Page 191 - Štremfel, Urška, and Maša Vidmar (eds.). 2018. Early School Leaving: Contemporary European Perspectives. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 191
contextualising ear ly school leaving with pisa r esults
of residence, significantly predicted the probability of finishing vocational
training successfully within 3 years. Other, less successful students changed
their initial training place, repeated a year within their training or aban-
doned it altogether and therefore became vocational ESL students. Mueller
and Wolter (2011) also revealed the PISA scores’ significance for future ed-
ucational success by finding an apprenticeship place for Swiss vocational
students. However, they took a different approach to analysing the TREE
data: they used background student information from PISA to derive pre-
dicted scores and then, based on the residuals of the observed scores from
the predicted scores, derived definitions of underachievers, overachiev-
ers and achieved-as-expected. Their study investigated whether these stu-
dent groups differed in their probabilities of successfully starting a certify-
ing apprenticeship after completing school. For PISA-underachievers they
found a higher probability of either dropping out, repeating a year, chang-
ing training or failing the exam in their vocational training compared to
students who had achieved as expected in the PISA test but were other-
wise similar to underachievers based on their background characteristics.
The authors noted that the PISA test scores and their residuals from the ex-
pected scores were virtually the only variables in the study that clearly ex-
plained the occurrence of problems during apprenticeship training.
The Canadian studies compared the reading proficiency levels of ESL
students when they took the PISA test with the levels achieved by students
who successfully continued their education. Bushnik, Barr-Telford and
Bussiere (2004) found that youth who had dropped out of school by the age
17 or 19 had PISA scores a whole proficiency level1 lower in reading literacy
than their counterparts who continued education or graduated. Although
this result did not control for student background variables, the difference
of one proficiency level can be considered comparatively large, and indi-
cates a substantial difference in the nature of reading tasks students can
perform. Knighton and Bussiere (2006), after taking the effects of student
background into account, further found that the odds of completing high
school for a student with PISA 2000 reading scores at Level 2 or below were
significantly lower than the odds for a student with scores at Level 3 or
above. These results suggest a threshold effect with those at Level 2 and be-
low being at particular risk of not completing school by age 19. However,
1 The PISA achievement scales are described in hierarchically organised proficiency
levels. The PISA 2000 reading scale was divided into five levels, from Level 1 to Level
5, the latter being the highest. Each level describes the content of knowledge and
skills students with proficiency at this level generally exhibit.
191
of residence, significantly predicted the probability of finishing vocational
training successfully within 3 years. Other, less successful students changed
their initial training place, repeated a year within their training or aban-
doned it altogether and therefore became vocational ESL students. Mueller
and Wolter (2011) also revealed the PISA scores’ significance for future ed-
ucational success by finding an apprenticeship place for Swiss vocational
students. However, they took a different approach to analysing the TREE
data: they used background student information from PISA to derive pre-
dicted scores and then, based on the residuals of the observed scores from
the predicted scores, derived definitions of underachievers, overachiev-
ers and achieved-as-expected. Their study investigated whether these stu-
dent groups differed in their probabilities of successfully starting a certify-
ing apprenticeship after completing school. For PISA-underachievers they
found a higher probability of either dropping out, repeating a year, chang-
ing training or failing the exam in their vocational training compared to
students who had achieved as expected in the PISA test but were other-
wise similar to underachievers based on their background characteristics.
The authors noted that the PISA test scores and their residuals from the ex-
pected scores were virtually the only variables in the study that clearly ex-
plained the occurrence of problems during apprenticeship training.
The Canadian studies compared the reading proficiency levels of ESL
students when they took the PISA test with the levels achieved by students
who successfully continued their education. Bushnik, Barr-Telford and
Bussiere (2004) found that youth who had dropped out of school by the age
17 or 19 had PISA scores a whole proficiency level1 lower in reading literacy
than their counterparts who continued education or graduated. Although
this result did not control for student background variables, the difference
of one proficiency level can be considered comparatively large, and indi-
cates a substantial difference in the nature of reading tasks students can
perform. Knighton and Bussiere (2006), after taking the effects of student
background into account, further found that the odds of completing high
school for a student with PISA 2000 reading scores at Level 2 or below were
significantly lower than the odds for a student with scores at Level 3 or
above. These results suggest a threshold effect with those at Level 2 and be-
low being at particular risk of not completing school by age 19. However,
1 The PISA achievement scales are described in hierarchically organised proficiency
levels. The PISA 2000 reading scale was divided into five levels, from Level 1 to Level
5, the latter being the highest. Each level describes the content of knowledge and
skills students with proficiency at this level generally exhibit.
191
