Inernational education comparison test PISA

PISA results are as useful as school league tables, i.e. not useful at all.

S'pose they're vaguely interesting. Stirs things up a bit and gives the media something else to get excited about. But no value whatsoever practically. I don't really think that anyone could get our kids to follow the eastern example - or our parents.

(I mean the parents of the present generation of school children - not our parents!)

And would we want them to follow the example of the eastern countries, where children are still studying at 10.00 at night, and the teenage suicide rate is rocketing? I don't think so. But somewhere, in there, is a sense that education is valued.

However, the results from Finland, where children start school at six, might tell us something, though the whole culture there obviously has an effect too. I can't remember all the details so:

www.minedu.fi/OPM/Koulutus/koulutusjaerjestelmae/?lang=en

But, in Finland don't they still start nursery fairly early? Is it just school by another name? The first year at school in England seems to be pretty low key - learning from play and learning to be in a group with other children and sit at a desk, etc. It seems to be a nice smooth transition from nursery. I don't think we're too far adrift.
(I'd hate to go back to mum's having to give up work to look after children when we fought so hard for equality)

I think we are OK too, and that these sort I'd comparisons aren't a lot of help, apart from giving the media something to get worked up about. All very
Gove - ish!

Yes, when you take out teaching to the test, cultural differences, differences in sample (SEN excluded in some countries) we are doing OK. Our brightest children are as good as anywhere and when you take parental background into account, children in state schools do as well as those in independent schools. Where we are failing children is in minimising the impact of poverty and social exclusion on achievement. Other countries do this much better than we do. It is interesting to see how achievement in city schools is improving and how under-achievement is emerging in pockets of deprivation in affluent areas.
The improvement in schools demonstrated in the latest Chief Inspector's report and the excellent results of the London Challenge should be headline news in every paper. I wonder why they aren't?

I do wonder about the sampling...

Yes, so do lots of countries!
Also some of the papers seem to think that Shanghai=China etc
I think the statistics don't tell us much (I read somewhere that another 3 points puts the UK in the top ten), but the commentary underneath is all quite interesting. I did laugh at the newspapers that had us "languishing near the bottom" when the UK was roughly 25th out of 64 though.

I visited schools in China when I worked for a LEA. I've also sat in on many secondary lessons in this country as an inspector. The difference isn't in the teaching, in fact often the teaching is far better in the UK. The difference is in the attitude and aspirations of the students.

A country of 60 million people can not follow the education ideals of a country with 6(?) million people. Think of all the different nationalities in schools nowadays. Finnland just does not have these extra problems.

The Asians know that they need to do well at school in order to survive at all. For our children we expect more from childhood than swotting up maths and science. Early school is not like Kindergarten. Experts know that what makes children successful is productive playing. Thats what they do in kindergarten.
Its the same with computers. There are no computers in the primary schools
at least not in the German state where I live, not even in grammar school aged 10 or 11. Staring at screens is not the best thing for the human brain, but people like doing it, at least you should not pretend that it is real learning.

I suspect that the Government (of whatever colour) just uses these pretty worthless statistics as a stick to beat the previous Government.

I saw a schoolgirl in South Korea being interviewed. When she came home from school, she studied until 2 a.m. and got up at 6 a.m. Suicide rates are said to be high for young people there - no wonder.

I find it very hard to believe the story about a schoolgirl studying till 0200 and getting up at 0600. Firstly, I doubt she'd be able to actually 'study' on so little sleep, and secondly she'd be ill.

There are people who need very little sleep (I think nargaret Thatcher was one) but they are quite rare. Most people cannot function properly if they are drastically sleep deprived.

So studying till 0200 and getting up at 0600 is utterly pointless and self-defeating.

Unless she has a few hours' sleep during the day that they forgot to mention