Educational Policy Change

Introduction

Modernization and rapid globalization are posing new and demanding challenges to people and to society as a whole. According to Rautalin et al. (2019), the increasing diversity and interconnection of people and the availability of large amounts of information are just a few of the factors that contribute to the demanding challenges. In the modern world, people compete for jobs both locally and internationally. Highly-paid employees in developed countries are competing directly with people with the same wages, skills, and qualifications in developing countries. In this context, governments must create education systems that are accessible to everyone and not just the favored few (Araujo et al., 2017). This is an effort that will promote global, and quality competition, all people, irrespective of their classes will have a fair chance to acquire the right kind of education and succeed. As highlighted by Niemann et al. (2017), countries vary substantially in the levels of student reading skills. This applies even in the wealthiest countries in the world. Within countries, the reading skills of students vary from one school to the other. In countries with low levels of inequalities, there are very high levels of reading skills, and the opposite is true. These are finding that were recorded by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2000 in an assessment of the reading skills of pupils in their fourth year of primary school, and it is usually conducted every five years (Sellar & Lingard, 2018).

PISA, as defined by Rautalin et al. (2019), refers to an assessment of knowledge and life skills of a 15-year old youth which is conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (p.6). The aim of this assessment is to emphasize science, mathematics, and reading skills that students need in their daily lives when they pursue post-secondary education or before they enter the employment field. It is important to note that the role of large-scale international studies for informing educational policy has relied on two main approaches. The first approach focuses on collecting data on the most salient family, schools, and classroom factors that explain the achievement of a student (Steiner-Khamsi & Waldow, 2018). Even though factors vary among countries, the results of this approach are important in supporting national educational policies. The second approach focus on comparing the results of one country with those of other countries. Here, factors are grouped in terms of accountability, school governance, school resources, and teaching practices. This paper aims to discuss the policy changes in top-tiered participating countries in PISA after their 2015 assessment. It will compare the policy changes between some countries and explain how changes in policy influenced their results in a good or a bad way.

Literature Review

Overview of PISA

All through to the end of the 1990s, the comparisons made by OECD on the outcomes of education were based on the years of schooling, which for a fact, were not reliable indicators of what students knew and could do. However, PISA changed this. According to Niemann et al. (2017), the idea behind PISA was to tests the knowledge and skills of students directly using a metric that was agreed upon internationally. The assessment metric linked the data from teachers, students, and schools in order to understand the differences in performance. Notably, PISA did not aim at creating another level of top-down accountability. It aimed at helping schools and policymakers shift from looking upward within the education system to looking outward to another school and teacher in another country.

As Jude (2016) purports, OECD countries that initiated PISA focused on making PISA different from the traditional methods used for student assessment. In this world, where people are not just rewarded for what they know but what they can do with what they know, PISA went ahead and began assessing students on whether they can reproduce what they have learned in schools. As such, to perform well in PISA assessments, students must extrapolate from what they know, think across all subject-matter disciplines, and apply their knowledge creatively to demonstrate their effective learning strategies. As noted by Araujo et al. (2017), if all teachers do is to teach their students what they know, students might remember quite enough to follow the footsteps of their teachers. However, is students learn how to learn, they can think for themselves and work with other students.

Many people, as noted by Steiner-Khamsi and Waldow, have claimed that the test offered by PISA is unfair because they present students with challenges they have not encountered in school (Steiner-Khamsi & Waldow, 2018). However, it is important to note that life, too, is unfair. This is because the real test of life is not whether we can recall what we have learned, but it test us whether we can solve challenges that we cannot anticipate today. The greatest strength of PISA is that it teaches students to think on their own when they encounter difficult problems that they have not faced in their lives.

PISA 2015 Assessment

As highlighted by Niemann et al. (2017), the assessment of PISA in 2015 focused on reading, science, mathematics, and collaborative problem-solving. In addition, it included an assessment of the student’s financial literacy, which was optional. About 540,000 students completed the assessment representing about 29 million 15-year old students from the 72 participating countries. The assessments were computer-based, and they lasted for a total of two hours for every student. The test items included a mixture of multiple questions and other questions that required students to give their own creative responses. Also, students answered a background questionnaire that sought information about themselves, schools, homes, and learning experiences. The principles of the participating schools complete a questionnaire of the learning environment and the school system (Jude, 2016).

Results of PISA 2015 Assessment

After PISA assessment, in terms of science and attitudes towards science, Singapore outperformed all other participating countries while Japan, Estonia, and Finland followed in descending order. As highlighted by Gurria (2016), 8% of all students across all countries and 24% of students in Singapore are top performers in science. This is because they proved to be sufficiently skilled and knowledgeable about science, and they creatively applied their knowledge and skills to solve a variety of problems, including unfamiliar problems.

