classroom learning

Compulsory Education: When it starts and how long it lasts

Around the world, for the most part, compulsory schooling starts at 6, although some start at 7, and a very few at 5 or even younger. There is less consensus about how long compulsory education should last, but 9 years is the most common length, with 10 years running a close second.

Although most countries are at least consistent within their own borders, a few countries have no national policy, but instead operate at a state/provincial level. Thus, in the United States, commencement age ranges from 5-7, depending on state, and length of compulsory education varies from 9 years to 13. Similarly, in Canada, commencement age is either 6 or 7, and students are required to attend school for 10 to 13 years. Australia and Germany likewise show variability between states/Länder, but not to the same extent.

International Comparisons

	Commencement of compulsory schooling	No. of years compulsory education
Australia	6	9-101
Austria	6	9
Belgium	6	12
Canada	6/71	10-131
Czech Republic	6	9
Denmark	7	9
Finland	7	9
France	6	10
Germany	6	9-10 full-time + 3 part-time1
Greece	6	9
Hungary	6	12
Iceland	6	10
Ireland	6	9
Italy	6	9
Japan	6	9
Korea	6	9
Luxembourg	6	10
Netherlands	5	12 + 1 part-time
New Zealand	62	10
Norway	6	10
Poland	7	12
Portugal	6	8
Singapore	6/7	104
Spain	6	10
Sweden	7	9
Switzerland	6	9
United Kingdom	53; 4 in Nth Ireland	11
United States	5/6/71 (most commonly 6)	9-131

1. varies between states/provinces
2. 6 is compulsory, but 5 is universal
3. 5 is compulsory, but many children start at 4
4. 6 years are compulsory; an extra 4 is universal but not compulsory

United States: Variation between States

State/Territory	Compulsory Education
Alabama	7-16
Alaska	7-16
Arizona	6-16 (or completion of grade 10)
Arkansas	5-17
California	6-18
Colorado	7-16
Connecticut1	5-18
Delaware	5-16
District of Columbia	5-18
Florida	6-16
Georgia	6-16
Hawaii	6-18
Idaho	7-16
Illinois	7-16
Indiana	7-16
Iowa	6-16
Kansas	7-18
Kentucky	6-16
Louisiana	7-18
Maine	7-17
Maryland	5-16
Massachusetts	6-16
Michigan	6-16
Minnesota	7-16
Mississippi	6-17
Missouri	7-16
Montana	7-16
Nebraska	6-17
Nevada	7-17
New Hampshire	6-16
New Jersey	6-16
New Mexico	5-18
New York	6-16
North Carolina	7-16
North Dakota	7-16
Ohio	6-18
Oklahoma	5-18
Oregon	7-18
Pennsylvania	8-17
Rhode Island	6-16
South Carolina	5-17
South Dakota	6-16
Tennessee	6-17
Texas	6-18
Utah	6-18
Vermont	6-16 (or completion of grade 10)
Virginia	5-18
Washington	8-18
West Virginia	6-16
Wisconsin	6-18
Wyoming	7-16 (or completion of grade 10)

[information taken from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/50/51/5051.htm]

Canada: Variation between Provinces/Territories

Province/Territory	Compulsory Education
Alberta	6-16
British Columbia	5-16
Saskatchewan	7-16
Manitoba	7-16
Ontario	6-16
Northwest Territories	6-16
Québec	6-16
New Brunswick	5-18
Nova Scotia	6-16
Prince Edward Island	7-16
Newfoundland	6-16
Yukon	6yr8mth-16

[information taken from http://www.hslda.ca/provlaws.asp ]

School structure: Segregating by ability

This refers to the custom in some countries of having completely separate schools for students of different academic ability (generally an "academic" school versus a "vocational" or "technical" school), rather than to the practice of streaming within schools.

No country that I know of segregates children at primary level, but a number choose to do so at secondary level. Germany and Hungary do so at a younger age than most, although England, the Netherlands and Switzerland also offer the option of attending a school that caters only for academic or non-academic students (as opposed to enforced segregation). The practice of separate schools is a little more common at upper secondary level: France, Italy, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Switzerland join the ranks of those enforcing a choice, and Spain provides the option. Australia, Canada, Ireland, Wales, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United States don't have the practice of having separate schools for those of different ability, although Canada did to some extent, and some of these schools still exist.

School structure: Progression between classes

There is no strong majority in favor of either allowing students to automatically move on to the next class or requiring them to reach a certain standard. Australia, England, Ireland, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, and Wales automatically move their students on, Canada does at the primary level and sometimes does at the secondary level, and Italy generally does at the primary level but mostly doesn't at the secondary level. France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Singapore, and Switzerland require their students to reach a certain standard. And Sweden and the United States sometimes do and sometimes don't.

