schedules, uniforms, homework, rewards and punishment, are part of the disciplinary package.

For the conventional education ideology, 'good teacher' is the disciplinarian. Teachers who are flexible, friendly, innovative, are often misunderstood and questioned by school authorities and by parents. Teachers who acknowledge play and fun as part of the learning experience, who explore with their students other forms of learning, are not welcome by the traditional school culture.

The obsession with discipline brings rigidity to relationships, legitimizes authoritarian behaviors, limits dialogue and reasoning, blocks spontaneity, curiosity, creativity and liberty -- all of them essential to learning.

Security

Violence and insecurity are high and rising in the region (See: UNDP, Human Development Report for Latin America 2013-2014: Citizen Security with a Human Face: Evidence and proposals for Latin America). Families view the school as a key ally where their children can be safe and taken care of. In contexts of great violence such as the ones characterizing most Latin American cities, preserving life becomes the obvious priority. Learning - often confused with rote learning - has always received little attention by families, and not only among the poor.

Violence is not only outside but increasingly inside the school system. Out of school violence - in the family, in the community, in society - enters school with parents, students and teachers. Bullying has become a major concern and war in most countries. Robbery, assault, drugs, harassment, death, are today part of the school scenario in the world.

Insecurity and fear do not contribute to the development of good education. They lead to shutting mouths, to locking classroom doors, to building high school walls.

Infrastructure

Social imagery associates education with school. Teaching and learning come afterwards.

Social and political imagery coincide in the appreciation for infrastructure. Building and inaugurating classrooms and school buildings - the easiest in education - are salient features of the political and electoral culture. Voters are very sensitive to school infrastructure. Politicians know it, give it high visibility, and nurture the idea of education (quality) as infrastructure.

For most people, it is difficult to perceive and even to imagine education without buildings: outdoor education, distance education, self-education, homeschooling, etc. Not everyone is able to accept what abundant research shows all over the world: good education depends much more on good teaching than on a good building; quality learning depends much more on the quality of relationships than on the quality of things.

***

Over-satisfaction and the "aspiration paradox" in education are found in surveys and studies all over the world, but they are very high in Latin America and the Caribbean. PISA 2012 showed that Latin American 15 year olds are the happiest with their school, even if they get the worst results among PISA participating countries.

There are those who see the gap between realities and perceptions as a positive cultural sign - optimism, happiness, etc. - and as a blessing vis à vis the ranking culture. However, the gap is a problem. Complacency is an enemy of improvement and change.

Advancing towards a 'better education' or a 'good education' implies addressing and questioning overly "optimistic" perceptions. It implies expanding and elevating the education level of society as a whole and, on the other hand, a systematic information, awareness and citizen education effort: educating people's perceptions, informing their decisions, enhancing their participation, and qualifying their demand for the right to education.

Now comes PISA for 'developing countries' (PISA-D)

Rosa María Torres

Texto en español: PISA para "países en desarrollo" (PISA-D)

Some of the concerns raised around OECD's PISA tests (reading, mathematics and science, applied every three years to 15 year olds) refer to their inadequacy for "developing countries".

Participating Latin American countries systematically occupy some of the lowest places in PISA rankings, far from "developed" OECD countries (in the past few years, Mexico, Chile and Colombia have been accepted as OECD countries; they are also at the bottom).

PISA tests were developed by and for OECD countries. Later, non-OECD countries have joined PISA, 10 of them from Latin America and the Caribbean: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Chile, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, and Uruguay. (See: list of countries that have participated in PISA)

Issues related to the inadequacy or usefulness of PISA for non-OECD countries include the following:

» the need to contextualize the tests, responding to the great heterogeneity (socio-economic, cultural, etc.) of countries, within the same generic category of "developing";

» many 15 year olds are out of school because they never enrolled or because they dropped out (drop out rates are high in may countries, especially in secondary education);
» there is no technical capacity in the majority of countries to administer a complex and massive standardized test such as PISA;
» many countries participate in international tests (such as UNESCO's LLECE tests in the case of Latin America);
» devastating domestic effects in countries getting low results and rankings in PISA tests;

» the enormous attention dedicated by governments to improve scores and rankings in the next PISA test, distracting time and resources from critical structural issues and from learning as such.

Some of these concerns have been aired in open letters addressed to OECD, such as the one sent in 2013 by Ministers of Education in Latin America (Los Ministros de Educación del MERCOSUR y la prueba PISA) or the one sent in 2014 by 92 academics from the US and other OECD countries (Stop PISA!). Concerns have also been raised in Chile (Bárbara Figueroa critica la Prueba PISA porque mide asuntos 'ajenos a la realidad educativa chilena') and in Ecuador vis a vis this country's decision to join PISA (PISA ¿para qué? ¿El Ecuador en PISA?). (See: Critical Voices of PISA in Latin America).

Responding to these and other concerns, the OECD proposed PISA for Development (PISA-D), an initiative addressed to middle and low income countries. The idea is to expand the participation of non-OECD countries in PISA. Nine countries - from Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean - expressed their interest to participate in the pilot project: Bhutan, Cambodia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Senegal, and Zambia. (See: Technical meeting, June 2013); OECD Call for Tender 100000990, August 2014).

"PISA for Development aims to increase the policy relevance of PISA for developing countries through enhanced PISA survey instruments that are more relevant for the contexts found in developing countries but which produce scores that are on the same scales as the main PISA assessment. The project will also develop an approach and methodology for including out of school children in the surveys. The project’s objectives will be achieved over a 36 month period through a three-way partnership involving the OECD, concerned development partners (DAC members plus the World Bank, UNESCO and other UN bodies and other regional organisations) and partner countries from the developing world".