In terms of performance in mathematics and reading, about 20% of the students in the participating countries do not attain the baseline level of proficiency in reading, a population that has remained stable since 2009. Overall, the male gender improved their performance while the performance of females deteriorated. Equity in education showed interesting results. From the assessment, the socio-economically disadvantaged students were almost three times more likely than the advantaged students to attain the baseline level of proficiency in science (Van de Werfhorst, 2019). On average, immigrant students are more than twice as likely as the non-immigrant students to perform below the baseline proficiency in science.

Japan Education Policy Reforms after PISA 2015

According to Niemann et al. (2017), Japan was among the top performers in science, reading, and mathematics in the PISA assessment in 2015. This was an improvement from the 2012 PISA assessment. Specifically, Japan performed extremely well in the PISA 2015 assessment, and it was ranked second in science and fifth in math among the 72 participating countries. However, the reading scores of Japan, although among the top ten overall, slipped from position four in 2012 to position eight in 2015. The results of this assessment called for educational policy reforms in order to improve the education system of the country.

The success of Japan in the 2015 PISA assessment is credited to the quality of the Japanese educational systems and curriculum, which is led and controlled by the Japanese Ministry of Education (Sellar & Lingard, 2018). The Japanese curriculum requires all students to have a mastery of a wide range of information about all subject matter disciplines. In addition, it requires students to portray a great deal of creativity in solving problems while faced with difficulties, even unfamiliar issues. Hence, these initiatives contributed to the good performance portrayed by the Japanese students in the 2015 PISA assessment.

It is important to note that in Japan, quality education has always been highly regarded, and the country takes pride in it. The country has promoted the idea of inclusion of the middle-class society whereby access to opportunity is based on merit. According to Niemann et al. (2017), merit is determined by the achievements of a student in school by recording excellent performance in exams. Unlike in many other countries where access to opportunities is based on who you know, this is a culture that is foreign in the Japanese educational system. Students must prove their worth by performing well not only in their education but also in the curriculum.

As noted by Steiner-Khamsi and Waldow (2018), even though primary education has been a universal concept in Japan since the 20^th century, access to higher levels of education was reserved for the elites. After the Second World War, the Japanese democratized their education system, whereby compulsory education was extended to nine years. These ensured that all students, irrespective of their socio-economic backgrounds, could access compulsory education. As such, Japan managed to successfully provide students from low-income backgrounds with equal educational opportunities (Rautalin et al., 2019). This explains why there was a low-level variation in student science performance in Japan in the 2015 PISA assessment. It is recorded that only about 10% variation was explained by the socioeconomic backgrounds of the students.

Looking ahead after the 2015 PISA assessment results, despite the high performances, the education system of Japan must make policy changes in order to adapt to the future. Children who will be joining the education system in 2020 will be young youths in 2030. They will face new challenges that are difficult to explain today as they must prepare students for jobs that have not yet been created, new technologies that have not yet been invented, and problems that have not yet been anticipated (Van de Werfhorst, 2019).

With an education system that is revised after every ten years, Japan has engaged in policy reforms to build evidence of excellent performance from quality teaching practices. To do so, Japan began motivating students to learn and apply their learning to their lives. According to Van de Werfhorst (2019), most educational systems in the world rely on the traditional methods of teaching where the teachers pass knowledge to students. However, with the dynamism of the world, Japan has taken another approach to teaching where they encourage students to learn and apply the knowledge to their lives. This is an approach that will lead to lifelong learning of students.

Another policy reform implemented by Japan is fostering equity and quality. After 2015, Japan began focusing on equitable learning opportunities for students. This is to ensure that all students in Japan acquire basic education irrespective of their backgrounds. The education systems have gone ahead and eliminated tuition fees so that every child can access high-quality childhood education. As of 2018, the Japanese education system began providing free early childhood education in kindergartens (Rautalin et al., 2019). These are policy reforms that have been implemented to improve the quality of education in Japan.

Singapore Education Policy Reforms after PISA 2015

In the current education system in Singapore, all children start their education at primary school while they are aged 7 years. The education system is designed in a way that children acquire a strong educational foundation. In the process, their numeracy skill, values and character are enhanced. After six years, students must sit for a national examination in preparation for advancing to secondary education. Singapore attracts the attention of many scholars by its success in the PISA assessment of 2015. According to Christensen (2019), the success of Singapore in the international assessment provides information on educational policies that require reforms.

Over the years, the education system of Singapore has improved and the first place ranking of the country in 2015 is a clear indication that educational success is not coincidental. The education system of Singapore has undergone a series of reforms towards becoming a recognized and top-ranking system in the world. Nevertheless, the success of Singapore is not limited to only a single application. In 2015, Singapore was ranked first in Mathematic literacy with a score of 564, first in science with a score of 556 and first in reading with a score of 535 (Christensen, 2019).

The success of a county’s education system is highly dependent on the policies that are designed to guide it. A key variable that is directly related to the education system of Singapore is the education budget. The education budget in Singapore has increased after the 2015 PISA assessment. Previously, 20% of the education budget in Singapore was allocated for expenses. However, after 2015, the budget increased to 50%. For instance, in 2010, the expense per student in primary education was six thousand dollars but after 2015, there was an increase to ten thousand students. Similarly, for secondary education, the expense per student rose from nine thousand dollars to 13.5 thousand dollars (Christensen, 2019).

Christensen (2019) notes that the primary objective of the education system of Singapore is to assist students in discovering their own skills. The teacher helps students realize their potentials and they help create a life-long desire to learn. The strongest aspect of Singapore’s education system is that they provide rich learning opportunities. This is whereby there is a holistic emphasis on learning and schools are mandated to provide students with not only moral and aesthetic aspects but also aspects that will improve their creativity. As such, it can be argued that the success achieved by Singapore in the 2015 PISA assessment was as a result of appropriate methods and techniques applied to the physical infrastructure of the education system.

Another key policy reform was to enhance the quality of teaching. The education system of Singapore ensured that to retain its position at the top, it had to increase the teaching quality. Teachers must undergo thorough training in order to access the opportunity of teaching students. Just like students, access to teaching opportunities is based on merit (Christensen, 2019). The ministry of education also ensured that schools had the right infrastructure in order to facilitate learning. It was regarded as a meaningful policy reform to use public resources allocated to improving physical infrastructure effectively.

Germany Education Policy Reforms after PISA 2015

The publication of the 2015 PISA assessment study was a shock to Germany as their results were far below their expectations. Upon completion of the assessment, German students showed that there was a huge difference in the performance of students based on their social backgrounds. Germany was ranked position sixteen. The response by the government towards the 2015 results was systematic. The response aimed at making policy reforms in the educational system in order to enhance the performance of students in schools (Davoli & Entorf, 2018). Since the results of Germany were below the expected level, the government decided to make gradual policy reforms.

The first policy reforms launched by Germany to improve its education system was to reduce the ration of teachers and students. The ratio was reduced from fifteen students per teacher to twelve after 2015. As noted by Davoli and Entorf (2018), this is a policy reform that was motivated by the need to enable teachers to apply improved teaching practices such as project-based learning. Moreover, there were a large number of training programmes for teachers that were put in place to equip teachers with modern methods of teaching. After the 2015 comparative study, it became clear that students in Germany were spending 10% fewer hours in school. This was noted as among the factors that had led to the deteriorated performance of students.

Another policy reform was that more attention was devoted to introducing mandatory national standards for the academic achievement of students. Before the 2015 PISA report, the government of Germany played a negligible part in educational policies. A result of introducing the new policy is that students from different social groups could now access education. As Davoli and Entorf (2018) concur, students from underprivileged backgrounds have an opportunity to attend full-day learning.

United States Education Policy Reforms after PISA 2015

The United States was ranked position 24 after the PISA assessment in 2015. This was far below their expectations. America has always secured a significant budget for education. However, the 2015 results indicate that there is a lot that needs to be done in terms of improving the quality of education in the United States. As such, there were several educational reforms that were implemented by the American government in order to improve the performance of students.

The first policy reform was to promote equitable access to resources. This is a policy that focused not only on the number of resources to improve the quality of education but also on how the resources are distributed. The government made particular concerns about equity, whereby even schools in disadvantaged areas could receive funding (Gao et al., 2018). Even though early childhood education was not made free to pupils like in other countries, the government ensured that it was readily accessible to all students.

Grade repetition is another key challenge that affected the performance of students in the PISA assessment. This is a factor perpetuated by the increased socioeconomic and immigrant backgrounds. It is important to note that the decision of an educational system to hold back a student reflects a complete failure of the education system to effectively intervene to enhance the performance of the student (Gao et al., 2018). After the assessment, the government decided to make a policy change which was to intervene in the learning issues of students in order to reduce grade repetition. As such, teachers are now mandated to diagnose the learning issues of a student and create an intervention plan that will provide timely support to the students struggling with their education. Also, for the students who are at risk of falling behind, they benefit from additional instruction opportunities which help them to catch up.

