Page 42 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 42
standards is acquired from international associations and organisations (Eu-
rostat and OECD) and from UOE data collection (UNESCO-OECD-EUROSTAT
database). Although this is not immediately evident from Table 1, the Europe-
an Commission also commonly acquires data for developing its own indicators
from the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achieve-
ment (IEA). A special mission, in relation to developing its own indicators and
benchmarks in the field of education within the EU, is assigned to the Centre
for Research on Education and Lifelong learning (CRELL). The knowledge and
the expertise originating from this common database are the new instrument
of governance within the European educational space and a means of steering
national educational policies (Ioannidou, 2007). Accordingly, Ozga and Lingard
(2007) believe that the new mode of governance in the field of education in
the EU is based on data. A significant role in establishing governance by com-
parison within the EU is also played by the data of international comparative
assessment studies. European institutions (the European Commission, Council
of the European Union) substantiate the use of data from international com-
parative assessment studies (as an element of evidence-based policy making)
42 with the need for developing indicators that contribute to the success and ef-
fectiveness of national educational systems, whereby this should be done in
a clear and intelligible way with indicators being scientifically substantiated.
These indicators create opportunities for achieving common strategic goals
and EU benchmarks.
Table 1 also indicates that the EU most distinctly addresses the issues in
relation to low performance in education by means of the aforementioned
benchmark, in accordance with which ‘the percentage of 15-year-olds who fail
to achieve basic levels of reading, maths and science literacy ought to be un-
der 15% by 2020’.11
Since 2000, the data for this EU benchmark has been acquired from PISA,12
which not only enables the EU to make comparison between member states
and establish the trends in the development of individual educational sys-
tems, but also a comparison with other world superpowers, such as Japan and
the USA. The European standard shows that the European Commission not on-
ly devotes attention to countries’ average performance in international com-
11 Improvement in reading literacy within the framework of I & U 2010 was one of the thirteen objec-
tives and one of the five benchmarks set by the Council of the European Union in 2003. In accord-
ance with this benchmark it was expected that the percentage of students who fail to reach the ba-
sic level of reading literacy in PISA would be decreased by 20% by 2010 in comparison with the year
2000. In the fields of mathematics, science and technology, the benchmark referred to the percent-
age of graduates in these fields; here, a 15% increase at the EU level was expected in the period be-
tween 2000 and 2010.
12 Although there are some other international comparative assessment studies that assess the per-
formance of students (of different ages) in mathematical and scientific literacy (TIMSS) and reading
literacy (PIRLS), the European Commission uses the data from these two studies for developing in-
dividual indicators only and does not highlight them as a European benchmark.
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
rostat and OECD) and from UOE data collection (UNESCO-OECD-EUROSTAT
database). Although this is not immediately evident from Table 1, the Europe-
an Commission also commonly acquires data for developing its own indicators
from the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achieve-
ment (IEA). A special mission, in relation to developing its own indicators and
benchmarks in the field of education within the EU, is assigned to the Centre
for Research on Education and Lifelong learning (CRELL). The knowledge and
the expertise originating from this common database are the new instrument
of governance within the European educational space and a means of steering
national educational policies (Ioannidou, 2007). Accordingly, Ozga and Lingard
(2007) believe that the new mode of governance in the field of education in
the EU is based on data. A significant role in establishing governance by com-
parison within the EU is also played by the data of international comparative
assessment studies. European institutions (the European Commission, Council
of the European Union) substantiate the use of data from international com-
parative assessment studies (as an element of evidence-based policy making)
42 with the need for developing indicators that contribute to the success and ef-
fectiveness of national educational systems, whereby this should be done in
a clear and intelligible way with indicators being scientifically substantiated.
These indicators create opportunities for achieving common strategic goals
and EU benchmarks.
Table 1 also indicates that the EU most distinctly addresses the issues in
relation to low performance in education by means of the aforementioned
benchmark, in accordance with which ‘the percentage of 15-year-olds who fail
to achieve basic levels of reading, maths and science literacy ought to be un-
der 15% by 2020’.11
Since 2000, the data for this EU benchmark has been acquired from PISA,12
which not only enables the EU to make comparison between member states
and establish the trends in the development of individual educational sys-
tems, but also a comparison with other world superpowers, such as Japan and
the USA. The European standard shows that the European Commission not on-
ly devotes attention to countries’ average performance in international com-
11 Improvement in reading literacy within the framework of I & U 2010 was one of the thirteen objec-
tives and one of the five benchmarks set by the Council of the European Union in 2003. In accord-
ance with this benchmark it was expected that the percentage of students who fail to reach the ba-
sic level of reading literacy in PISA would be decreased by 20% by 2010 in comparison with the year
2000. In the fields of mathematics, science and technology, the benchmark referred to the percent-
age of graduates in these fields; here, a 15% increase at the EU level was expected in the period be-
tween 2000 and 2010.
12 Although there are some other international comparative assessment studies that assess the per-
formance of students (of different ages) in mathematical and scientific literacy (TIMSS) and reading
literacy (PIRLS), the European Commission uses the data from these two studies for developing in-
dividual indicators only and does not highlight them as a European benchmark.
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