- In: OECD Post-2015, Element 2, Paper 1: The OECD's contribution on education to the post-2015 framework: PISA for Development.

The OECD sees the following advantages of PISA for Development:

• "A single reference against which to rigorously gauge the degree of progress
made towards targets for educational quality and equity.

• A comparable and robust measure of progress to allow all countries – regardless of their starting point – to establish themselves on an improvement trajectory to achieve targets referenced to common international goals.

• Credible and comparable results: PISA requires participating countries to follow common technical, institutional and administrative standards for the assessment.

• An opportunity to help build institutional capacity. Countries are responsible for overseeing PISA implementation; therefore, participation in PISA can also drive improvements in institutions. This capacity building could be implemented directly with development partners in a way that creates spill-over benefits to other parts of the educational sector."

PISA-D is an OECD strategy for the post-2015 period. 2015 marked the deadline for two major world initiatives: Education for All (EFA, 1990-2000-2015) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG, 2000-2015). In 2015, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and the 2030 Agenda were approved.

International awareness around a "global learning crisis" - millions of children worldwide not learning to read, write and calculate after attending school for four years or more - acknowledges for the first time the precariousness of learning in primary schools in most "developing countries" and is contributing to finally place learning as an explicit and fundamental goal. Unfortunately, that goes also with an emphasis on learning assessment starting now in pre-primary education. In that context, OECD/PISA appear as key global partners.

"Developing a universal measure of educational success" is one of eleven areas in which OECD plans to contribute to the 2030 Agenda (Beyond the MDGs: Towards an OECD contribution to the post-2015 agenda). In other words: the aim is to establish ONE definition of 'educational success' and ONE way to measure it worldwide, in the North and in the South. PISA-D is the strategy and the instrument to incorporate that "other part of the world" still absent from the global education evaluation race.

A big player and evaluation enthusiast such as the World Bank blesses global learning benchmarks and recommends them especially for "developing countries."

"In a global economy the primary benchmark for success is no longer improvement by national standards, but the best-performing education systems internationally. (Having said that, it’s also important for countries to set and measure learning goals that reflect their own national priorities and values.) This usually means participating in one of the many international assessment programs that test the math, science, problem solving or other competencies of students at the same grade or age level in different education systems around the world. Countries – particularly developing and emerging economies – may feel at a disadvantage in this global benchmarking, but should keep in mind that steady improvement over time is the important thing." (Education: Measuring for Success in Today’s World, 9 May 2014).

Issues that may need more focused attention and discussion

The following issues were mentioned in "The PISA for Development initiative moves forward: Have my wishes been fulfilled?" (2 Feb. 2015):

- A test with questions that 15-year-olds in emerging and developing economies can actually answer.

The OECD’s original plan was to draw solely on their existing pool of 337 PISA questions to create the PISA for Development test. One and a half year later, the OECD started to explore using questions from other regional and international assessments to supplement the PISA questions. The idea is to make sure 15-year-olds in emerging and developing countries can actually answer.

- A test that emerging and developing economies can afford.

The PISA for Development pilot is about twice as expensive as the regular PISA exercise, since it involves lots of developmental work, in an effort to adapt the questionnaires to the contexts of these countries and to develop a methodology to include out-of-school students. Donors such as the World Bank have provided financial support to facilitate countries' participation. It is essential, however, to take a hard look at the long-term sustainability of PISA for Development, if countries are expected to cover the costs on their own.

- A test that contributes to learning for all.

The pilot faced the challenge of collecting learning data on the entire 15-year-old cohort in a country, including those who are out of school. This may include youth who never went to school or who are semi-literate.

PISA-D is administered both in and outside of school. Eight countries – Bhutan, Cambodia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Senegal and Zambia – participated in the school-based implementation of PISA-D, which was carried out from 2015 to 2018. Six countries administered the out-of-school assessment: Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Senegal and Zambia.

PISA-D countries can compare their results to the more than 80 countries participating in PISA.

PISA-D results

PISA-D results were released by OECD on 11 December, 2018, in Quito. Results included seven countries: Cambodia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Senegal and Zambia. Bhutan is not included since it arrived late.

Cambodia
Ecuador
Guatemala
Honduras
Paraguay
Senegal
Zambia
oe.cd/il/PISA4Dev

Stop PISA! ▸ ¡Paren PISA!

Photo taken from: A Teacher's Journey to Life

Nearly 100 educationalists sent a letter to Andreas Schleicher, director of the PISA international programme, expressing concerns about the PISA tests, offering a number of suggestions, and asking to stop the next PISA cycle. The letter was published in The Guardian (6 May 2014). I decided to translate it into Spanish (see the letter below, English and Spanish). One more expression of the growing concerns about PISA worldwide, in countries in the North and in the South.

Most of the educationalists and specialists signing this letter come from the US - and from a few other countries such as New Zealand, Australia, UK, Canada, Sweden, Ireland; many of their concerns and proposals reflect that perspective, even if they also express concern about "developing" countries being compared with "first world" countries. Dissatisfaction and critical analyses grow also among educationalists in other parts of the world, including those from "developing countries" - as we are called - and in languages different from English.

The US perspective has special interest given: US influence in the world (in education and otherwise); the traditional extensive use of standardized tests and the growing movement against standardized testing in that country; and the fact that multinational companies now working with/for PISA - such as Pearson - are US-based.

Andreas Schleicher replied to the letter two days later (The Guardian, 8 May 2014). I also translated the letter into Spanish. See below.

We include at the bottom a few texts on PISA published in this blog.

