Improving schooling through effective governance? The United States, Canada, South Korea, and Singapore in the struggle for PISA scores

IF 3.1 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Comparative Education Pub Date : 2022-11-11 DOI:10.1080/03050068.2022.2138176
R. Münch, Oliver J. Wieczorek
{"title":"Improving schooling through effective governance? The United States, Canada, South Korea, and Singapore in the struggle for PISA scores","authors":"R. Münch, Oliver J. Wieczorek","doi":"10.1080/03050068.2022.2138176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n Improving schooling by reducing achievement gaps based on family background has been on the agenda of school governance worldwide for more than three decades. International benchmarking like the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is used to find models of best practice in effective school governance. Enlarging school autonomy, strengthening school management, and enhancing accountability have emerged as widely recommended and globally spreading governance tools. However, we do not know how much these tools make a difference between schools. To close this research gap, we conduct a multilevel regression analysis, which explores the association of student and average school socioeconomic status, migration background, school disciplinary climate and governance tools with student PISA scores. The United States, Canada, South Korea, and Singapore in 2009 and 2015 serve as test cases. Our findings indicate that school governance tools do not reduce achievement gaps.","PeriodicalId":47655,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Education","volume":"6 1","pages":"59 - 76"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2022.2138176","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Improving schooling by reducing achievement gaps based on family background has been on the agenda of school governance worldwide for more than three decades. International benchmarking like the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is used to find models of best practice in effective school governance. Enlarging school autonomy, strengthening school management, and enhancing accountability have emerged as widely recommended and globally spreading governance tools. However, we do not know how much these tools make a difference between schools. To close this research gap, we conduct a multilevel regression analysis, which explores the association of student and average school socioeconomic status, migration background, school disciplinary climate and governance tools with student PISA scores. The United States, Canada, South Korea, and Singapore in 2009 and 2015 serve as test cases. Our findings indicate that school governance tools do not reduce achievement gaps.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过有效的治理改善学校教育?美国、加拿大、韩国和新加坡在国际学生评估项目(PISA)的分数上争得不可开交
三十多年来,通过减少基于家庭背景的成就差距来改善学校教育一直是世界范围内学校治理的议程。像经合组织的国际学生评估项目(PISA)这样的国际基准被用来寻找有效学校治理的最佳实践模式。扩大学校自主权、加强学校管理和加强问责制已成为广泛推荐和全球推广的治理工具。然而,我们不知道这些工具在学校之间有多大的不同。为了缩小这一研究差距,我们进行了多层次回归分析,探讨了学生和平均学校社会经济地位、移民背景、学校纪律氛围和治理工具与学生PISA分数的关系。2009年和2015年的美国、加拿大、韩国和新加坡是测试案例。我们的研究结果表明,学校治理工具并不能缩小成绩差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Comparative Education
Comparative Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
21.20%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: This international journal of educational studies presents up-to-date information with analyses of significant problems and trends throughout the world. Comparative Education engages with challenging theoretical and methodological issues - and also considers the implications of comparative studies for the formation and implementation of policies - not only in education but in social, national and international development. Thus it welcomes contributions from associated disciplines in the fields of government, management, sociology - and indeed technology and communications - as these affect educational research and policy decisions.
期刊最新文献
A world agenda? How was universal primary education selected as a UN Millennium Development Goal? Education and choice in the United Kingdom: measuring school choice policies in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland (1980–2020) Special Issue of Comparative Education: Global governance and the promissory visions of education: challenges and agendas* The waning legitimacy of international organisations and their promissory visions The promises and expectations of ILSAs regarding policymaking: lessons from Latin America
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1