Achievement vs. Equality — What Determines PISA Performance?

Abstract

Since the year 2000, the triennial Programme for international Student Assessment (PISA) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has turned from mere benchmarking into a “backdoor agent” in education policy-making. The study was explicitly administered in order to increase focus and motivation for reform and for the improvement of secondary education (Anderson et al. 2010: 375). Accordingly, the first waves in 2000 and 2003 triggered education policy changes in a number of participating countries that either were unpleasantly surprised by their ranking or that utilized their PISA performance as a pretence for previously intended reforms (Breakspear 2012; Ertl2006; Egelund 2008; Knodel et al. 2010). In some countries, PISA was not the actual reason for education reform; plans for policy changes had already been developed — a response to increasingly globalized labour markets, growing importance of human capital, and budget shortages. In other countries, the PISA Study and (PISA-independent) education reform took place simultaneously, and policy changes were publicly framed post hoc as direct responses to PISA (Kiieme 2011), Either as a direct response to PISA or independently, many countries have changed their education policies during the first decade after PISA 2000.