Cerca de 100 educadores enviaron una carta a Andreas Schleicher, director del programa internacional PISA de la OCDE, expresando preocupación en torno a las pruebas PISA, dando sugerencias y pidiendo parar el próximo ciclo de PISA. La carta apareció publicada en The Guardian (6 Mayo 2014). Decidí traducir la carta al español (abajo el texto, español e inglés). Una expresión más de la creciente crítica a PISA en el mundo, tanto en los países del Norte como en los del Sur.

La mayoría de los signatarios de la carta provienen de EE.UU. y de unos pocos países tales como Nueva Zelanda, Australia, Reino Unido, Canadá, Suecia, Irlanda. Muchas de sus preocupaciones y propuestas reflejan esa perspectiva, si bien también se muestran preocupados con que los "países en desarrollo" sean comparados con los "países del primer mundo". La insatisfacción y los análisis críticos se multiplican también entre los educadores y especialistas en los "países en desarrollo" - como nos llaman - y en lenguas distintas del inglés.

La perspectiva estadounidense tiene especial interés dada: la influencia de EE.UU. en el mundo (en educación y en todo lo demás); el uso extendido de pruebas estandarizadas y el creciente movimiento en contra de éstas en ese país; el hecho de que compañías multinacionales que hoy trabajan con/para PISA - y cuya vinculación con PISA viene siendo denunciada, como es el caso de Pearson - están en EE.UU.

La carta de respuesta de Andreas Schleicher, publicada en The Guardian dos días después (8 mayo 2014), también la hemos traducido al español y consta abajo.

Incluimos al pie algunos textos relacionados con PISA publicados en este blog.

Estimado Dr Schleicher:

Le escribimos en su calidad de director del Programme of International Student Assessment - PISA (Programa para la Evaluación de los Estudiantes) de la OCDE (Organización para el Desarrollo y la Cooperación Internacional). Ahora en su décimotercer año, la prueba PISA es conocida en todo el mundo como un instrumento para rankear a los países tanto de la OCDE como de fuera de la OCDE (más de 60 países, según el último recuento) a partir de la medición del logro académico de estudiantes de 15 años en matemáticas, ciencias y lectura. Administrada cada 3 años, los resultados de PISA son esperados con ansias por gobiernos, ministros de educación y comités editoriales de los diarios, y son citados con autoridad en incontables informes de política. Han empezado a influenciar profundamente las prácticas educativas en muchos países. Como resultado de PISA, los países están reformando sus sistemas educativos en la esperanza de mejorar sus ránkings. La falta de progreso en PISA ha llevado a declarar crisis, a "PISA shocks" en muchos países, junto a pedidos de renuncia y reformas de largo aliento según los preceptos de PISA.

Estamos francamente preocupados por las consecuencias negativas de los ránkings de PISA. Estas son algunas de nuestras preocupaciones:

• Si bien las pruebas estandarizadas vienen siendo utilizadas por décadas (a pesar de serias reservas sobre su validez y confiabilidad), PISA ha contribuido a escalar dichas pruebas y ha incrementado dramáticamente la confianza en mediciones cuantitativas. Por ejemplo, en los Estados Unidos PISA ha sido invocada para justificar el reciente programa "Race to the Top", que ha aumentado el uso de pruebas estandarizadas para la evaluación de los estudiantes, los profesores y los administradores, las cuales rankean y categorizan a estudiantes, profesores y administradores de acuerdo a los resultados de pruebas ampliamente conocidas por su imperfección (ver, por ejemplo, el declive inexplicado de Finlandia entre los primeros lugares de la tabla de PISA).

• En términos de política educativa, PISA, con su ciclo trianual de evaluación, ha ocasionado un viraje en la atención hacia soluciones de corto plazo destinados a ayudar a los países a escalar rápidamente en los ránkings, pese a que la investigacion muestra que los cambios duraderos en las prácticas educativas toman décadas - no unos pocos años - para mostrar resultados. Por ejemplo, sabemos que el estatus de los docentes y el prestigio de la docencia como profesión tienen gran influencia en la calidad de la enseñanza, pero que dicho estatus varía fuertemente entre culturas y que no es fácilmente influenciable por políticas de corto plazo.

• Al enfatizar un reducido conjunto de aspectos susceptibles de ser medidos en educación, PISA distrae la atención de los objetivos educativos menos susceptibles de ser medidos o imposibles de ser medidos, tales como el desarrollo físico, moral, cívico y artístico, reduciendo de este modo peligrosamente nuestra imaginación colectiva en torno a lo que es o debería ser la educación.

• En tanto organismo de desarrollo económico, la OCDE está naturalmente sesgada a favor del papel económico de las escuelas públicas [estatales]. Pero preparar a los y las jóvenes para el empleo no es la única - ni siquiera la más importante - meta de la educación pública, la cual debe preparar a los estudiantes para participar en formas de autogobierno democrático, en acciones morales y en una vida de desarrollo, crecimiento y bienestar personales.

• A diferencia de organizaciones de Naciones Unidas tales como UNESCO o UNICEF que tienen mandatos claros y legítimos para mejorar la educación y las vidas de los niños en todo el mundo, la OCDE no tiene tal mandato. Tampoco existen a la fecha mecanismos para una efectiva participación democrática en sus procesos de toma de decisión en torno a la educación.

• Para sacar adelante PISA y sus servicios de seguimiento, la OCDE ha acogido "alianzas público-privadas" y se ha aliado con compañías multinacionales con fines de lucro listas para ganar financieramente de los déficits - reales o percibidos - destapados por PISA. Algunas de estas compañías proveen servicios educativos a escuelas y distritos educativos de Estados Unidos, de manera masiva y con fines de lucro, y tienen planes para desarrollar una educación privada con fines de lucro en Africa, donde la OCDE está planeando introducir PISA.

