The PISA 2006 Science Literacy Assessment results report Finland as the first ranked country out of the 30 developed nations that participated in the testing (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2007). The United States was ranked 21st. Closer examination of school and student variables may help explain these outcomes. This article will use the PISA 2006 data to investigate how school resource indicators such as teacher qualifications, school resources, and school type, as well as student level indicators such as socioeconomic status and family resources affect science achievement. Comparisons will include the United States, Canada, and Finland. Due to the differences in the structure of educational systems and the makeup of student populations, findings have given an inaccurate impression that international competitiveness in science is not a viable option for the US (Ginsburg, Leinwand, & Pollock, 2007). Findings indicate school funding practices, teacher quality, school type, and family socioeconomic status impact student science achievement and have an effect on international school rankings.
Akiba M., LeTendre GK and Scribner JP ( 2007) Teacher quality, opportunity gap and achievement gap in 47 countries. Educational Researcher36(7): 369-387.
2.
Astolopolous C., Psalidas A., Hatzinkita V. and Katsis A. ( 2008) Student assessment on PISA science items: Methodological issues. The International Journal of Learning15(8): 1-9.
3.
Baldi S., Jin Y., Skemer M., Green P., Herget D. and Xie H. ( 2007) Highlights from Pisa 2006: Performance of US 15-year-old students in science and mathematics literacy in an international context. IES National Center for Education Statistics, pp. 1-74.
4.
Blumenfeld T., Fishman B., Krajcik J., Marx R. and Soloway E. ( 2000) Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling-up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist35(3): 149-164.
5.
Bracey GW ( 2002) Why do we scapegoat the schools?Washington Post, 5 May, p. B01.
6.
Boyd D., Lankford H., Loeb S., Rockoff J. and Wyckoff J. ( 2008) How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Education Finance & Policy1(2): 176-216.
7.
Bryk AS and Raudenbush SW ( 1992) Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
8.
Canadian Teachers Federation (2010) The Canadian educational system: Becoming a teacher. CPEAC.org. Available from: http://www.ctf-fce.ca/TIC/Default.aspx?SID=625890 , accessed 23 January 2010.
9.
Center on Education Policy (2009) Has student achievement increased since 2002? Available from: http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=535&nodeID=1 , accessed 3August 2009.
10.
Clotfelter C., Ladd H., Vigdor J. and Wheeler J. ( 2006) High poverty schools and the distribution of teachers and principals. Stanford Working Paper Series. 1-40.
11.
Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century (2007) Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press .
12.
Darling-Hammond L. ( 2009) The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future. New York : Teachers College Press.
13.
Gamerman E. ( 2008) What makes Finnish kids so smart?The Wall Street Journal, 28 February. Available from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120425355065601997.html, accessed 2 September 2009.
14.
Garland S. ( 2008) Reform school: An Obama advisor thinks US schools could take a lesson from Finland and Singapore. Newsweek, 18 December. Available from: www.newsweek.com/id/175894/page/1 , accessed 31 August 2009.
15.
Ginsberg A., Leinwand S. and Pollock E. ( 2007) Lessons learned from U.S. international science performance . American Institutes for Research, 1-41.
16.
Goldstein H. ( 2004) International comparisons of student attainment: Some issues arising from PISA study. Assessment in Education11: 319-330.
17.
Haberman J. ( 2006) The impact of differential expenditures on school performance . Educational Researcher18: 45-62.
18.
Hanushek E. ( 1996) School resources and student performance. In: Burtless G (ed.) Does Money Matter? The Effect of School Resources on Student Achievement and Adult Success . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 43-73.
19.
Institute of Education Sciences: National Center for Education Statistics (2009) Program for international student assessment (PISA). Available from: http://nces.ed.gov/Surveys/PISA/index.asp .
20.
Jacob B. and Ludwig J. ( 2008) Improving Educational Outcomes for Poor Children . Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research .
21.
Krueger A. ( 1999) Experimental estimates of education production functions . Quarterly Journal of Economics64(2): 497-532.
22.
Kozol J. ( 2005) The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. New York City, NY: Random House.1-416.
23.
Lippman L., Burns S. and McArthur E. ( 1996) Urban Schools: The Challenge of Location and Poverty . Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
24.
Lubienski C. and Lubienski S. ( 2006) Charter, Private, Pubic, and Academic Achievement: New Evidence from NAEP Mathematics. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education. New York: Teachers’ College Columbia University.
25.
Murnane R. and Levy F. ( 1996) Evidence from Fifteen Schools in Austin, Texas. Teaching the New Basic Skills. Austin, TX: Fress Press.
26.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) ( 2008) The nation’s report card. Available from: http://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2005/s0111.asp , accessed 17 April 2009.
27.
National Center for Education Statistics ( 2007) The condition of education 2007. NCES 2007-064. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education .
28.
National Center for Educational Statistics ( 2003) Trends in International Mathematics and Science: 2003 Results. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Sciences. US Department of Education.
29.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2003) The PISA assessment framework: Mathematics, reading, science, and problem solving knowledge and skills. OECD. 1-152. Retrieved January 14, 2010 from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0.3417.en_32252351_32236101_1_1_1_1_1.00.htnl
30.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2006) Top of the class: High performers in science in Pisa 2006. Secretary General of OECD. Available from: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/17/42645389.pdf , accessed 21 January 2009.
31.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2007) Executive Summary: Pisa 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World. Paris: OECD.
32.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2009a) What is Pisa? Available from: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_32252351_32235907_1_1_1_1_1,00.html , accessed 14 January 2010.
33.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Economic Development (OECD) (2009b) Available from: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_32252351_32235918_1_1_1_1_1,00.html , accessed 21 January 2010.
34.
Pelliccia L. and Arrisueno G. ( 2009) New study shows selective use of data and political bias in international test: Report also finds encouraging progress in big city districts, despite continued achievement gaps. Brookings Institute, Washington, DC.
35.
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) ( 2004) A Profile of Student Performance in Reading and Science . Paris: OECD.
36.
Recruiting New Teachers ( 2000) The Urban Teacher Challenge: Teacher Demand and Supply in the Great City Schools. Belmont, MA: Author (in association with the Council of the Great City Schools and the Council of the Great City Colleges of Education).
37.
Rochex J. ( 2006) Chapter 5: Social, methodological, theoretical issues regarding assessment: Lessons from a secondary analysis of PISA 2000 literacy tests. Review of Research in Education30(1): 163-212.
38.
Roth D. and Swail W. ( 2000) Certification and Teacher Preparation in the United States . Washington, DC: Educational Policy Institute.
39.
Rumberger RW and Palardy GJ ( 2005) Does resegregation matter? The impact of social composition on academic achievement in Southern high schools. In: Boger JC and Orfield G (eds) School Resegregation: Must the South Turn Back?Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 127-147.
40.
United Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (2005 ) Child poverty in rich countries 2005. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.
41.
US Department of Education (2006) National assessment of educational progress: Comparing private schools and public schools using the hierarchical linear model. National Center for Educational Statistics: Institute of Educational Sciences, Washington, DC.
42.
Wake County Public School System (WCPSS) ( 1999) The impact of poverty upon schools. Wake County Public School System Evaluation and Research Department. Available at: http://www.wcpss.net/evaluationresearch/reports/1999/9920_poverty.pdf , accessed 22 May 2010.
43.
Wilson DJ ( 2010) Separate school. In: The Canadian Encyclopedia . Available from: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007290 , accessed 24 January 2010.
44.
Yee LP ( 2006) What are PISA and TIMSS? What do they tell us?Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematics , Madrid, Spain, 1-10.