Estonia Education Policy Reforms after PISA 2015

Estonia is a country that highly focuses on offering similar educational opportunities in the entire country. Irrespective of the school students attend, they are guaranteed that they will receive a quality education. In fact, in the country, students from low socio-economic backgrounds have greater chances of performing at top levels (Musset et al., 2019). This was indicated in the 2015 PISA assessment, where the disadvantaged students of the country were resilient which means that they were among the top scorers despite the odds against them.

Overall, Estonia was ranked position three in the PISA 2015, and students from Estonia performed well in science, reading and mathematics in comparison to other countries. The country has been introducing educational reforms ever since 2015. The policies explicitly aimed at promoting equity in the education system. A key reform is the promotion of competent and highly motivated teachers. In the effort to improve the learning abilities of students, the education system of Estonia has demanded that the teacher should meet the set criteria in order to be employed. Another educational reform is the promotion of life-long learning opportunities. Students are encouraged to improve their creativity to solve problems that come their way even those that are not anticipated (Musset et al., 2019).

Research Methodology

The main objective of this paper was to discuss the educational reforms of several countries after the PISA 2015 assessment and analyze whether these reforms influenced the results positively or negatively. The main sources of information for this study were secondary sources. Secondary data refers to the information collected by different parties at different times for different goals (Musset et al., 2019). Therefore, the research utilized the data available in electronic forms. Secondary data is also available in written forms like in journals, articles and published documents and reports by the government. Secondary data was important for this study because it offered numerous information that was relevant and reliable.

However, there were some limitations to this study. One of the limitations that bind to the research methodology was that there was the inappropriateness of the data that was collected. Since 2015, there have been other PISA assessments that have been conducted. This made relying solely on the results of the 2015 assessment inappropriate. Also, only a few documents were available for a few countries about the educational policy reforms that have been adopted after the 2015 PISA assessment.

Results and Discussions

After the large-scale assessment of students in 2015, there were variations in performance for the 72 countries that participated. After the results, each country felt the need to adopt new policy forms in order to improve their education systems. It can be argued that the PISA assessments were used to monitor and evaluate the national performance of various schools. This is a stage of policy cycle that provides information about the current policy outcomes and inform the future for improved decision-making and policy reforms (Jerrim et al., 2020). For instance, the results of the 2015 PISA assessment were used by countries like Germany and Japan to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of their current education system policies.

After monitoring and evaluation, the countries discussed earlier engaged in policy formation and implementation. This is whereby they had to change their education system by implementing new policies in response to the 2015 PISA results. For instance, Singapore increased its budget cuts for education to enhance quality. The United States decided to improve the performance of pf students by reducing grade repetition. Teachers are required to identify the difficulties students have and provide timely interventions to improve their performance. On the other hand, Germany reduced the ratio of teachers per student in the effort to enhancing performance.

The Commonly Informed Educational Policies by 2015 PISA Assessment

Resource Allocation Polices

After the 2015 PISA assessment, the most influential policies were resource allocation. Many countries decided to increase their budgetary cuts on the educational system. As mentioned earlier. Previously, 20% of the education budget in Singapore was allocated for expenses. However, after 2015, the budget increased to 50%. This ensured that the education system was improved to enhance quality education.

Teaching and Learning Policies

Most, if not all, countries engaged in implementing new teaching and learning policies. Teaching opportunities in many countries were merit-based. Teachers had to qualify for employment in schools. In the US, teaching practices changed. Teachers had to come up with new ways of teaching like helping students with learning difficulties to enhance their performance. Moreover, countries like Singapore and Japan reformed their teaching policies by changing how teachers taught. Teachers were encouraged to motivate students to learn by themselves and improve their creative abilities.

Factors Influencing Educational Policy Change

Media and Public Opinion

After the 2015 PISA assessment results were released, they gained huge attention from the media and the public. The attention, especially to the countries that performed below their expectations, had a significant impact. Policy reforms had to be made to ensure that they improved their performance in subsequent years (Piacentini & Pacileo, 2019). Since international assessments receive continued attention, governments must perform educational policy reforms to satisfy the attention of the media and the public.

Integration of New Policies

International assessments like PISA is a cited factor that influences the use of data in making educational reforms. After 2015, many countries decided to integrate new policies into their old education policies. For instance, the United States is well known for grade repetition. Nevertheless, after PISA 2015, the country decided to integrate new policies into its old education policies. They began focusing on reducing grade repetition by helping children with learning difficulties.

Has PISA Helped or Hindered?