• Finalmente y muy importante: el nuevo régimen de PISA, con su ciclo continuo de medición global, hace daño a nuestros niños y empobrece nuestras aulas, dado que inevitablemente implica más y más largas baterías de pruebas de respuesta múltiple y menos autonomía para los docentes. De este modo, PISA ha aumentado aún más el ya alto nivel de estrés en las escuelas, lo que pone en peligro el bienestar de los estudiantes y de los docentes.

Todo esto está en conflicto abierto con los principios ampliamente aceptados de una práctica educativa democrática:

- Ninguna reforma debe basarse en una sola medición de calidad.
- Ninguna reforma debe ignorar el importante papel de los factores no-educativos, entre los cuales la inequidad socio-económica es esencial. En muchos países, incluido Estados Unidos, la inequidad ha incrementado dramáticamente en los últimos 15 años, lo que explica la brecha creciente en términos educativos entre los ricos y los pobres, brecha que las reformas educativas, no importa cuán sofisticadas, no pueden revertir.
- Una organización como la OCDE, que afecta de manera profunda la vida de nuestras comunidades, debería estar abierta a una rendición de cuentas democrática a miembros de esas comunidades.

Escribimos no solo para destacar déficits y problemas. Querríamos también ofrecer ideas y sugerencias constructivas que puedan aliviar las preocupaciones indicadas. Aunque incompletas, ellas ilustran cómo puede mejorarse el aprendizaje sin los efectos negativos mencionados:

1 Desarrollar alternativas a las tablas de rankings: explorar modos más significativos y menos sensacionalistas/sensacionalizables de informar sobre los resultados de las evaluaciones. Por ejemplo: comparar países en desarrollo - en los que los jóvenes de 15 años son regularmente atraídos hacia el trabajo infantil - con países del primer mundo no hace sentido ni en el plano educativo ni en el plano político, y abre la puerta para acusar a la OCDE de colonialismo educativo.

2 Abrir espacio a la participación de un amplio espectro de actores: al momento, los grupos con mayor influencia sobre el qué y el cómo de la evaluación de aprendizajes a nivel internacional son psicométricos, estadísticos y economistas. Ellos deben ciertamente sentarse a la mesa, pero también otros grupos: padres de familia, educadores, administradores, líderes comunitarios, estudiantes, así como académicos de disciplinas como antropología, sociología, historia, filosofía, lingüística, artes y humanidades. Qué y cómo evaluar la educación de los estudiantes de 15 años de edad debería ser materia de discusión que involucre a todos estos grupos a nivel local, nacional e internacional.

3 Incluir a organizaciones nacionales e internacionales en la formulación de métodos y estándares de evaluación cuya misión va más allá de los aspectos económicos de la educación pública y que conciernen a la salud, el desarrollo humano, el bienestar y la felicidad de los estudiantes y los docentes. Esto incluiría a las organizaciones mencionadas de Naciones Unidas así como a asociaciones de docentes, de padres de familia, de administradores, para mencionar algunas.

4 Publicar los costos directos e indirectos de administrar PISA, de modo que quienes pagan impuestos en los países miembros puedan visualizar alternativas de uso de los millones de dólares que se gastan en estas pruebas y puedan determinar si desean continuar participando en ellas.

5 Dar la bienvenida a la participación de equipos internacionales independientes que monitoreen y observen la administración de PISA desde la concepción hasta la ejecución, de modo que las preguntas sobre formato de las pruebas y sobre los procedimientos estadísticos y de categorización puedan ser sopesados cabalmente, en respuesta a acusaciones de sesgos o de comparaciones injustas.

6 Dar información detallada sobre el papel de compañías privadas con fines de lucro en la preparación, ejecución y seguimiento de las evaluaciones trianuales de PISA, a fin de evitar la apariencia o la realidad de conflictos de interés.

7 Desacelerar la juggernaut (*fuerza destructora) de la evaluación. A fin de ganar tiempo y discutir los temas mencionados a nivel local, nacional e internacional, consideren saltarse el siguiente ciclo de PISA. Esto daría tiempo para incorporar el aprendizaje colectivo - que resultará de las deliberaciones sugeridas - en el nuevo y mejorado modelo de evaluación.

Asumimos que los expertos de la OCDE en PISA están motivados por un deseo sincero de mejorar la educación. Pero nos cuesta entender cómo su organización se ha convertido en el árbitro global de los medios y fines de la educación en el mundo. El foco estrecho con que la OCDE aborda las pruebas estandarizadas corre el riesgo de convertir el aprendizaje en tedio y de matar el placer de aprender. PISA ha llevado a muchos gobiernos a una competencia internacional por los puntajes y la OCDE ha asumido el poder de configurar la política educativa alrededor del mundo, sin debate acerca de la necesidad o de las limitaciones de las metas de la OCDE. Nos preocupa profundamente que medir una gran variedad de tradiciones y culturas educativas usando una única vara, estrecha y sesgada, pueda, al final, causar un daño irreparable a nuestras escuelas y a nuestros estudiantes.

