Author:
Gomendio Montserrat,Wert José Ignacio
Abstract
In Chapter 6 we describe our experience as policymakers in the Spanish Government, the political costs associated with approving and implementing an education reform at the peak of the financial crisis, and the goals and achievements of such a reform. We describe the underlying conflicts of interest for a broad range of stakeholders, and how these were obscured in the wider public debate. We discuss in detail why PISA’s conclusion that the Spanish education system has sacrificed excellence for the sake of equity is wrong, how it is used to justify mediocre results, and the consequences of such policy recommendations in terms of facilitating the reversal of reforms. We also raise the issue that PISA 2018 data for Spain was initially withdrawn and then released months later. We argue that PISA should be held accountable to countries demanding explanations and develop a hypothesis as to why changes in the methodology may have led to unreliable results.
Reference470 articles.
1. Abdulkadiroglu, A., Angrist, J., Dynarski, S., Kane, T. and Pathak, P. (2011). “Accountability and Flexibility in Public Schools: Evidence from Boston’s Charters and Pilots”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 699–748.
2. Academy of Singapore Teachers (2012). Professional Learning Communities.
3. Ackerman, B. (1980). Social Justice in the Liberal State. New Haven: Yale University Press.
4. Adamson, F. and Åstrand, B. (2016). “Privatization or Public Investment? A Global Question”, in Adamson, F., Åstrand, B. and Darling-Hammond, L., Global Education Reform. How Privatization and Public Investment Influence Education Outcomes. New York: Routledge (pp. 1–15).
5. Adamson, F. and Darling-Hammond, L. (2016a). “The Critical Choice in American Education”, in Adamson, F., Åstrand, B. and Darling-Hammond, L. Global Education Reform. How Privatization and Public Investment Influence Education Outcomes. New York: Routledge, (pp. 131–168).