This article describes the education quality control systems (for mathematics) used by those countries that performed best on the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Enforced quality control measures are defined as “decision points”—where adherence to the curriculum and instruction system can be reinforced. Most decision points involve stakes for the student, teacher, or school. They involve potential consequences for failure to adhere to the system and to follow the program at a reasonable pace. Generally, countries with more decision points perform better on the TIMSS. When the number of decision points and TIMSS test scores are adjusted for country wealth, the relationship between the degree of (enforced) quality control and student achievement appears to be positive and exponential. Conclusion: The more (enforced) quality control measures employed in an education system, the greater is students' academic achievement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Federation of Teachers. 1995a. Defining world class standards. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
2.
American Federation of Teachers. 1995b. Making standards matter: A fifty-state progress report on efforts to raise academic standards. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
3.
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. 1998. School education statistics in the Asia-Pacific region. Canberra: Australian Department of Employment, Education, Training, and Youth Affairs.
4.
Beaton, A. E.1996. Mathematics achievement in the middle school years: IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
5.
Beatty, A.1997. Taking stock: What have we learned about making education standards internationally competitive? Summary of a workshop. National Research Council, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Board on International Comparative Studies in Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6.
Bishop, J. H. 1993. Impacts of school organization and signaling on incentives to learn in France, the Netherlands, England, Scotland, and the United States. Working paper no. 93-21, Center for Advanced Resource Studies, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
7.
Bishop, J. H. 1997. Do curriculum-based external exit exam systems enhance student achievement? Working paper no. 97-28, Center for Advanced Resource Studies, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
8.
Britton, E. D., and S. A. Raizen. 1996. Examining the examinations: An international comparison of science and mathematics examinations for college-bound students. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
9.
Brusselmans-Dehairs, C.1995. Methods of educational monitoring in the Flemish Community of Belgium. Ghent, Belgium: University of Ghent.
10.
Cohen, D.1993. Multiple readings of state instructional policy: Perspectives of state policy makers, district, and school administrators, and teachers. Panel presented at the 15th Annual Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC, October.
11.
Council for Basic Education. 1996. An international focus. In Basic education. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
12.
Council of Chief State School Officers. 1991. European lessons from school and the workplace. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
13.
Cross, C. T., and A. R. Stempel. 1995. Where in the world are we? The need for international benchmarking. Paper presentation at U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and Assessment, International benchmarking: Setting world class standards to improve student achievement: Working group meeting. Washington, DC.
14.
Eckstein, M. A., and H. J. Noah. 1993. Secondary school examinations: International perspectives on policies and practice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
Elmore, R. F.1996. Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review66 (1): 1-26.
16.
Fuhrman, S. H.1993. Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Gandal, M.1997. Leveraging high-performance with gateway examinations. Paper presented at panel “International Benchmarking: New Findings,” at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
18.
Garet, M. S., and J. Moskowitz. 1996. Multilateral comparisons of national assessments in education. Washington, DC: Pelavin Research Institute.
19.
Grant, S. G., 1993. The response of classroom teachers. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC, October.
20.
Hyde, G.D.M.1988. South Korea: Education, culture, and economy. New York: St. Martin's.
21.
Ihm, C. S.1993. Restructuring of national education in Korea: New standards of quality, accountability, and vocationalization. In Education standards for the 21st century, edited by U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service. Papers presented at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Education Symposium. Washington, DC: C. S. Ihm.
22.
Kreeft, Henk P. J., Ed. 1990. Issues in public examinations. CITO, International Association for Education Assessment, June.
23.
Labaree, D. F.1999. The chronic failure of curriculum reform. Education Week on the Web,19-19(May).
24.
Lee, K. W.1983. Human resource planning in the Republic of Korea: Improving technical education and vocational training. Washington, DC: World Bank.
25.
Louis, K. S., and Versloot, B.1996. High standards and cultural diversity: Cautionary tales of comparative research—A comment on “Benchmarking education standards.”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis18 (3): 253-261.
26.
Martin, M. O., I.V.S. Mullis, E. J. Gonzalez, T. A. Smith, and D. L. Kelly. 1999. School contexts for learning and instruction: IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
27.
McGinn, N. F., and Q. Y. Kim. 1980. Education and development in Korea. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
28.
McKnight, C. C., Crosswhite, F. J., J. A. Dossey, E. A. Kifer, J. O. Swafford, K. J. Travers, and T. J. Cooney. 1987. The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U.S. school mathematics from an international perspective. Champaign, IL: Stipes.
29.
Medrich, E. A., S. Kagehiro, and J. Houser. 1994. Vocational education in G-7 countries: Profiles and data. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Education Department.
30.
Ministry of Education, The Republic of Korea. 1993. Education in Korea, 1992-1993. Seoul: Ministry of Education, The Republic of Korea.
31.
Ministry of the Flemish Community, Department of Education. 1996. Primary education in Flanders core curriculum: Developmental and final objectives, Text of the Government of Flanders, The Act of February 22, 1995, Principles of the Explanatory Statement, October.
32.
