Skip to main content

Summary and Discussion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Perspectives on Educational Quality

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Education ((BRIEFSEDUCAT,volume 1))

Abstract

In this final chapter the main results and conclusions of the previous chapters are summarized. The main features of the quality framework are reviewed as are the main conclusions about the quality review of Dutch education. In a final section the issue of improving the quality of education is addressed. Results of research reviews and meta-analysis on educational effectiveness at system, school and classroom level are summarized. At the level of national education systems the degree of stratification of the school structure, evaluation and accountability arrangements and school autonomy are factors that are considered as potential levers for improvement. In other areas, like professional development of teachers and school leadership high expectations are not matched by empirical research results. With regards to the situation in the Netherlands it is recommended to address the issue of selectivity and tackle the problem of the barriers between the different school categories. At the same time the current policy to improve achievement in basic subjects and stimulate an achievement oriented attitude in schools is seen as deserving support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    While we are concerned with correlations, the use of a causal interpretation, whereby it is assumed that learning performance influences economic growth rather than vice versa, requires a word of explanation. In support of the plausibility of this interpretation, we refer to Hanushek and Woessmann (2009). However, we recommend that this interpretation should be applied with some caution. The knowledge base is narrow, the number of research units very low and it seems likely that there are alternative interpretations, which would support an inverse causal influence (cf. Baumert et al. 2005).

References

  • Baumert, J., Carstensen, C. H., & Siegle, Th. (2005). Wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Lebensverhaeltnisse un regionale Disparitaeten des Kompetenzverwerb. In: PISA Konsortium Deutschland (Hrsg.), PISA 2003, Der zweite Vergleich der Länder in Deutschland- Was wissen und können Jugendlichte? Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borghans, L., van der Velden, R., Büchner, C., Coenen, J., & Meng, C. (2007). Het meten van onderwijskwaliteit en de effecten van recente onderwijsvernieuwingen. Deelonderzoek uitgevoerd door Researchcentrum voor Onderwijs en Arbeidsmarkt (ROA). Maastricht: Universiteit Maastricht, ROA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosker, R. J., & Scheerens, J. (1995). A self-evaluation procedure for schools using multilevel modelling. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 20(2), 154–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunello, G., & Checchi, D. (2006). Does school tracking affect equality of opportunity? IZA Working Paper no. 2348, Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Causa, O., & Chapuis, C. (2009). Equity in student achievement across OESO countries: An investigation of the role of policies. OESO Economics Department Working Papers, No. 708. OESO Publishing. doi:101787/223056645650.

  • Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E.A., & Woessmann, L. (2009). Do better schools lead to more growth? Cognitive skills, economic outcomes and causation. NBER, Cambridge, MA, WP 14633, National Bureau of Economic Research (January).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakubowski, M. (2009). Linking international surveys of student achievement. Presentation at EU Conference Stockholm, November.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luyten, H. (2008). Empirische Evidentie voor Effecten van vroegtijdige Selectie in het Onderwijs, Literatuurstudie in Opdracht van het Ministerie van OCW. Enschede: Universiteit Twente, Faculteit Gedragswetenschappen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luyten, J. W., Scheerens, J., Visscher, A. J., Maslowski, R., Witziers, B., & Steen, R. (2005). School factors related to quality and equity. Results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2005). Education at a glance. OESO indicators 2005. Paris: Author.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2009). Education at a glance 2009, OESO indicators. Paris: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2010). The high cost of low educational performance. An estimation of the long-run economic impact of improvements in PISA outcomes. Paris: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peschar, J. L., & Wesselingh, A. A. (1985). Onderwijssociologie: een inleiding. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheerens, J. (2009). Fuzzy expectations and unmet aspirations: The case of the background questionnaires in large-scale international assessment studies. Stockholm, Key Note Address at the EU Conference “Improving Education”, November 30, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheerens, J., Luyten, H., & Steen, R. (2007). Review and meta-analyses of school and teaching effectiveness. Enschede: Department of Educational Organization and Management, University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheerens, J., & Maslowski, R. (2008). Autonomie des établissements scolaires: des moyens à la recherche d’un objectif? Revue francaise de pedagogie, 164, 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheerens, J., Seidel, T., Witziers, B., Hendriks, M., & Doornekamp, G. (2005). Positioning and validating the supervision framework. Enschede: University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2004). The quality imperative. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005. Paris: Unesco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woessmann, L., Luedemann, E., Schuetz, G., & West, M. R. (2009). School accountability, autonomy and choice around the world. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaap Scheerens .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Jaap Scheerens

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Scheerens, J., Luyten, H., van Ravens, J. (2011). Summary and Discussion. In: Scheerens, J., Luyten, H., van Ravens, J. (eds) Perspectives on Educational Quality. SpringerBriefs in Education, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0926-3_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics