England’s Pisa scores are based only on a tiny selective sample of higher achieving schools making Paul O’Kane’s sad desperate attempt to claim they are better than Scotland just another under-educated failure from Scottish Labour

Please Support Talking-up Scotland at:

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/support-talking-up-scotland

Click on the above.

Or direct bank transfer at Sort Code 08-91-04  Account - 12266421 Name - JOHN ROBERTSON

Paul O’Kane Labour MSP and former head boy, seems delighted to be suggesting that Scotland’s schools education system is worse than England’s, with the above, from those other head boys at the IFS.

Paul and the lads at the IFS are clearly out of their depth here. There’s something important in the actual figures from the OECD, in this table:

See the wee asterisk there? What does it mean?

Notes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3). * Caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met

Source: PISA 2022 Results (Volume I) Page 30, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-i_53f23881-en.html

So, there’s a wee alarm bell ringing there for anyone who knows anything about statistics. In this case, for the UK, it’s to do with the sample size and whether or not that sample represents fairly the education system.

In Scotland, 117 schools participated (out of a sampled pool, with 96.4% school response rate—exceeding the 85% OECD standard). 3,257 students participated (79.4% weighted student response rate—slightly below the 80% standard).

So, Scotland met the required standard.

With ten times the population, to meet the same percentage standards. England would have needed around 1 170 schools and 32 570 pupils.

It had only 165 (14%) schools and 4 763 (15%) pupils, to make its sample then utterly unreliable, meaningless and not comparable with Scotland’s.

https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/12/pisa-2022-results-volume-i_76772a36/53f23881-en.pdf

So, in an international research survey of educational attainment, requiring a response rate of between 80% and 85%, Scotland hit the targets but England only managed 15%?!

Why the terrible response rate?

The official report from the PISA 2022 cycle indicate selective participation, with higher-performing (or more advantaged) schools and students more likely to respond in England. This contributed to an upward bias in England’s scores. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/656dc3321104cf0013fa742f/PISA_2022_England_National_Report.pdf

Please Support Talking-up Scotland at:

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/support-talking-up-scotland

Click on the above.

Or direct bank transfer at Sort Code 08-91-04  Account - 12266421 Name - JOHN ROBERTSON

2 thoughts on “England’s Pisa scores are based only on a tiny selective sample of higher achieving schools making Paul O’Kane’s sad desperate attempt to claim they are better than Scotland just another under-educated failure from Scottish Labour”

  1. Small print info via the *

    “* Caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met“

    That is where you state “In this case, for the UK, it’s to do with the sample size and whether or not that sample represents fairly the education system”.

    Strange that Labour MSP Paul Kane would not have read the small print in this instance.

    Especially when former Labour leader and PM , Gordon Brown,  is cited as having suggested that critics should have “read the small print” when he was once confronted about the failure to deliver on promises of federalism for Scotland after the 2014 Indy Ref result.

    I guess Labour and “small print” being read or not read is dependent upon when it benefits them or when it can be exploited as a weak excuse for not delivering something else that they promised they would deliver…or even when they try to weaponise something, like say Scottish Education, while also not communicating the full story that includes info within the “small print”.

    In Paul Kane’s case , in him not reading or noting the above fact that was in the “small print”, he then hoped that omission by him would then have a negative impact upon the SNP, indeed it may even be used by some of Labour’s client media who also would omit that “small print” as a significant detail.

    Note that the excuse “should have read the small print” is usually associated with rogue and crooked companies who try to hide crucial facts written within a contract , but it is also a way for them to try to reject any liability so then the public falls victim to their corrupt and misleading tactics.

    So Labour, if the cap fits ?

    Not so much ‘the Devil is in the detail’ more really a case of the “Labour Devil omits a significant detail’, this time it is Labour MSP Paul Kane.

    Labour playing politics (in the gutter) yet again…….

    Liz S

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.