EDUCATION IS FLUSH WITH DATA comparisons, from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) run by the OECD, a mainly rich-world think-tank, which ranks 15-year-olds in core subjects every three years, to TIMSS and PIRLS, tests of younger pupils’ mathematics, science and reading levels administered by national research institutions. But such tests can’t tell governments how much they should spend on education, or what the money should go on.
Two new research studies shine light on these questions. An ‘efficiency index’, published on September 5 and constructed by academics working with GEMS Education Solutions, a consultancy, analyses the impact of spending on outcomes in 30 rich and developing countries. The OECD’s annual Education at a Glance, published on September 9, looks more broadly at school financing and structures, and how these affect results and progress to university and work. Both offer lessons for governments worldwide.
The link between results and teachers’ pay is surprisingly weak. An experienced Finnish teacher earns on average $42,800 (Rs.25 lakh) per year. But Switzerland pays teachers at the same point in their careers $68,000 (Rs.40 lakh), and though it gets creditable maths results, coming ninth out of 65 in the most recent PISA assessment in 2012, it does much less well in reading and science. The figure in Germany is $54,000 a year. Its results have improved recently, but at a cost that leaves it a lowly 25th in the efficiency ranking.
Education spending depends not only on what teachers earn, but on how many of them are there — and in many places that number is rising, as rich countries cut class sizes in the hope that children will learn more. Parents, convinced that their children will do better with fewer classmates, are keen on the policy, too. But again, the data provide little support.
Both Korea and Finland have high pupil-teacher ratios (third and fifth highest of the 30 countries GEMS studied, respectively).
France and Norway, with few pupils per teacher even by rich-world standards, trail in performance rankings, coming 25th and 30th in PISA 2012. Portugal, one of Europe’s laggards, has just half as many pupils per teacher as Finland (partly because the number of teachers did not drop as birth rates fell). Only when classes become truly unwieldy do outcomes seem to suffer: along with Brazil, the other country with a higher pupil-teacher ratio than Korea is Chile, which also has poor results.
Adam Still of GEMS thinks many of the highest spenders have probably passed “peak efficiency” — the point at which more money brings diminishing returns. Andreas Schleicher, the data-gatherer who oversees PISA, reckons that differences in spending explain less than a fifth of the variation in countries’ outcomes. Such conclusions run counter to claims of teaching unions, which generally argue that smaller classes and higher pay are essential if outcomes are to improve.
(Excerpted and adapted from The Economist)