Atentamente,

Andrews, Paul Professor of Mathematics Education, Stockholm University
Atkinson, Lori New York State Allies for Public Education
Ball, Stephen J Karl Mannheim Professor of Sociology of Education, Institute of Education, University of London
Barber, Melissa Parents Against High Stakes Testing
Beckett, Lori Winifred Mercier Professor of Teacher Education, Leeds Metropolitan University
Berardi, Jillaine Linden Avenue Middle School, Assistant Principal
Berliner, David Regents Professor of Education at Arizona State University, USA
Bloom, Elizabeth EdD Associate Professor of Education, Hartwick College
Boudet, Danielle Oneonta Area for Public Education
Boland, Neil Senior lecturer, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand
Burris, Carol Principal and former Teacher of the Year
Cauthen, Nancy PhD Change the Stakes, NYS Allies for Public Education, USA
Cerrone, Chris Testing Hurts Kids; NYS Allies for Public Education, USA
Ciaran, Sugrue Professor, Head of School, School of Education, University College Dublin
Deutermann, Jeanette Founder Long Island Opt Out, Co-founder NYS Allies for Public Education, USA
Devine, Nesta Associate Professor, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
Dodge, Arnie Chair, Department of Educational Leadership, Long Island University, USA
Dodge, Judith Author, Educational Consultant
Farley, Tim Principal, Ichabod Crane School; New York State Allies for Public Education, USA
Fellicello, Stacia Principal, Chambers Elementary School
Fleming, Mary Lecturer, School of Education, National University of Ireland, Galway
Fransson, Göran Associate Professor of Education, University of Gävle, Sweden
Giroux, Henry Professor of English and Cultural Studies, McMaster University
Glass, Gene Senior Researcher, National Education Policy Center, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Glynn, Kevin Educator, co-founder of Lace to the Top
Goldstein, Harvey Professor of Social Statistics, University of Bristol
Gorlewski, David Director, Educational Leadership Doctoral Program, D'Youville College
Gorlewski, Julie PhD, Assistant Professor, State University of New York at New Paltz, USA
Gowie, Cheryl Professor of Education, Siena College
Greene, Kiersten Assistant Professor of Literacy, State University of New York at New Paltz, USA
Haimson, Leonie Parent Advocate and Director of "Class Size Matters"
Heinz, Manuela Director of Teaching Practice, School of Education, National University of Ireland Galway
Hughes, Michelle Principal, High Meadows Independent School
Jury, Mark Chair, Education Department, Siena College
Kahn, Hudson Valley Against Common Core
Kayden, Michelle Linden Avenue Middle School Red Hook, New York, USA
Kempf, Arlo Program Coordinator of School and Society, OISE, University of Toronto
Kilfoyle, Marla NBCT, General Manager of BATs
Labaree, David Professor of Education, Stanford University
Leonardatos, Harry Principal, high school, Clarkstown, New York, USA
MacBeath, John Professor Emeritus, Director of Leadership for Learning, University of Cambridge
McLaren, Peter Distinguished Professor, Chapman University, USA
McNair, Jessica Co-founder Opt-Out CNY, parent member NYS Allies for Public Education, USA
Meyer, Heinz-Dieter Associate Professor, Education Governance & Policy, State University of New York (Albany), USA
Meyer, Tom Associate Professor of Secondary Education, State University of New York at New Paltz, USA
Millham, Rosemary PhD Science Coordinator, Master Teacher Campus Director, SUNY New Paltz, USA
Millham, Rosemary Science Coordinator/Assistant Professor, Master Teacher Campus Director, State University of New York, New Paltz, USA
Oliveira Andreotti Vanessa Canada Research Chair in Race, Inequality, and Global Change, University of British Columbia
Sperry, Carol Emerita, Millersville University, Pennsylvania, USA
Mitchell, Ken Lower Hudson Valley Superintendents Council
Mucher, Stephen Director, Bard Master of Arts in Teaching Program, Los Angeles, USA
Tuck, Eve Assistant Professor, Coordinator of Native American Studies, State University of New York at New Paltz, USA
Naison, Mark Professor of African American Studies and History, Fordham University; Co-Founder, Badass Teachers Association
Nielsen, Kris Author, Children of the Core
Noddings, Nel Professor (emerita) Philosophy of Education, Stanford University, USA
Noguera, Pedro Peter L. Agnew Professor of Education, New York University, USA
Nunez, Isabel Associate Professor, Concordia University, Chicago, USA
Pallas, Aaron Arthur I Gates Professor of Sociology and Education, Columbia University, USA
Peters, Michael Professor, University of Waikato, Honorary Fellow, Royal Society New Zealand
Pugh, Nigel Principal, Richard R Green High School of Teaching, New York City, USA
Ravitch, Diane Research Professor, New York University, USA
Rivera-Wilson Jerusalem Senior Faculty Associate and Director of Clinical Training and Field Experiences, University at Albany, USA
Roberts, Peter Professor, School of Educational Studies and Leadership, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Rougle, Eija Instructor, State University of New York, Albany, USA
Rudley, Lisa Director: Education Policy-Autism Action Network
Saltzman, Janet Science Chair, Physics Teacher, Red Hook High School
Schniedewind, Nancy Professor of Education, State University of New York, New Paltz, USA
Silverberg, Ruth Associate Professor, College of Staten Island, City University of New York, USA
Sperry, Carol Professor of Education, Emerita, Millersville University
St. John, Edward Algo D. Henderson Collegiate Professor, University of Michigan, USA
Suzuki, Daiyu Teachers College at Columbia University, USA
Swaffield, Sue Senior Lecturer, Educational Leadership and School Improvement, University of Cambridge
Tanis, Bianca Parent Member: ReThinking Testing
Thomas, Paul Associate Professor of Education, Furman University
Thrupp, Martin Professor of Education, University of Waikato, New Zealand
Tobin, KT Founding member, ReThinking Testing
Tomlinson, Sally Emeritus Professor, Goldsmiths College, University of London; Senior Research Fellow, Department of Education, Oxford University
Tuck, Eve Coordinator of Native American Studies, State University of New York at New Paltz, USA
VanSlyke-Briggs Kjersti Associate Professor, State University of New York, Oneonta, USA
Wilson, Elaine Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge
Wrigley, Terry Honorary senior research fellow, University of Ballarat, Australia
Zahedi, Katie Principal, Linden Ave Middle School, Red Hook, New York, USA
Zhao, Yong Professor of Education, Presidential Chair, University of Oregon, USA

