For reasons which are still unclear, the Department of Education and Science is refusing to co-operate with two international surveys on literacy, numeracy and science standards among primary school children. The department has signalled its unease with the surveys which are conducted by the well-regarded International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. The association has members in 28 European countries, in the US and across the world. In the Republic, research on its behalf is conducted by the Education Research Centre at St Patrick's College, Drumcondra, Dublin which has an outstanding track record.
Explaining its decision, the department issued a lengthy statement saying it co-operates with the more broadly based OECD in Paris. It stressed how the department wanted to avoid disruption in the classroom. It pointed out also how national surveys can be more meaningful than international comparisons. But there is a sense of a missed opportunity here. The department has not co-operated with the Trends in International Maths and Science Survey (TIMSS) since 1995. It has not co-operated with the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study since 1992. Yes, the department does co-operate with OECD studies for second-level students - including the PISA study of learning skills among 15 year-olds - but there is little comparative data about the performance of our primary school children vis-a-vis other countries.
There is a suspicion in some education circles that the department may have been put off by the estimated cost of participating in the survey. It is to be hoped that this is not the case. The Republic has benefited greatly from co-operating with international surveys at second-level. It is reassuring to know, for example, that literacy levels among our 15 year-olds are in the top rank of OECD countries. Equally, our relatively poor performance in maths and science has been highlighted by these surveys and provoked a response from policy makers.
The INTO's John Carr is correct when he says previous tests at primary level have provided good advice to educational policy makers and professionals. In the process, a clear picture of the system was obtained for a relatively small investment. The 1992 survey, for instance, was used to guide aspects of the Revised Curriculum in Primary Schools. Against this background, the department's refusal to co-operate on this occasion seems short-sighted and, perhaps, to reflect penny-pinching. Information is a valuable tool in setting policy. The opportunity to obtain it should not be spurned.