Textbook selection

There's an interesting range among countries as regards school textbooks. In some cases, it's entirely up to the teacher. In other cases, school boards or other official bodies determine what will be used. Some Governments supply a list of "approved" textbooks, from which texts must be chosen.

Teachers have free choice in Australia, Canada, England & Wales, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, and some American States. Recommended lists are provided in Canada, Hungary, Spain, and Switzerland. An official list of approved texts is provided in France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and in about half of American States.

Resources

More details comparing different countries' educational systems can be found at:

http://www.ibe.unesco.org/international/ICE/46english/46natrape.htm

A number of countries have national curricula: France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, the United Kingdom. Most States in the U.S. follow common guidelines for a core curriculum, although there is no national curriculum as such.

Around the world, there is general agreement that primary/elementary schools must cover the national language, mathematics, science, history, geography, and social studies/civics. Most countries agree that the arts, physical education, health, ethics, life skills should also be covered.

The most obvious source of variation between countries at the elementary/primary level lies in the teaching of languages other than the national language. (In those cases where there is more than one national language, it is generally the case that the student has the option of selecting their native language). Despite the fact that it is generally recognized that languages are best learned young, and that there is no evidence that learning a second language impairs understanding of the child's native language, few countries require their young children to learn a second language, or even offer them the chance to do so.

Below are details of some national curricula:

England France Iceland Japan New Zealand Spain

England

Compulsory education is divided into four key stages:

• Key stage 1 covers ages 5-7 (primary school)
• Key stage 2 covers ages 7+-11 (primary school)
• Key stage 3 covers ages 11-14 (lower secondary)
• Key stage 4 covers ages 14-16 (lower secondary)

Students take national tests called SATs or Key Stage tests at the end of the first 3 key stages (at 7, 11 and 14).

At primary level (Key Stages 1 and 2), students study:

• English
• Mathematics
• Science
• Design and technology
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
• History
• Geography
• Art and design
• Music
• Physical education
• Religious education

Schools are advised to teach personal, social and health education, citizenship and at least one modern foreign language, but these are not compulsory. In the first phase of the lower secondary level (Key Stage 3), students study:

• English
• Maths
• Science
• Design and technology
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
• History
• Geography
• Modern foreign languages
• Art and design
• Music
• Citizenship
• Physical education
• Religious education, Personal, social and health education (PSHE), Careers education (compulsory, but not part of the National Curriculum)

Opportunity for optional subjects begins at Key Stage 4. The compulsory subjects are:

• English
• Maths
• Science
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
• Physical education
• Citizenship
• Religious education, careers education and sex education (compulsory, but not part of the National Curriculum)

You can read more about the English National Curriculum at: https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum

France

In France, primary schools cover the first 5 years of formal education. Primary education is divided into three "cours":

• cours préparatoire (CP)
• cours élementaire 1 and 2 (CEl/CE2)
• cours moyen 1 and 2 (CM1/CM2)

The first two occur in the first three years; the cours moyen cover the last two years.

Secondary schooling is divided into two successive stages, known as cycles. Collège goes from form 6 (sixième) to form 3 (troisième), covering ages 11-15. This last year at collège is the first point at which students have a choice regarding some of the subjects they wish to study. After collège, students move onto a general, technical or vocational lycée.

The 1990 primary level curriculum alloted French and social studies between 10 and 13 hours weekly; mathematics, science, and technology 6 to 10 hours; and physical and artistic education 6 to 8 hours. At collège, the national curriculum prescribes French, mathematics, a foreign language, history/geography/economics, civics, biology, plastic arts, music, technology, and physical education; physics and chemistry are added in the last two years. There is a choice between Latin, Greek, a second foreign language and extra classes in the first foreign language. In the final two years, there is a choice between different branches of technology.

Although students attend differently oriented lycée, the core subjects remain the same for all students (French, mathematics, a foreign language, history/geography/economics, civics, biology, physics, chemistry, technology, and physical education).

Iceland

Compulsory school is divided into ten grades. Usually, schools either include all ten grades, or they cover grades one to seven or grades eight to ten. All compulsory schools are co-educational. Grades 1-4 (6 to 9 years) have 30 lessons a week, Grades 5-7 (10-12 years) have 35 lessons, and Grades 8-10 (13-15) have 37 lessons.

