Confusion in the ranks : how good are England’s schools?

Pearson Global IndexEngland is sixth in the world for education according to the new Global Index published by Pearson.But this is derived mainly from PISA 2009 2 where the combined reading, maths and science scores place it joint 18 th .One-third of the Pearson ranking is contributed by graduation rates from upper secondary school and university, where England is second behind South Korea.These data, however, are incomplete, based on different definitions, come from different sources, and are more a matter of policy than educational attainment.If we discount these data 3 , England ranks 12 th in the Pearson Index.The difference from PISA is explained almost entirely by the fact that five countries above England in PISA are not included in the Index. Changes over TimeWhile England"s performance in PISA maths appears to have declined markedly since 2000, there seems to have been a dramatic improvement in TIMSS maths.However, these are artefacts explainable in terms of participation and response rates.The number of countries significantly above England in maths increased from two in PISA 2000 to 20 in PISA 2009.England"s sample in 2000, however, was biased to high performing schools through a poor response rate.The OECD has declined to use it as a baseline.Without it, we are left with PISA 2006 and PISA 2009 where there is a difference of only two countries due to two top performers taking part for the first time in 2009.The number of countries above England in TIMSS maths fell from 14 in 1999 to six in 2011.The difference is largely explained by five of the countries on the first occasion not taking part on the second.England did, however, appear to improve relative to three countries: Finland, Hungary and Malaysia.A Long Tail of Under-Performance?England is often charged with having a long tail of underachievement.TIMSS/PIRLS 2011 do show that there were more poorly performing primary school children in England than in the leading countries and there was a wider spread of scores.In this sense, there was underachievement, but fewer also reached the highest benchmark, in spite of the inclusion of independent and grammar schools.The spread of scores in the top-performing countries, except Finland, increased in secondary education to become more like that in England.But England still had fewer at the highest level, a lower mean, and more at the lowest level.This would indicate that bringing England"s performance up to the best requires improvement across the piece, not just levering up from the bottom.2 Many of countries had missing data for TIMSS and PIRLS.For example, of the 34 countries in the OECD in 2009 only 13 had participated in TIMSS 2007, which is the year used in the Index.The scores of other OECD countries, plus others missing from TIMSS, were derived by regression from PISA 2009.3 Use of these data was questioned by the Project"s Advisory Panel (The Learning Curve, 2012 Report, page 47), but the Economist Intelligence Unit and Pearson decided to go ahead.4 Gladwell, M. (2008).Outliers.London: Allen Lane, page 248. 5 Cain, S. (2012).Quiet.London: Penguin, page 201.6 Chua, A. (20110.Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother.London Penguin Group.is anything that can be learned from them to improve our pupils" grasp of maths, which is in urgent need of attention.It is where England"s record is poorest.If there is a lesson to be drawn from these analyses it is: don"t leap to conclusions based on a country"s apparent ranking in league tables.As presented, the messages are decidedly mixed.Any differences do not have to be mainly to do with the schools.The data could be invaluable, but they need to be interpreted with great care.7 Husén, T (Ed.)International Study of Achievement in Mathematics: a comparison of twelve countries.Volumes I and II.Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.