Mullis, I.V.S.1997a. Benchmarking toward world-class standards: Some characteristics of the highest performing school systems in the TIMSS. Paper presented at panel “International Benchmarking: New Findings,” at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
33.
Mullis, I.V.S.1997b. Mathematics achievement in the primary school years: IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
34.
Mullis, I.V.S., M. O. Martin, A. E. Beaton, E. J. Gonzalez, D. L. Kelly, and T. A. Smith. 1998. Mathematics and science achievement in the final year of secondary school: IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
35.
National Center on Education and the Economy. 1994. The international experience with school leaving examinations. Rochester, MN: National Center on Education and the Economy.
36.
National Endowment for the Humanities. 1991. National tests: What other countries expect their students to know. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Humanities.
37.
National Research Council, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education. 1996. Mathematics and science education around the world: What can we learn from the Survey of Mathematics and Science Opportunities (SMSO) and the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)?Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
38.
New Standards Project, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh. 1994, June. International benchmarking. Pittsburgh, PA: New Standards Project, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
39.
New Standards Project, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh. 1995. Performance standards: Draft 5.1. Pittsburgh, PA: New Standards Project, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
40.
Nolan, K.1997. Implementing world class standards in U.S. state assessment systems. Paper presented at panel “International Benchmarking: New Findings,” at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
41.
Nolin, M. J., C. Rowand, and E. Farris. 1994. Public elementary teachers' views on teacher performance evaluations. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
42.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1989. Schools and quality: An international report. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
43.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1995a. Measuring the quality of schools. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
44.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1995b. Performance standards in education: In search of quality. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
45.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1995c. Schools under scrutiny. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
46.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2000. Investing in education: Analysis of the 1999 world education indicators. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
47.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Indicators of Education Systems Project, Network A. 1995-1996. Review of assessment activities. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
48.
Peak, L.1997. Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science teaching, learning, curriculum, and achievement in international context. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
49.
Pelavin Research Institute. 1996. The educational systems of eight countries. Council for Basic Education.
50.
Phelps, R. P.1996. Are U.S. students the most heavily tested on earth?Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice15 (3): 19-27.
51.
Phelps, R. P.2000. Trends in large-scale testing outside the United States. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice19 (1): 11-21.
52.
Postlethwaite, T. N., ed. 1988. The encyclopedia of comparative education and national systems of education. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
53.
Postlethwaite, T. N., ed. 1996. International encyclopedia of national systems of education, 2d ed. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
54.
Resnick, L. B., Nolan, K. J., and Resnick, D. P.1995. Benchmarking education standards. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis17 (4): 438-461.
55.
Robitaille, D. F., ed. 1997. National contexts for mathematics and science education: An encyclopedia of the education systems participating in TIMSS. Vancouver, Canada: Pacific Educational Press.
56.
Schmidt, W. H., D. Jorde, L. S.Cogan, E.Barrier, I.Gonzalo, U.Moser, K.Shimizu, T.Sawada, G. A.Valverde, McKnight, R. S. Prawat, D. Wiley, S. A. Raizen, E. D. Britton, and R. G. Wolfe. 1996a. Characterizing pedagogical flow: An investigation of mathematics and science teaching in six countries. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
57.
Schmidt, W. H., C. McKnight, G. A. Valverde, R. T. Houang, and D. E. Wiley. 1996b. Many visions, many aims: A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school mathematics. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
58.
Schmidt, W. H., C. McKnight, and R. A. Raizen. 1997. A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
59.
Shanker, A.1996. A proposal for a national benchmarking institute on educational standards. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
60.
Sorenson, Clark W.1994. Success and education in South Korea. Comparative Education Review38 (1): 17-29.
61.
Spendolini, M. J.1992. The benchmarking book. New York: American Management Association.
62.
Standaert, R.1994. The question of national standards in secondary education in the light of Belgium as a federal state. Brussels, Belgium: Department of Educational Development.
63.
Stevenson, H., and S. Lee. 1997. International comparisons of entrance and exit examinations. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
64.
Stevenson, H. W., and J. W. Stigler.1992. The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit.
65.
UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia and the Pacific. 1992. New directions in technical and vocational education. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia and the Pacific.
66.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. 1991. Improving the math and science curriculum: Choices for state policymakers. Report on the Secretary's Conference on Improving Mathematics and Science Education.
67.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. 1996. Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science teaching, learning, curriculum, and achievement in international context (NCES 97-198). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
68.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and Assessment. 1995. International benchmarking: Setting world class standards to improve student achievement. Working group meeting, Washington, DC.
69.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, OERI Japan Study Team. 1987. Japanese education today. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
70.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning. 1992. Education standards in the Asia-Pacific Region. Washington, DC: Office of Policy and Planning, U.S. Department of Education.
71.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service. Education standards for the 21st century. Papers presented at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Education Symposium. Washington, DC: Planning and Evaluation Services, Office of the Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Education.
72.
Yeoh, O. C.1996. Singapore. In International encyclopedia of national systems of education, 2d. ed., edited by T. N. Postlethwaite. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