The National Curriculum specifies that over the course of these ten years, school time should be divided among the subjects in the following approximate ratios:

• Icelandic 19%
• Mathematics 17%
• Natural sciences 9%
• Social and religious studies 10%
• Physical education 10%
• Arts and crafts 11%
• Modern languages 11%
• Home economics 4%
• ICT 6%
• Life skills 2%

The first five are subjects which all pupils study from grade 1 through grade 9. Instruction in other subjects starts later. Both Danish and English become compulsory at later levels. In the 10th and final grade all pupils study Icelandic, mathematics, English, Danish, natural sciences, social studies, life skills and physical education, while other subjects and electives vary.

Upper secondary schools (not compulsory) come in four types:

• grammar schools that offer four-year academic programmes of study;
• industrial-vocational schools, which offer theoretical and practical programmes of study in skilled and some non-skilled trades;
• comprehensive schools that provide academic programmes comparable to those of the grammar schools and vocational programmes similar to those offered by the industrial-vocational schools, as well as other specialised vocational training programmes;
• specialised vocational schools which offer programmes of study in preparation for specialised employment.

For a more detailed discussion of the Icelandic system: http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/publications/curriculum/  [updated link]

Japan

The Japanese education system consists of three years of pre-compulsory education (Kindergarten) (3- to 6-year-olds), six years of primary (elementary) education (6-12 years), three years of lower secondary (junior high school) education (aged 12-15) and three years of upper secondary education (senior high school) (15- to 18-year-olds). Some schools are being introduced combining lower and upper secondary education within one institution.

For elementary and secondary schools, the Ministry specifies how many hours (an "hour" is a class period of 45 minutes) per week must be spent on each subject at each year level. This is the prescription for elementary schools:

	1st year	2nd year	3rd year	4th year	5th year	6th year
Japanese	306	315	280	280	210	210
Social studies			105	105	105	105
Arithmetic	136	175	175	175	175	175
Science			105	105	105	105
Life Environment studies	102	105
Music	68	70	70	70	70	70
Drawing & Handicrafts	68	70	70	70	70	70
Homemaking					70	70
Physical education	102	105	105	105	105	105
Moral education	34	35	35	35	35	35
Class/school activities	34	35	35	70	70	70
Total	850	910	980	1015	1015	1015

Here is the prescription for lower secondary schools (note that an "hour" is now defined as a period of 50 minutes):

For more details on the Japanese educational system, go to: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/international/ICE/natrap/Japan_Scan_1.pdf

New Zealand

The New Zealand school system is divided into primary and secondary. Primary schooling covers the years from 5 to 12 (the compulsory starting age is 6, but it is the custom for children to begin at 5); secondary from 13-18. There are also schools known as intermediates, which cover Year 7 and 8 students (11-12 years). Some primary schools finish at Year 6, and their students go on to an intermediate; other primaries go up to Year 8, but their students may choose to go to an intermediate.

The New Zealand curriculum for primary and secondary school students includes seven essential learning areas: Language and Languages, Mathematics, Science, Technology, Social Sciences, The Arts, Health and Physical Well-being. The New Zealand Curriculum Framework also includes eight groups of essential skills to be developed by all students across the whole curriculum: communication, numeracy, information, problem-solving, self-management, social, physical, and work and study.

You can find more about the New Zealand educational system at:
https://www.education.govt.nz

Spain

Three major sections comprise the compulsory Spanish curriculum - Infant education (0 to 6 years), Primary education (6 to 12 years), and Secondary education (12 to 16 years). Fifty-five percent of the curriculum is compulsory, and the remaining forty-five percent is the responsibility of the Spanish territories.

Primary Education (6-12 years) is organized into three two-year cycles (6-8, 8-10,10-12). The curriculum stipulates six compulsory areas of knowledge:

• Spanish Language and Literature, and where appropriate, the Language and Literature in the respective Autonomous Community;
• Mathematics;
• Natural, Social and Cultural Environment (science, geography, history);
• Artistic Education (art, music, drama);
• Physical Education;
• Foreign Languages (compulsory from age 8 -- the start of the second primary cycle).

The number of school hours per cycle is also stipulated:

	1st cycle	2nd & 3rd cycles
Spanish Language & Literature	350	275
Mathematics	175	170
Knowledge of the Environment	175	170
Artistic Education	140	105
Physical Education	140	105
Foreign language		170
Religion/Social-cultural activities	105	105
Total	1085	1100

Lower secondary education (12-16 years) is organised into 2 two-year cycles.Each subject area is assigned a minimum number of class hours, which together must not account for over 55% of the school schedule in Autonomous Communities with a co-official language other than Spanish, or more than 65% in other areas.

