In 2000, the OECD conducted the first PISA study. Students from 28 OECD-member and four OECD-nonmember states took part, among them Germany and the U.S.
Germany was ranked 21st both in mathematics and science, and the 22nd in reading. It thus got an overall 21st ranking. The U.S. were ranked 20th in mathematics, 15th in science, and 16th in reading, thus ranked 17th overall. This meant an overall below score average for both countries. Besides ranking the performance of the students, the results also shed light on the correlation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Germany displayed the highest correlation between student performance and social background of all countries tested. In addition, student performance strongly varied between the school forms Gymnasium, Hauptschule and Realschule. Regarding educational equality, this finding challenged Germany’s tripartite school system. “Socio-economic disad-vantage has a notable impact on student performance in the United States”, too (cf. OECD 2011), albeit by far not as strong as in Germany. In light of the high child poverty rate in the U.S. , this finding could have been anticipated. Nevertheless, it was alarming.
PISA has been criticized for its objective, methodology, and the interpretation of its results. It is, for example, problematic to test and compare the achievement of students, disregarding the school form they visit at the time of the assessment. Moreover, the fact that the students tested by PISA were schooled in completely different school systems challenges the comparability of the results. Nonetheless, PISA has a great social impact. When the results of the first PISA study were published in 2001, Germany and the U.S. conceived of them as a “shock” and reacted similarly: with major reforms of their education systems that would not have been otherwise possible. The changes were immense, particularly with regard to educational progress assessment, teacher accountability, and trans-regional comparability of educational standards. How did this affect the results of the second PISA study, which was conducted in 2003? While the nature and the purpose of both countries' reform agendas were questionable, the U.S. reforms in particular were condemned to failure. They were inadequate for improving the education system and thus the PISA results. Based on a comparison of the two reform agendas, ideas on how to adequately improve education will be presented in the conclusion.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. 2001: The “PISA shock” hits Germany and the U.S.
2.1 After PISA: Reforms in Germany
2.2 After PISA: Reforms in the U.S.
3. The development of the results in the following PISA studies
4. Conclusion and future outlook
5. References
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines how the initial "PISA shock" of 2001 acted as a catalyst for significant educational reforms in both Germany and the United States, investigating the effectiveness of these measures in improving student performance and fostering educational equity.
- Comparative analysis of German and U.S. educational policy responses to PISA results.
- The influence of standardized testing and "washback" effects on school systems.
- Evaluation of specific reform agendas, including NCLB in the U.S. and national standards in Germany.
- The relationship between socioeconomic factors, educational equality, and student outcomes.
Excerpt from the Book
2. 2001: The “PISA shock” hits Germany and the U.S.
The results of the first PISA study placed Germany below OECD-average in all three areas of competence tested: rank 21 of 34 in mathematics, 21 in reading, and 22 in scientific literacy. When these results were published in November 2001, they caused huge media response and a shockwave throughout the nation. How could the “land of poets and thinkers”, a leading industrial nation, receive such poor marks on its education system? A closer look at the history of school assessment reveals that poor results in student performance tests were in fact nothing completely new: Germany had scored poorly in the first Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) in 1995. In contrast to PISA, the German press and public hardly took any notice (cf. OECD 2011: 208).
Slightly better than Germany, the U.S. scored poorly in the first PISA study, too. The American public was similarly shocked, and the government was forced to take action. It also introduced reforms of its education system. The centerpiece of the reform agendas introduced in Germany and the U.S. was a significant increase in assessment and accountability. These reforms, and hence the PISA results, had washback effects in both countries. What is meant by washback (WB)? In applied linguistics, the term has been defined as "the effect of testing on teaching and learning" (Hughes 1989: 1). Hughes's definition focuses on the micro-level of WB, its impact on individual teachers and students. WB on the macro-level refers to the impact on society and educational systems (cf. Bailey 1999: 4). Messick (1996: 241) also refers to the micro-level when defining WB as "the extent to which a test influences language teachers and learners to do things they would not necessarily otherwise do that promote or inhibit language learning".
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The chapter introduces the PISA studies conducted by the OECD and highlights the initial shock experienced by Germany and the U.S. due to their below-average performance.
2. 2001: The “PISA shock” hits Germany and the U.S.: This chapter explores the national reactions to the 2001 PISA results and defines the theoretical concept of "washback" in the context of educational testing.
2.1 After PISA: Reforms in Germany: The text details how Germany responded with reforms such as all-day schools, national education standards, and the implementation of a centralized Abitur.
2.2 After PISA: Reforms in the U.S.: This section covers the U.S. implementation of the "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) act, focusing on high-stakes testing, accountability, and the trade-off between school autonomy and federal pressure.
3. The development of the results in the following PISA studies: The author analyzes why U.S. performance failed to improve while German students showed gains, attributing the difference to the nature of the respective reform agendas.
4. Conclusion and future outlook: The concluding chapter summarizes the findings and argues for a shift away from high-pressure testing towards policies that support educational equity and early childhood development.
5. References: This section lists all academic sources, reports, and literature used to support the analysis in the paper.
Keywords
PISA, Washback, Education Reform, NCLB, Standardization, Educational Equity, Accountability, Assessment, Student Performance, Zentralabitur, Socioeconomic Status, High-Stakes Testing, School Policy, OECD, Germany, United States.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on the impact of the 2001 PISA results on the educational policies of Germany and the United States, comparing their respective reform strategies.
What are the core thematic areas discussed?
Key themes include educational accountability, the effects of standardized testing (washback), socioeconomic impacts on learning, and the pursuit of educational equity.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine why the reform agendas in Germany and the U.S. differed in their success and to evaluate whether high-stakes testing is an effective method for improving student achievement.
Which methodology does the author employ?
The author uses a comparative policy analysis, examining historical reform documents, educational reports (e.g., OECD, USDE), and existing academic literature on testing and washback theory.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body examines the national responses to the PISA results, the specific policies like NCLB and the German Zentralabitur, and the long-term trends in student performance following these reforms.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Primary keywords include PISA, washback, education reform, accountability, and educational equity.
How does the "washback" effect influence the U.S. education system according to the author?
The author argues that in the U.S., washback manifests as a move toward "hyper-testing," where teaching and learning are narrowed down to focus primarily on preparing students for high-stakes exams.
Why does the author consider the NCLB funding model problematic?
The author highlights that funding was calculated inadequately, creating a "performance vs. money" trade-off that left schools unable to meet the ambitious 100 percent proficiency goals.
What is the author's final recommendation for educational systems?
The author concludes that education systems should prioritize high-quality instruction and equity-focused reforms, such as all-day schooling and early childhood support, rather than focusing on constant performance assessments.
- Quote paper
- Carolyn Ludwig (Author), 2014, After PISA: Standards, Assessment, and Accountability in Germany and in the U.S., Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/277494