************

Respuesta de Andreas Schleicher:

El programa PISA no tiene que ver con soluciones de corto plazo

La carta del Dr Heinz-Dieter Meyer y otros académicos (OECD and Pisa tests are damaging education worldwide – academics, theguardian.com, 6 May) hace una serie de acusaciones falsas sobre el programa PISA de la OCDE. No hay nada que sugiera que PISA u otras comparaciones internacionales hayan ocasionado un viraje hacia "soluciones de corto plazo" en la política educativa. Al contrario: al abrir la perspectiva a un conjunto más amplio de opciones que surgen de las comparaciones internacionales, PISA ha provisto muchas oportunidades para un diseño más estratégico de la política. También ha creado importantes oportunidades para que los tomadores de decisiones y otros actores colaboren entre sí. Un ejemplo es la Cumbre Internacional de la Profesión Docente, en la que los ministros se encontraron con líderes sindicales para discutir cómo elevar el estatus de la profesión docente. No menos importante, si bien es cierto que algunas reformas toman tiempo para mostrar resultados: varios países han mostrado en efecto que puede darse un rápido progreso en el corto plazo, como por ejemplo Polonia, Alemania y otros que han mostrado progreso sostenido y observable cada tres años.

Asimismo, no existen "alianzas público-privadas" u otras "alianzas" en PISA del tipo que sugiere el Dr Meyer. Todo el trabajo relacionado con el desarrollo, ejecución e información de PISA se realiza bajo la sola responsabilidad de la OCDE, bajo la guía de la junta directiva de PISA. La OCDE, por supuesto, contrata servicios técnicos específicos con individuos, instituciones o compañías. Cuando lo hace, estos individuos, instituciones o compañías son nombrados por la OCDE, siguiendo un llamado abierto, transparente y público en la presentación de propuestas. Este proceso transparente y abierto asegura que cada tarea se realice por aquellas entidades que demuestran estar mejor calificadas y que proveen el mejor valor por el dinero invertido. Ningún académico individualmente, institución o compañía tiene ventaja en esto pues los resultados del trabajo de PISA se hacen públicos.

Más aún, en el artículo de Peter Wilby (Pisa league tables killing 'joy of learning', 6 May) se afirma que Pearson supervisa la evaluación de PISA 2015, lo que no es el caso. Pearson fue uno de varios contratados a través de un proceso competitivo para desarrollar y ejecutar PISA 2015. El contrato con Pearson para desarrollar el marco de la evaluación ya se completó y ha llegado a su fin.

Andreas Schleicher
Director de Educación encargado, OCDE

*****************

Dear Dr Schleicher,

We write to you in your capacity as OECD's (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) director of the Programme of International Student Assessment (Pisa). Now in its 13th year, Pisa is known around the world as an instrument to rank OECD and non-OECD countries (60-plus at last count) according to a measure of academic achievement of 15-year-old students in mathematics, science, and reading. Administered every three years, Pisa results are anxiously awaited by governments, education ministers, and the editorial boards of newspapers, and are cited authoritatively in countless policy reports. They have begun to deeply influence educational practices in many countries. As a result of Pisa, countries are overhauling their education systems in the hopes of improving their rankings. Lack of progress on Pisa has led to declarations of crisis and "Pisa shock" in many countries, followed by calls for resignations, and far-reaching reforms according to Pisa precepts.

We are frankly concerned about the negative consequences of the Pisa rankings. These are some of our concerns:

• While standardised testing has been used in many nations for decades (despite serious reservations about its validity and reliability), Pisa has contributed to an escalation in such testing and a dramatically increased reliance on quantitative measures. For example, in the US, Pisa has been invoked as a major justification for the recent "Race to the Top" programme, which has increased the use of standardised testing for student-, teacher-, and administrator evaluations, which rank and label students, as well as teachers and administrators according to the results of tests widely known to be imperfect (see, for example, Finland's unexplained decline from the top of the Pisa table).

• In education policy, Pisa, with its three-year assessment cycle, has caused a shift of attention to short-term fixes designed to help a country quickly climb the rankings, despite research showing that enduring changes in education practice take decades, not a few years, to come to fruition. For example, we know that the status of teachers and the prestige of teaching as a profession have a strong influence on the quality of instruction, but that status varies strongly across cultures and is not easily influenced by short-term policy.

• By emphasising a narrow range of measurable aspects of education, Pisa takes attention away from the less measurable or immeasurable educational objectives like physical, moral, civic and artistic development, thereby dangerously narrowing our collective imagination regarding what education is and ought to be about.

• As an organisation of economic development, OECD is naturally biased in favour of the economic role of public [state] schools. But preparing young men and women for gainful employment is not the only, and not even the main goal of public education, which has to prepare students for participation in democratic self-government, moral action and a life of personal development, growth and wellbeing.

• Unlike United Nations (UN) organisations such as UNESCO or UNICEF that have clear and legitimate mandates to improve education and the lives of children around the world, OECD has no such mandate. Nor are there, at present, mechanisms of effective democratic participation in its education decision-making process.

• To carry out Pisa and a host of follow-up services, OECD has embraced "public-private partnerships" and entered into alliances with multi-national for-profit companies, which stand to gain financially from any deficits—real or perceived—unearthed by Pisa. Some of these companies provide educational services to American schools and school districts on a massive, for-profit basis, while also pursuing plans to develop for-profit elementary education in Africa, where OECD is now planning to introduce the Pisa programme.