	1st cycle	2nd cycle
Spanish Language & Literature	245	240
Foreign languages	210	240
Mathematics	175	160
Natural Science	140	90
Social Studies, Geography, History	140	160
Physical Education	70	70
Plastic & Visual Education	35	35
Music	35	35
Technology	125	70
Religion/Study Hall	105	105
Total	1280	1205

 

More links

To find your national or State curriculum, or investigate others, go to EDinformatics

More details comparing different countries' educational systems including curriculum information can be found at:

http://www.ibe.unesco.org/international/ICE/46english/46natrape.htm

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/research/centre-for-information-and-reviews/inca…;

 

Two large-scale international studies have become established to compare countries' performance in the core subjects of literacy, mathematics and science.

TIMSS: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study

TIMSS is an international study involving 50 countries that assesses math and science achievement at four year intervals. It has been running since 1995. Students are assessed in the 4th and 8th years of school, and in their final year. The next assessment round will be in 2007.

The study uses four benchmarks (advanced, high, intermediate, low) to gather a more complete picture of trends within a country. Thus we can not only approve high performing countries like Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Korea, and Hong Kong, for having about 1/3 or more of their 8th grade students reach the advanced benchmark in mathematics, and about 2/3 to 3/4 reaching the high benchmark, but we can also note, for example, that although the Netherlands doesn't have high numbers reaching the advanced level (some 10% of 8th graders and 5% of 4th graders), it does at least do an excellent job of educating all its students, since 97% of its 8th graders and 99% of its 4th graders reach the low benchmark. It also enables us to spot trends across time — for example, in general, countries have improved their levels at the lower end, but not at the high end.

Mathematics

Grade 8 Advanced Benchmark

Students can organize information, make generalizations, solve non-routine problems, and draw and justify conclusions from data. They can compute percent change and apply their knowledge of numeric and algebraic concepts and relationships to solve problems. Students can solve simultaneous linear equations and model simple situations algebraically. They can apply their knowledge of measurement and geometry in complex problem situations. They can interpret data from a variety of tables and graphs, including interpolation and extrapolation.

Grade 8 High Benchmark

Students can apply their understanding and knowledge in a wide variety of relatively complex situations. They can order, relate, and compute with fractions and decimals to solve word problems, operate with negative integers, and solve multi-step word problems involving proportions with whole numbers. Students can solve simple algebraic problems including evaluating expressions, solving simultaneous linear equations, and using a formula to determine the value of a variable. Students can find areas and volumes of simple geometric shapes and use knowledge of geometric properties to solve problems. They can solve probability problems and interpret data in a variety of graphs and tables.

Grade 8 Intermediate Benchmark

Students can apply basic mathematical knowledge in straightforward situations. They can add, subtract, or multiply to solve one-step word problems involving whole numbers and decimals. They can identify representations of common fractions and relative sizes of fractions. They understand simple algebraic relationships and solve linear equations with one variable. They demonstrate understanding of properties of triangles and basic geometric concepts including symmetry and rotation. They recognize basic notions of probability. They can read and interpret graphs, tables, maps, and scales.

Grade 8 Low Benchmark

Students have some basic mathematical knowledge. The few items at this level provide some evidence that students can do basic computations with whole numbers without a calculator. They can select the two-place decimal closest to a whole number. They can multiply two-place decimal numbers by three-place decimal numbers with calculators available. They recognize some basic terminology and read information from a line on a graph.

Grade 4 Advanced Benchmark

Students can apply their understanding and knowledge in a wide variety of relatively complex situations. They demonstrate a developing understanding of fractions and decimals and the relationship between them. They can select appropriate information to solve multi-step word problems involving proportions. They can formulate or select a rule for a relationship. They show understanding of area and can use measurement concepts to solve a variety of problems. They show some understanding of rotation. They can organize, interpret, and represent data to solve problems.

Grade 4 High Benchmark

Student can apply their knowledge and understanding to solve problems. Student can solve multistep word problems involving addition, multiplication, and division. They can use their understanding of place value and simple fractions to solve problems. They can identify a number sentence that represents situations. Students show understanding of three-dimensional objects, how shapes can make other shapes, and simple transformation in a plane. They demonstrate a variety of measurement skills and can interpret and use data in tables and graphs to solve problems.

Grade 4 Intermediate Benchmark

Students can apply basic mathematical knowledge in straightforward situations. They can read, interpret, and use different representations of numbers. They can perform operations with three and four-digit numbers and decimals. They can extend simple patterns. They are familiar with a range of two-dimensional shapes and read and interpret different representations of the same data.