It is clear that after the 2015 PISA assessment, the results of this international assessment has shifted the attention of the government to their education systems. PISA has become one of the most actors that determine policymaking in the education reforms. The assessment has helped countries to adopt new policies which are meaningful towards improving the performance of their students. After assessments, countries understand where their education performance stands globally. As a result, they can make changes that will help in improving the performance of students. At least, PISA assessment has helped countries compared their performance with other nations and it helps them to share the best policies that can improve performance.

One criticism of PISA assessment is that it has promoted the over-reliance of standardized testing in making educational policy reforms. It has made curriculums to narrowly measure their outcomes at the expense of other vital education focuses like moral developments. According to Azzaro and Agudo (2019), PISA assessments have narrowed the collective imagination of countries regarding what education is and what it should be about. Critics also argue that the assessments are designed to help countries make short-term fixes to their education system in order to quickly climb rankings. In most cases, these assessments do not provide a long-term solution to the problems facing the education system.

Conclusion

The reading skills of students vary from one school to the other. In countries with low levels of inequalities, there are very high levels of reading skills, and the opposite is true. The aim of PISA assessment is to emphasize science, mathematics and reading skills that students need in their daily lives. Japan performed extremely well in the PISA 2015 assessment and it was ranked second in science and fifth in math among the 72 participating countries. Japan has engaged in policy reforms to build evidence of excellent performance from quality teaching practices. To do so, Japan began motivating students to learn and apply their learning to their lives. The primary objective of the education system of Singapore is to assist students in discovering their own skills. The strongest aspect of Singapore’s education system is that they provide rich learning opportunities. Germany launched a policy reform to improve its education system was to reduce the ration of teachers and students. The policy reform launched by the US was to promote equitable access to resources. A key reform is the promotion of competent and highly motivated teachers. In the effort to improve the learning abilities of students, the education system of Estonia has demanded that the teacher should meet the set criteria in order to be employed. Notably, media and public attention are some of the factors influencing policy change. PISA has become one of the most actors that determine policymaking in the education reforms. The assessment has helped countries to adopt new policies which are meaningful towards improving the performance of their students. Critics argue that the assessments are designed to help countries make short-term fixes to their education system in order to quickly climb rankings.

References

Araujo, L., Saltelli, A., and Schnepf, S., 2017. Do PISA data justify PISA-based education policy?. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 19(1), p.20.

Azzaro, G., and Agudo, J.D.D.M., 2019. The Impact of Educational Reforms on the Quality of Language Education. Quality in TESOL and Teacher Education: From a Results Culture Towards a Quality Culture.

Christensen, S., 2019. Excellence and Envy: The Management of PISA Success in Singapore. Understanding PISA’s Attractiveness: Critical Analyses in Comparative Policy Studies, p.199.

Davoli, M., and Entorf, H., 2018. The PISA shock, socioeconomic inequality, and school reforms in Germany (No. 140). IZA Policy Paper.

Gao, X., Xia, J., Shen, J., and Ma, X., 2018. A comparison between the US and Chinese principal decision-making power: A measurement perspective based on PISA 2015. Chinese Education & Society, 51(5), pp.410-425.

Gurria, A., 2016. PISA 2015 results in focus. PISA in Focus, (67), p.1.

Jerrim, J., Lopez-Agudo, L.A. and Marcenaro-Gutierrez, O.D., 2020. How did Spain perform in PISA 2018? New estimates of children’ s PISA reading scores (No. 20-01). Department of Quantitative Social Science-UCL Institute of Education, University College London.

Jude, N., 2016. The assessment of learning contexts in PISA. In Assessing Contexts of Learning (pp. 39-51). Springer, Cham.

Musset, P., Field, S., Mann, A., and Bergseng, B., 2019. Overview: Reforms and challenges in the Estonian vocational education and training system.

Niemann, D., Martens, K., and Teltemann, J., 2017. PISA and its consequences: Shaping education policies through international comparisons. European Journal of Education, 52(2), pp.175-183.

Piacentini, M., and Pacileo, B., 2019. How are PISA results related to adult life outcomes?

Rautalin, M., Alasuutari, P., and Vento, E., 2019. The globalization of education policies: does PISA have an effect?. Journal of Education Policy, 34(4), pp.500-522.

Sellar, S., and Lingard, B., 2018. International large-scale assessments, affective worlds, and policy impacts on education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 31(5), pp.367-381.

Steiner-Khamsi, G., and Waldow, F., 2018. PISA for scandalisation, PISA for projection: the use of large-scale international assessments in education policymaking–an introduction. Globalization, Societies, and Education, 16(5), pp.557-565.

Van de Werfhorst, H.G., 2019. Early Tracking and Social Inequality in Educational Attainment: Educational Reforms in 21 European Countries. American Journal of Education, 126(1), pp.65-99.