• Finally, and most importantly: the new Pisa regime, with its continuous cycle of global testing, harms our children and impoverishes our classrooms, as it inevitably involves more and longer batteries of multiple-choice testing, more scripted "vendor"-made lessons, and less autonomy for teachers. In this way Pisa has further increased the already high stress level in schools, which endangers the wellbeing of students and teachers.

These developments are in overt conflict with widely accepted principles of good educational and democratic practice:

• No reform of any consequence should be based on a single narrow measure of quality.
• No reform of any consequence should ignore the important role of non-educational factors, among which a nation's socio-economic inequality is paramount. In many countries, including the US, inequality has dramatically increased over the past 15 years, explaining the widening educational gap between rich and poor which education reforms, no matter how sophisticated, are unlikely to redress.
• An organisation like OECD, as any organisation that deeply affects the life of our communities, should be open to democratic accountability by members of those communities.

We are writing not only to point out deficits and problems. We would also like to offer constructive ideas and suggestions that may help to alleviate the above mentioned concerns. While in no way complete, they illustrate how learning could be improved without the above mentioned negative effects:

1 Develop alternatives to league tables: explore more meaningful and less easily sensationalised ways of reporting assessment outcomes. For example, comparing developing countries, where 15-year-olds are regularly drafted into child labour, with first-world countries makes neither educational nor political sense and opens OECD up for charges of educational colonialism.

2 Make room for participation by the full range of relevant constituents and scholarship: to date, the groups with greatest influence on what and how international learning is assessed are psychometricians, statisticians, and economists. They certainly deserve a seat at the table, but so do many other groups: parents, educators, administrators, community leaders, students, as well as scholars from disciplines like anthropology, sociology, history, philosophy, linguistics, as well as the arts and humanities. What and how we assess the education of 15-year-old students should be subject to discussions involving all these groups at local, national, and international levels.

3 Include national and international organisations in the formulation of assessment methods and standards whose mission goes beyond the economic aspect of public education and which are concerned with the health, human development, wellbeing and happiness of students and teachers. This would include the above mentioned United Nations organisations, as well as teacher, parent, and administrator associations, to name a few.

4 Publish the direct and indirect costs of administering Pisa so that taxpayers in member countries can gauge alternative uses of the millions of dollars spent on these tests and determine if they want to continue their participation in it.

5 Welcome oversight by independent international monitoring teams which can observe the administration of Pisa from the conception to the execution, so that questions about test format and statistical and scoring procedures can be weighed fairly against charges of bias or unfair comparisons.

6 Provide detailed accounts regarding the role of private, for-profit companies in the preparation, execution, and follow-up to the tri-annual Pisa assessments to avoid the appearance or reality of conflicts of interest.

7 Slow down the testing juggernaut. To gain time to discuss the issues mentioned here at local, national, and international levels, consider skipping the next Pisa cycle. This would give time to incorporate the collective learning that will result from the suggested deliberations in a new and improved assessment model.

We assume that OECD's Pisa experts are motivated by a sincere desire to improve education. But we fail to understand how your organisation has become the global arbiter of the means and ends of education around the world. OECD's narrow focus on standardised testing risks turning learning into drudgery and killing the joy of learning. As Pisa has led many governments into an international competition for higher test scores, OECD has assumed the power to shape education policy around the world, with no debate about the necessity or limitations of OECD's goals. We are deeply concerned that measuring a great diversity of educational traditions and cultures using a single, narrow, biased yardstick could, in the end, do irreparable harm to our schools and our students.