Grade 4 Low Benchmark

Students have some basic mathematical knowledge. Students demonstrate an understanding of whole numbers and can do simple computations with them. They demonstrate familiarity with the basic properties of triangles and rectangles. They can read information from simple bar graphs.

from http://timss.bc.edu/PDF/t03_download/T03_M_Chap2.pdf

2003 Performance

In 2003, the international averages were:

Benchmark	Grade 4	Grade 8
advanced	9%	7%
high	33%	23%
intermediate	63%	49%
low	82%	74%

There is quite a wide variation around these means. For example, Singapore is head and shoulders above everyone, scoring 44% advanced, 77% high, 93% intermediate, 99% low at grade 8, and 38% advanced, 73% high, 91% intermediate, 97% low at grade 4. The only countries that come close are also Asian: Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, Japan, and the Republic of Korea (for Grade 8; grade 4 figures weren't available). The highest of the remaining countries at grade 8 was Hungary at 11% advanced, 41% high, 75% intermediate, 95% low, and at grade 4 England at 14% advanced, 43% high, 75% intermediate, 93% low -- a substantial difference in results! But still a vast improvement over those at the bottom of the table. Here's 2 tables roughly grouping countries, using the top performing country in each group as a benchmark:

Grade 8	advanced	high	intermediate	low
highest performing countries (Singapore)	44%	77%	93%	99%
Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong, Japan
above average countries (Hungary)	11%	41%	75%	95%
Hungary, Netherlands, Belgium, Estonia, Slovak Republic, Australia, United States
slightly below average countries (Malaysia)	6%	30%	66%	93%
Malaysia, Russian Federation, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, England, New Zealand, Scotland
below average countries (Romania)	4%	21%	52%	79%
Romania, Serbia, Sweden, Slovenia, Italy, Bulgaria, Armenia
really below average countries (Cyprus)	1%	13%	45%	77%
Cyprus, Moldova, Macedonia, Jordan, Indonesia, Egypt, Norway, Lebanon, Palestinian National Authority, Iran, Chile, Philippines, Bahrain, South Africa, Tunisia, Morocco, Botswana, Saudi Arabia, Ghana

note that the range at the bottom end is still very large; although most of the countries in the last category at least got over 50% to the low benchmark, 8 did not -- the worst only got 9% through.

Grade 4	advanced	high	intermediate	low
highest performing countries (Singapore)	38%	73%	91%	97%
Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Chinese Taipei
above average countries (England)	14%	43%	75%	93%
England, Russian Federation, Belgium, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary
slightly below average countries (Cyprus)	6%	30%	66%	93%
Cyprus, United States, Moldova, Italy, Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand
below average countries (Scotland)	4%	21%	52%	79%
Scotland, Slovenia, Armenia, Norway
really below average countries (Philippines)	1%	13%	45%	77%
Philippines, Iran, Tunisia, Morocco

note that there are substantially fewer countries' results available at grade 4

You can find out more about international comparisons of achievements in mathematics, science and reading at the official website for TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) & PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study): http://timss.bc.edu/

The full 2003 Mathematics Report can be downloaded at: http://timss.bc.edu/timss2003i/mathD.html

Science

Grade 8 Advanced Benchmark

Students demonstrate a grasp of some complex and abstract science concepts. They can apply knowledge of the solar system and of Earth features, processes, and conditions, and apply understanding of the complexity of living organisms and how they relate to their environment.

They show understanding of electricity, thermal expansion, and sound, as well as the structure of matter and physical and chemical properties and changes. They show understanding of environmental and resource issues. Students understand some fundamentals of scientific investigation and can apply basic physical principles to solve some quantitative problems. They can provide written explanations to communicate scientific knowledge.

Grade 8 High Benchmark

Students demonstrate conceptual understanding of some science cycles, systems, and principles. They have some understanding of Earth’s processes and the solar system, biological systems, populations, reproduction and heredity, and structure and function of organisms. They show some understanding of physical and chemical changes, and the structure of matter. They solve some basic physics problems related to light, heat, electricity, and magnetism, and they demonstrate basic knowledge of major environmental issues. They demonstrate some scientific inquiry skills. They can combine information to draw conclusions; interpret information in diagrams, graphs and tables to solve problems; and provide short explanations conveying scientific knowledge and cause/effect relationships.

Grade 8 Intermediate Benchmark

Students can recognize and communicate basic scientific knowledge across a range of topics. They recognize some characteristics of the solar system, water cycle, animals, and human health. They are acquainted with some aspects of energy, force and motion, light reflection, and sound. Students demonstrate elementary knowledge of human impact on and changes in the environment. They can apply and briefly communicate knowledge, extract tabular information, extrapolate from data presented in a simple linear graph, and interpret pictorial diagrams.

Grade 8 Low Benchmark

Students recognize some basic facts from the life and physical sciences. They have some knowledge of the human body and heredity, and demonstrate familiarity with some everyday physical phenomena. Students can interpret some pictorial diagrams and apply knowledge of simple physical concepts to practical situations.

