The Impact of the OECD on Education Worldwide: Volume 31

A recent study showed that the 2000 PISA results have had an influence on policy reform in the majority of participating countries/economies (Breakspear, 2012). This was not the case in France by far, a country where PISA methodology was under strong criticism at the time the PISA 2000 results were released. However, improvements came progressively: first, national curriculum standards were introduced a few years later that aimed at drastically changing the educational goals in France. Second, an evaluation based on PISA’s methodology was introduced for eighth graders. Third, at the time of the third and subsequent PISA surveys, the validity of PISA as a tool was recognized. Finally, the policy impact of PISA reached its highest level at the time of the fifth survey in 2012. Yet, many teachers and school principals do not know much about PISA. This chapter seeks to analyze the reasons why it took France so long to fully recognize the value of PISA.

This study investigates national trends in students’ science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) occupational expectations by using Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2000, 2003, and 2006 data. The analyses in this study revealed several noteworthy national trends in STEM occupational expectations. In many countries students’ computing or engineering (CE) occupational expectations changed between PISA 2000 and PISA 2006, while students’ health service (HS) occupational expectations remained constant. In particular, many developed countries experienced downward national trends in CE occupational expectations among top performers in science. This study also found gender differences in national trends in STEM occupational expectations. In many countries boys’ CE occupational expectations decreased between PISA 2000 and PISA 2006, while girls’ occupational expectations remained unchanged in both CE and HS fields. Finally, the gender gaps in CE occupational expectations converged in many countries, but this convergence was not due to increases in CE occupational expectations among girls, but rather decreases in expectations among boys. Because one of the policy goals in many countries is to promote engagement in STEM education and occupations among students, especially academically talented students, the current findings – national declines in CE occupational expectations among top academic performers – will most likely be viewed as problematic in several countries. Future research should use data collected over longer periods to investigate whether students’ interest in STEM education and occupations increased or decreased in a variety of countries, and whether these patterns varied by student characteristics and performance levels. Moreover, future research must focus on factors that can explain the national trends in student interest in STEM education and occupations.

More than ever before, globalization has linked the socioeconomic development of nations to the performance of their educational systems. One of the consequences of this new focus on improving the quality of teachers is the acknowledgment of the importance of engaging more directly with what is at the center of action, that is, pedagogy (Alexander, 2008). In this perspective, we conduct research aimed at describing, analyzing, and establishing a critical portrait of the scientific bases of the pedagogical choices made by three major international organizations (OECD, UNESCO, and World Bank) with respect to teacher education and development. In terms of methodology, we conducted a fine-grained analysis of the documents produced in the framework of TALIS and semi-structured individuals interviews with five staff members of OECD. The idea of pedagogical pluralism constitutes a rhetorical artefact through which constructivist teaching approaches are favored.

Equity in education has been on the education research forefront for many decades, but there is now much more of a political consensus that investing in equity in education needs to be at the heart of education agendas. As the link between education, equity, and growth is becoming even more evident, so is the search for policies that can contribute to improve educational outcomes of the more disadvantaged groups in our societies as a way to strengthen social cohesion, development, and growth. While there has been in-depth analysis of system-level policies that can contribute to improve equity, at the school level, there is sparse comparative analysis of the particular role school leaders can play in the equity-quality agenda. This chapter focuses on the types of policies that can support school leadership in education for disadvantaged students and schools across OECD countries. It builds on qualitative and quantitative comparative studies that focus on equity (OECD, 2012), on reforms implemented across OECD countries (OECD, 2015a) as well as on data from international surveys such as the Project for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). More concretely, the chapter (1) reviews why investing in equity is not only a social imperative but also an economic investment; (2) discusses how different OECD countries reform in terms of equity and quality in education; and (3) explores evidence and country practices to conclude on how school leadership can positively influence equity in education.

Over the past two decades, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has become an influential actor in the education sector. This has been accomplished, partly, by the administration of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) since 2000. Overall, PISA is intended to inform the public, parents, teachers, and those who run education systems of the status of education in their country. Research shows that policymakers draw on PISA results when they launch and design education reforms. To date, however, we know very little about whether PISA is successfully informing the general public, which is the main sponsor and benefactor of PISA. Using public opinion surveys from the United States and Israel, this chapter examines knowledge and perception of PISA. Recent reports suggest that both countries are in the middle ranks of all countries participating in PISA, with the United States being in the middle ranks of OECD countries and Israel being in the lower ranks of this group. Findings from public opinion surveys reveal three interesting patterns. First, in both countries, the public tend to underestimate how well 15-year olds perform on international standardized tests. Second, college graduates are more likely than those with less education to underestimate the performance of teens on international standardized tests. Third, although the public seems to be misinformed about PISA results, we find considerable public support for PISA and international standardized tests more generally. Implications of the findings for policy and future research in the field of international and comparative education are discussed.

This chapter presents a theoretical and historical account of the OECD policy diffusion mechanisms, specifically addressing their influence on teacher policy. In order to present our argument, the chapter is divided in three sections. First, we present a historical description of how the Directorate of Education and Skills of the OECD has become a central figure in global policy discussions. Then, we address the particular mechanisms through which the OECD is able to expand their influence. We argue that the scientific validation of their recommendations through country reviews and the invitation to participate in large-scale studies and surveys, such as the Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA) and the Teaching and Learning Survey (TALIS), have become pivotal for communicating policy messages concerning teacher quality and development. Next, we argue that while OECD recommendations are engrained in notions of human capital, their work on teachers has incorporated elements of professional capital. Additionally, we stress how the influence of social science and large-scale survey studies has contributed to the development of a concept of teacher professionalization promoted by the OECD.

This chapter focuses on a new school-level instrument for international benchmarking and policy learning – the OECD’s PISA-based Test for Schools (“PISA for Schools”) – and how it helps to constitute new global spaces and relations of education policymaking and governance. Unlike main PISA, PISA for Schools assesses school performance in reading, mathematics, and science against the schooling systems measured by the main PISA test. Schools are thus positioned within a globally commensurate space of measurement and comparison, and are encouraged to engage with, and learn from, the policy expertise proffered by “high-performing” international schooling systems and the OECD itself. Drawing suggestively across literature and theorizing around new spatialities associated with globalization, the “becoming topological” of culture and “power-topologies,” and informed by document analysis and interviews with 33 policy actors from across the PISA for Schools policy cycle, the chapter examines how PISA for Schools helps the OECD to directly “reach into” local schooling spaces. This respatialized PISA for Schools, or “PISA to Schools”, provides the OECD with the means to influence how schooling is practised and conceived at the level of local policy implementation, while limiting mediation by national and/or subnational politics. Moreover, the school-to-system performance comparisons enabled by PISA for Schools arguably provide one of the first – if not the only – international data-driven catalysts of school-level reform. This furthers the relevance and diffusion of “lessons” from main PISA and the OECD to schools themselves, and helps extend the epistemic communities through which the OECD practices its global epistemological governance of education.

This study considers the structure of PISA penetration into education policy through a comparative analysis of Japan and Norway. Many studies on PISA’s impact tend to emphasize the character of PISA result as a norm, such as the concept of “governance by comparison.” This study regards PISA as a norm of educational contents and analyzes the structure of PISA penetration into educational contents policy, with respect to the national curriculum. In describing the situations around PISA in the two countries, the background of the acceptance of PISA, the nature of national curriculum in education policy and its character, and the structure of PISA penetration with the focus being on how PISA is integrated into the national curriculum are analyzed through related documents and literatures. As a result of comparative analysis, three common features are found. First of all, PISA penetration occurred in the context of “PISA Shock” since the importance of PISA itself was recognized. Second, the system of management by objectives was included in the educational system and PISA penetrated into that system as objectives. Third, in relation with this second point, PISA as a norm of educational contents was integrated into existing educational goals or subjects. These features are evident only in the comparison of two countries, so a deeper analysis of PISA penetration will be needed in a future study.

The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the educational impact of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on South Korea, focusing on the global implementation of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). By analyzing how the system of reasoning embedded in the OECD and PISA has re-territorialized the education space of South Korea, this chapter problematizes present-day OECD educational policy as a new global education norm, and its way of making educational truths. This chapter specifically discusses the changes in South Korean education policy, national curriculum, and examination system in terms of reference reasoning, politics of knowledge, and regime of testing. The chapter further discusses that the impact of the OECD in a global space is not unidirectional; rather, it is a multi-directional phenomenon occurring in both individual country and the global governance that the OECD created.

The key questions explored in this volume converge around issues of educational governance in the context of globalization. The individual chapters each contribute to the goals of assessing the development of the educational agenda of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and providing evidence on the trajectories through which the organization’s programs and policies have directly and indirectly influenced and affected diverse educational systems. The chapter explores these issues in more depth, drawing on the perspectives presented in the volume’s individual chapters. The first section provides a discussion of the contexts that have given rise to the OECD as a key global education policy actor. Following this brief historical overview, some of the key findings raised by the volume’s authors are examined in the context of wider literature on global education policy. Collectively, the chapters raise important questions about the role of nation-states in educational planning, the scope and spatiality of international assessments such as PISA and TALIS, and the complexity of evidence and expertise in global, national, and local educational policy-making. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the implications of the volume’s work for the wider field of comparative and international education.