Sincerely,

Andrews, Paul Professor of Mathematics Education, Stockholm University
Atkinson, Lori New York State Allies for Public Education
Ball, Stephen J Karl Mannheim Professor of Sociology of Education, Institute of Education, University of London
Barber, Melissa Parents Against High Stakes Testing
Beckett, Lori Winifred Mercier Professor of Teacher Education, Leeds Metropolitan University
Berardi, Jillaine Linden Avenue Middle School, Assistant Principal
Berliner, David Regents Professor of Education at Arizona State University
Bloom, Elizabeth EdD Associate Professor of Education, Hartwick College
Boudet, Danielle Oneonta Area for Public Education
Boland, Neil Senior lecturer, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand
Burris, Carol Principal and former Teacher of the Year
Cauthen, Nancy PhD Change the Stakes, NYS Allies for Public Education
Cerrone, Chris Testing Hurts Kids; NYS Allies for Public Education
Ciaran, Sugrue Professor, Head of School, School of Education, University College Dublin
Deutermann, Jeanette Founder Long Island Opt Out, Co-founder NYS Allies for Public Education
Devine, Nesta Associate Professor, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
Dodge, Arnie Chair, Department of Educational Leadership, Long Island University
Dodge, Judith Author, Educational Consultant
Farley, Tim Principal, Ichabod Crane School; New York State Allies for Public Education
Fellicello, Stacia Principal, Chambers Elementary School
Fleming, Mary Lecturer, School of Education, National University of Ireland, Galway
Fransson, Göran Associate Professor of Education, University of Gävle, Sweden
Giroux, Henry Professor of English and Cultural Studies, McMaster University
Glass, Gene Senior Researcher, National Education Policy Center, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Glynn, Kevin Educator, co-founder of Lace to the Top
Goldstein, Harvey Professor of Social Statistics, University of Bristol
Gorlewski, David Director, Educational Leadership Doctoral Program, D'Youville College
Gorlewski, Julie PhD, Assistant Professor, State University of New York at New Paltz
Gowie, Cheryl Professor of Education, Siena College
Greene, Kiersten Assistant Professor of Literacy, State University of New York at New Paltz
Haimson, Leonie Parent Advocate and Director of "Class Size Matters"
Heinz, Manuela Director of Teaching Practice, School of Education, National University of Ireland Galway
Hughes, Michelle Principal, High Meadows Independent School
Jury, Mark Chair, Education Department, Siena College
Kahn, Hudson Valley Against Common Core
Kayden, Michelle Linden Avenue Middle School Red Hook, New York
Kempf, Arlo Program Coordinator of School and Society, OISE, University of Toronto
Kilfoyle, Marla NBCT, General Manager of BATs
Labaree, David Professor of Education, Stanford University
Leonardatos, Harry Principal, high school, Clarkstown, New York
MacBeath, John Professor Emeritus, Director of Leadership for Learning, University of Cambridge
McLaren, Peter Distinguished Professor, Chapman University
McNair, Jessica Co-founder Opt-Out CNY, parent member NYS Allies for Public Education
Meyer, Heinz-Dieter Associate Professor, Education Governance & Policy, State University of New York (Albany)
Meyer, Tom Associate Professor of Secondary Education, State University of New York at New Paltz
Millham, Rosemary PhD Science Coordinator, Master Teacher Campus Director, SUNY New Paltz
Millham, Rosemary Science Coordinator/Assistant Professor, Master Teacher Campus Director, State University of New York, New Paltz
Oliveira Andreotti Vanessa Canada Research Chair in Race, Inequality, and Global Change, University of British Columbia
Sperry, Carol Emerita, Millersville University, Pennsylvania
Mitchell, Ken Lower Hudson Valley Superintendents Council
Mucher, Stephen Director, Bard Master of Arts in Teaching Program, Los Angeles
Tuck, Eve Assistant Professor, Coordinator of Native American Studies, State University of New York at New Paltz
Naison, Mark Professor of African American Studies and History, Fordham University; Co-Founder, Badass Teachers Association
Nielsen, Kris Author, Children of the Core
Noddings, Nel Professor (emerita) Philosophy of Education, Stanford University
Noguera, Pedro Peter L. Agnew Professor of Education, New York University
Nunez, Isabel Associate Professor, Concordia University, Chicago
Pallas, Aaron Arthur I Gates Professor of Sociology and Education, Columbia University
Peters, Michael Professor, University of Waikato, Honorary Fellow, Royal Society New Zealand
Pugh, Nigel Principal, Richard R Green High School of Teaching, New York City
Ravitch, Diane Research Professor, New York University
Rivera-Wilson Jerusalem Senior Faculty Associate and Director of Clinical Training and Field Experiences, University at Albany
Roberts, Peter Professor, School of Educational Studies and Leadership, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Rougle, Eija Instructor, State University of New York, Albany
Rudley, Lisa Director: Education Policy-Autism Action Network
Saltzman, Janet Science Chair, Physics Teacher, Red Hook High School
Schniedewind, Nancy Professor of Education, State University of New York, New Paltz
Silverberg, Ruth Associate Professor, College of Staten Island, City University of New York
Sperry, Carol Professor of Education, Emerita, Millersville University
St. John, Edward Algo D. Henderson Collegiate Professor, University of Michigan
Suzuki, Daiyu Teachers College at Columbia University
Swaffield, Sue Senior Lecturer, Educational Leadership and School Improvement, University of Cambridge
Tanis, Bianca Parent Member: ReThinking Testing
Thomas, Paul Associate Professor of Education, Furman University
Thrupp, Martin Professor of Education, University of Waikato, New Zealand
Tobin, KT Founding member, ReThinking Testing
Tomlinson, Sally Emeritus Professor, Goldsmiths College, University of London; Senior Research Fellow, Department of Education, Oxford University
Tuck, Eve Coordinator of Native American Studies, State University of New York at New Paltz
VanSlyke-Briggs Kjersti Associate Professor, State University of New York, Oneonta
Wilson, Elaine Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge
Wrigley, Terry Honorary senior research fellow, University of Ballarat, Australia
Zahedi, Katie Principal, Linden Ave Middle School, Red Hook, New York
Zhao, Yong Professor of Education, Presidential Chair, University of Oregon

Algunos textos sobre PISA en este blog / Some texts on PISA in this blog

» PISA ¿para qué?
» Repensando el entusiasmo evaluador y las pruebas
» Pruebas PISA: Seis conclusiones y una pregunta
» Un GERmen afecta a los sistemas escolares (Pasi Sahlberg, translated into Spanish, with introduction)
» Glosario minimo sobre la educación en Finlandia
» Take the Test!
» Una prueba no prueba nada (en proceso)
» Los Ministros del MERCOSUR y las pruebas PISA
» Sobre evaluación en educación ▸ On Evaluation in Education

Para saber más / To learn more

» “How Does PISA Put the World at Risk”, Dr. Yong Zhao
» Lo que oculta el informe Pisa, Carlos Manuel Sánchez, XL Semanal, 27 abril 2014
» Informe PISA: Pobre Finlandia, Enrique Bethencourt, 2 abril 2014.
» Bárbara Figueroa critica la Prueba PISA porque mide asuntos 'ajenos a la realidad educativa chilena', Terra, 3 abril 2014
» Las tiranías del informe PISA, El País, 8 mayo 2014

OTRAƎDUCACION

Recordando al Conejo - Fernando Velasco Abad

Latin America oversatisfied with public education

Now comes PISA for 'developing countries' (PISA-D)

Stop PISA! ▸ ¡Paren PISA!

LinkWithin