Grade 4 Advanced Benchmark

Students can apply knowledge and understanding in beginning scientific inquiry. Students demonstrate some understanding of Earth’s features and processes and the solar system. They can communicate their understanding of structure, function, and life processes in organisms and classify organisms according to major physical and behavioral features. They demonstrate some understanding of physical phenomena and properties of common materials. Students demonstrate beginning scientific inquiry knowledge and skills.

Grade 4 High Benchmark

Students can apply knowledge and understanding to explain everyday phenomena. Students demonstrate some knowledge of Earth structure and processes and the solar system and some understanding of plant structure, life processes, and human biology. They demonstrate some knowledge of physical states, common physical phenomena, and chemical changes. They provide brief descriptions and explanations of some everyday phenomena and compare, contrast, and draw conclusions.

Grade 4 Intermediate Benchmark

Students can apply basic knowledge and understanding to practical situations in the sciences. Students demonstrate knowledge of some basic facts about Earth’s features and processes and the solar system. They recognize some basic information about human biology and health and show some understanding of development and life cycles of organisms. They know some basic facts about familiar physical phenomena, states, and changes. They apply factual knowledge to practical situations, interpret pictorial diagrams, and combine information to draw conclusions.

Grade 4 Low Benchmark

Students have some elementary knowledge of the earth, life, and physical sciences. Students recognize simple facts presented in everyday language and context about Earth’s physical features, the seasons, the solar system, human biology, and the development and characteristics of animals and plants. They recognize facts about a range of familiar physical phenomena — rainbows, magnets, electricity, boiling, floating, and dissolving. They interpret labeled pictures and simple pictorial diagrams and provide short written responses to questions requiring factual information.

from http://timss.bc.edu/PDF/t03_download/T03_S_Chap2.pdf

2003 Performance

In 2003, the international averages were:

Benchmark	Grade 4	Grade 8
advanced	7%	6%
high	30%	25%
intermediate	63%	54%
low	82%	78%

There is, again, wide variation around these means. Singapore is again head and shoulders above everyone. The only countries that come close are also Asian: Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, Japan, and the Republic of Korea (for Grade 8; grade 4 figures weren't available). The highest of the remaining countries at grade 8 was Hungary at 11% advanced, 41% high, 75% intermediate, 95% low, and at grade 4 England at 14% advanced, 43% high, 75% intermediate, 93% low — a substantial difference in results! But still a vast improvement over those at the bottom of the table. Here's 2 tables roughly grouping countries, using the top performing country in each group as a benchmark:

Grade 8	advanced	high	intermediate	low
highest performing countries (Singapore)	33%	66%	85%	95%
Singapore, Chinese Taipei
above average countries (Republic of Korea)	17%	57%	88%	98%
Republic of Korea, Japan, Hungary, England, Hong Kong, Estonia
slightly above average countries (United States)	11%	41%	75%	93%
United States, Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, Slovak Republic, Netherlands, Lithuania, Slovenia, Russian Federation, Scotland
slightly below average countries (Israel)	5%	24%	57%	85%
Israel, Latvia, Malaysia, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Belgium, Jordan, Norway
below average countries (Serbia)	2%	16%	48%	79%
Serbia, Macedonia, Moldova, Armenia, Palestinian National Authority, Egypt, Iran
really below average countries (Chile)	1%	5%	24%	56%
Chile, South Africa, Cyprus, Bahrain, Indonesia, Lebanon, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Tunisia, Botswana, Ghana

again the range at the bottom end is still very large; although many of the countries in the last category at least got over 50% to the low benchmark, 7 did not -- the worst only got 13% through.

Grade 4	advanced	high	intermediate	low
highest performing countries (Singapore)	25%	61%	86%	95%
Singapore, England, Chinese Taipei, United States, Japan
above average countries (Russian Federation)	11%	39%	74%	93%
Russian Federation, Hungary, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Latvia, Hong Kong
slightly below average countries (Scotland)	5%	27%	66%	90%
Scotland, Moldova, Netherlands, Lithuania, Slovenia, Belgium
really below average countries (Cyprus)	2%	17%	55%	86%
Cyprus, Norway, Armenia
really below average countries (Philippines)	2%	6%	19%	34%
Philippines, Iran, Tunisia, Morocco

note that there are substantially fewer countries' results available at grade 4

You can find out more about international comparisons of achievements in mathematics, science and reading at the official website for TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) & PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study): http://timss.bc.edu/

The full 2003 Science Report can be downloaded at: http://timss.bc.edu/timss2003i/scienceD.html

