Dátum: 30.10.2015
The document offers a brief overview of the indicators used for measuring quality and other results in education, e.g. the test scores, labor market and other results and characteristics of particular schools and/or their pupils and students in Visegrad 4 countries and Ukraine. Further, it includes information on how the results impact the financing of particular schools; offers an overview of tools informing the public about the results with major focus on published school reports and rankings; and lists some of key lessons learned in measuring the quality in education as well as some of key challenges in this respect discussed in the country.
The document comprises five country-specific analyses presented in a closed webinar “Education, measurement of quality and (labor market) results” that took place on October 2nd, 2015 under the project Hidden Triggers of Economic Growth in V4 plus Ukraine supported by the International Visegrad Fund.
Introduction
Machines, computers and robots replace ever more routine jobs and push ever more people with low qualification out of the labor market or at least decrease their wages. The only way to remain competitive and to find a decent employment is to offer higher productivity. To be more productive, the existing workers often need to requalify and their children need to get better education. It is quite clear that the countries with qualified labor force are more competitive and better prepared to face technologic changes and their impact on labor markets. In the long-term, the quality of education is one of key determinants of economic growth.
Despite this clear logic, it is often striking how little we know about which school is better and which is not. Without reliable information, the parents and their children cannot make rational choice and effectively press for schools´ improvement. The problem goes even deeper – there is still little consensus on how to measure the quality of particular schools. But how do we want to improve quality of education if we do not know how to measure it?
There are several indicators used for measuring education results in the Visegrad 4 countries and Ukraine. The most frequent for primary and secondary facilities are standardized national tests and rewards for participation in competitions, and for tertiary facilities research and/or artistic results. There are almost no official public rankings of schools; however, there are several private rankings displaying at least top performers. With the exception of Hungary, there is little or no experience in measuring the value-added, i.e. the difference in results at the entry and the exit from the school. With its National Assessment of Basic Competences (NABC), Hungary offers the best example of using standardized testing in primary education. The database offers comprehensive information about particular schools, however, it does not allow for easy comparison in rankings. Similarly, with the exception of Slovakia there is little or no experience in measuring and publishing labor market results of particular schools, e.g. the unemployment rate and salaries of graduates.
The quality is usually not directly reflected in schools´ funding. The primary and secondary schools are funded mostly on “per-pupil” basis which creates indirect link between quality and funding. However, this indirect relation may work only if people know about the quality. The tertiary education is funded mostly on a combination of “per-student” basis and research results but the impact on quality seems to be insufficient.
In every country, there seems to be much room for developing and publishing new performance and efficiency indicators, e.g. value-added, labor market results, rates of return, etc. This might enrich public debates about quality of education and potentially strengthen the “money-follows-quality” principle in school funding formulas.
To improve measuring of quality and labor market results in education, all Visegrad countries and Ukraine have much to learn from each other. By using this opportunity they might improve productivity of their future labor force, gain advantage in fierce international competition and, consequently, secure conditions for higher economic growth and long-term prosperity.