{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-516fbb06e76415f9","slug":"2013-12-05-pisa-2012-responsible-use-of-mathematics-performance-and-equity-findings","language":"en","publication_status":"PUBLISHED","publication_date":"2013-12-05","last_modified_date":"2013-12-05","title":"PISA 2012: responsible use of mathematics performance and equity findings","summary":"Reviews the available evidence on pISA 2012 and identifies the conditions required for sound interpretation and defensible conclusions.","category":{"code":"DATA_RESEARCH","label":"Data Research"},"article_type":"Data and research analysis","publisher":"International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)","jurisdictional_scope":"International","historical_reference_basis":"PISA 2012 results released on 3 December 2013","reference_authority":"Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The PISA 2012 results released on 3 December 2013 provides the immediate context for the measure. The value of the present data lies in the questions it can answer reliably and in the limits it makes visible. Assessment should consider learner impact, institutional accountability and stewardship of entrusted resources. The assessment does not depend on adoption of one institutional or administrative design.","The contemporaneous reference point for PISA 2012 is PISA 2012 results released on 3 December 2013. Its status should be distinguished from the jurisdiction-specific evidence required for implementation. Any consequential application still requires evidence from the affected jurisdiction or institution. The findings should be interpreted only at the level represented by the underlying data. A national or international pattern may justify closer review of the comparison, but provider-level action requires evidence relating to the affected provision. Comparisons and public reporting should retain material differences in coverage, timing and classification.","Review of the issue should include the experience of affected learners, particularly where aggregate reporting may conceal exclusion, delay or unequal treatment. The data permit examination of performance distributions and differences within and between participating systems. Results on engagement or self-belief should not be treated as interchangeable with demonstrated attainment; each construct has its own measures and limitations."]},{"heading":"Analytical scope","paragraphs":["For PISA 2012, the public interest is not confined to institutional compliance. For the measure, education systems should examine not only who enters education, but who can participate effectively, progress and complete with the intended learning outcomes. For pISA 2012, where learners rely on published information or support decisions, errors should be identifiable and capable of prompt, fair correction.","In the context of pISA 2012, the subject should be examined as a connected system of policy, people, resources, decisions and evidence. A review should test the interfaces between functions, not assume that sound component controls ensure a sound end-to-end process.","A narrow control over the analysis may create false assurance. In the present context, financial or geographic barriers, admission without adequate support and attrition detected too late may produce acceptable aggregate reporting while individual learners remain exposed to material disadvantage. When examining pISA 2012, a sample confined to compliant cases cannot establish the reliability of the control."]},{"heading":"Definitions and data coverage","paragraphs":["Assurance of PISA 2012 should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include progression and early-warning information, records of barriers and support, disaggregated participation and outcome data, resource allocation by need, and clearly defined access and completion indicators.","The assurance record for the available evidence should retain the date of the evidence, the source responsible for it, the scope examined and the version of any instrument or definition applied. For decisions concerning pISA 2012, revision should not remove an earlier conclusion from the record where reliance has occurred."],"bullets":["Identify groups not represented in aggregate results.","Analyse barriers across the learner journey.","Monitor progression at useful intervals.","Report limitations in available data.","Review policies that create avoidable exclusion before it informs a consequential decision."]},{"heading":"Use of the findings","paragraphs":["In work concerning pISA 2012, the applicable expectation should be capable of consistent application. Where an indicator is used as a proxy, the relationship between the proxy and the underlying educational outcome should be stated and tested. As regards pISA 2012, criteria affecting learners should not permit materially different interpretation without an evidenced reason.","For operational review, authorities and providers should proceed in a defined sequence. Where pISA 2012 is under review, responsible bodies should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions. An isolated incident and a recurring or systemic condition require different findings and responses. Findings should state the affected scope and required action; an observation should not be represented as evidence of conformity or effectiveness.","The analytical record for pISA 2012 should state the research question, data source, unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions, treatment of missing values and principal limitations.","Public reporting on pISA 2012 should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. In the context of pISA 2012, a revised conclusion should distinguish a change in the underlying condition from a change in method, coverage or evidence."]},{"heading":"Uncertainty and safeguards","paragraphs":["The analysis of PISA 2012 should remain within the limits of the evidence. When examining pISA 2012, international comparison can identify variation, but institutional and policy context remains necessary before a practice is transferred from one setting to another. For the available evidence, equal treatment does not necessarily produce equitable access or outcomes. For decisions concerning pISA 2012, different support may be justified where it addresses a documented barrier without changing the required educational outcome. In work concerning pISA 2012, material uncertainty should result in further enquiry or an expressly limited finding.","As regards pISA 2012, progress should not be assessed by the amount of policy or documentation produced."]}],"word_count":798,"content_hash":"sha256-943ce9a9230a12f11646db57f53fbd4b5b0d8d286ad6fe1f30013be3f1658085","seo_keywords":["pISA 2012","international education data research","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"AnalysisNewsArticle"}