PIRLS

PIRLS is an international study of reading literacy involving 35 countries. It began in 2001, and is intended to take place every five years. It assesses performance at year 4 (around 10 years of age), although in a few cases the students are in their 3rd or 5th year of formal schooling. The PIRLS 2001 assessment was based on eight different texts of 400 to 700 words in length – four literary and four informational. Test items were designed to measure four major processes of reading comprehension:

• Focus on and Retrieve Explicitly Stated Information.
  The student needed to recognize the relevance of the information or ideas presented in the text in relation to the information sought, but looking for specific information or ideas typically involved locating a sentence or phrase (approximately 20% of the assessment).
• Make Straightforward Inferences.
  Based mostly on information contained in the texts, usually these types of questions required students to connect two ideas presented in adjacent sentences and fill in a “gap” in meaning. Skilled readers often make these kinds of inferences automatically, recognizing the relationship even though it is not stated in the text (approximately 40%).
• Interpret and Integrate Ideas and Information.
  For these questions, students needed to process the text beyond the phrase or sentence level. Sometimes they were asked to make connections that were not only implicit, but needed to draw on their own knowledge and experiences (approximately 25%).
• Examine and Evaluate Content, Language, and Textual Elements.
  These questions required students to draw on their knowledge of text genre and structure, as well as their understanding of language conventions and devices (approximately 15%).

23 of the 35 countries had average reading scores significantly above the international average of 500; the range was large, with the highest scoring country (Sweden) scoring 561, compared to the lowest scoring 327 (Belize). I've grouped them into five categories according to performance. As with the TIMSS results, the highest performing country in the group is the one whose average score is given:

	average	range1
highest performing countries (Sweden)	561
Sweden, Netherlands, England, Bulgaria, Latvia, Canada, Lithuania, Hungary, United States, Italy, Germany, Czech Republic		542-561
above average countries (New Zealand)	529
New Zealand, Scotland, Singapore, Russian Federation, Hong Kong, France, Greece		524-529
average countries (Slovak Republic)	518
Slovak Republic, Iceland, Romania, Israel, Slovenia, Norway		499-518
below average countries (Cyprus)	494
Cyprus, Moldova, Turkey, Macedonia		442-494
really below average countries (Colombia)	422
Colombia, Argentina, Iran, Kuwait, Morocco, Belize		327-422

1. the difference between the country with the lowest average and the one with the highest average

It should be noted that the range of difference between the highest 5% and lowest 5% of students in most countries was 200 to 300 points -- similar to the range in average performance across countries.

In all countries, girls had significantly higher achievement than boys. Italy had the smallest difference, with an 8-point difference compared an 11-point or greater difference for all other countries. The international average was 20 points. Countries with a difference of 25 points or more included Moldova, New Zealand, Iran, Belize and Kuwait.

For more details on countries' performance, see http://timss.bc.edu/pirls2001i/pdf/P1_IR_Ch01.pdf

Although the PIRLS, like the TIMSS, used benchmarks, the performance on the benchmarks as a whole for each country doesn't seem to be available. However, you can read about benchmark items and countries' achievements on particular ones at http://timss.bc.edu/pirls2001i/pdf/P1_IR_Ch03.pdf

The full 2001 Literacy Report can be downloaded at: http://timss.bc.edu/pirls2001i/PIRLS2001_Pubs_IR.html

Montessori education

Maria Montessori (1870-1952) was an Italian physician. After working with retarded children in a psychiatric clinic attached to the University of Rome, she applied the ideas she had developed to children in a slum district in Rome. This was the first Casa dei Bambini ("children's house"). It opened in 1907. Two years later she set out her methods and principles in a book, which was translated as The Montessori Method in 1912. With the success of her method, Dr Montessori opened more schools in Italy, in Spain, South Asia and the Netherlands. Today, schools based on her methods can be found around the world.

The movement has been particularly successful in the United States. It would be hard to say how many Montessori schools there are (and the question of whether or not a school can be called a "Montessori" school is sometimes a difficult one, since there is no legal protection on the name, and any school may call itself "Montessori"), but in 2019 Forbes claimed there were some 5,000 Montessori programs, of which around 500 were in public schools.

An essential part of the Montessori approach is that of the 'prepared environment'. A Montessori preschool or primary/elementary classroom is immediately identifiable by its equipment, and by the fact that everything is scaled for the children. Children are given the opportunity to learn; teachers (known as directors/directresses, because they direct the children's learning) are facilitators of learning, not dictators.

Although it is the essence of the approach that children learn when they are ready, the design of the environment and the program is such that Montessori students usually learn skills such as reading, writing, mathematics, at an earlier age than usual.

>> More

For more about Montessori:

International Montessori Index

the official international Montessori site.

Montessori Online

LOTS of articles here.

American Montessori Society

the official site of the American Montessori Society. More for teachers and parents involved in setting up a Montessori school in the US.

Suzuki approach to music

Shin'ichi Suzuki (1898-1998) founded the Talent Education Institute in 1950. The son of a violin maker, and a violinist himself, his teaching methods were originally used to teach violin to children, and his name and method are still predominantly associated with the violin. However, the method has since been adapted to other instruments.

Although most people know the method by the name of the man who invented it, Suzuki himself called it Talent Education, and many of the institutions around the world bear this name. The term "Talent Education" reflects Suzuki's belief that

"Good talent always grows where good method and good efforts are present"

The Suzuki method has been extremely successful in teaching music to young children, and teachers can be found around the globe.

The Suzuki approach to music has some commonalities with the Montessori approach, and many Montessori parents are also Suzuki parents (like me!). For some comments on these, go to my article on Suzuki & Montessori

For more about Suzuki education:

Suzuki method

an article about the Suzuki method from the website of a Suzuki piano teacher

Suzuki Association of the Americas

mainly useful if you live in the American continent and wish to join the Association, but there is an article on the History of the Suzuki method which may be of interest.

European Suzuki Association

there are links here to individual European Suzuki associations

And here's an amazing thing: actual archival videos of the famous violin teacher Shinichi Suzuki giving lectures and master classes: http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/Arts/subcollections/SuzukiAbout.html

 

Waldorf or Steiner schools

Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) opened the first "Steiner" school in 1919, in Stuttgart, Germany. This was a school for the children of employees of the Waldorf Astoria cigarette factory, hence the name "Waldorf" schools. According to the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, there are now over 800 Waldorf schools in over 40 countries, and over 50 full-time Waldorf teacher-training institutes. (according to the Macmillan Encyclopedia 2001 there are "over 70" schools worldwide, but this seems to me a wild underestimate, since the AWSNA lists some 136 affiliated schools in the US alone).

Steiner was an Austrian philosopher. His career as a natural historian ended when he became involved with the theosophist movement. Eventually he broke with this movement and started his own school of "anthroposophy".

Theosophy ("divine wisdom") borrowed heavily from eastern religions, claiming man could only know God through direct experience, through mysticism, meditation, occult practices, etc.

Anthroposophy ("people wisdom") holds that the key to an understanding of the cosmos exists in man himself and that man's spiritual development has been held back by his too-deep focus on the material world.

Steiner schools aim to develop the child's whole personality. Like Montessori, Steiner education is "child-centered", but where Montessori places a deep emphasis on practical skills and concrete experience, Steiner emphasizes play and creative activity. The world of the imagination is very important in Steiner education, and stories, myth and folktales are an important part of the curriculum.

For more about Steiner education:

AWSNA

there's not a lot of content, but it does have links to affiliated schools in North America, and some brief articles about Waldorf education; I recommend going straight to the site map, navigation around the site isn't overly clear

Directory for Latin America

for a list of Waldorf schools in Latin America

Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship

for schools in the UK and Eire

Christchurch Rudolf Steiner School

has more detail on the Steiner program, as well as links to international directories, and a list of NZ Steiner schools

Steiner Schools in Australia

for more details on Steiner education (probably the best informational content of the Steiner websites I've seen), as well as a list of Steiner schools in Australia

An article about Waldorf education:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/09/schooling-imaginat…

"Alternative" schools

Montessori and Steiner are the two "alternative" educational philosophies that have achieved widespread success. Montessori in particular, has almost reached mainstream status in some countries. To look at some other "alternative" schools see the Indigo Schools site, and AERO (Alternative Education Resource Organization), which has links to a number of "alternative" schools.

Homeschooling

Growing numbers of parents all over the world are choosing to educate their children at home.

The National Home Education Research Institute is an American non-profit organization which exists to carry out and collect research into home education, and to educate the public about home schooling.

While parents and teachers have always strongly supported small class sizes, their belief has not always been supported by evidence. Part of the problem lies in that word “small” — what constitutes a small class? Different interventions have looked at reducing class sizes from 40 to 30, or 30 to 25. It may well be that such reductions are not sufficient to show clear benefits.

The STAR Project

The project everyone talks about, the STAR project (Student Teacher Achievement Ratio), looked at class sizes well below these. The longitudinal study was undertaken in the American state of Tennessee and involved over 7000 students from 79 schools. For three years, from kindergarten through grade 3, students were placed either in small classes of 13-17 students; regular classes of 22-25 students; or regular classes with a teacher aide. Those in smaller classes performed significantly better on tests than those placed in regular classes. The largest gains occurred in inner-city schools.

Excitingly, the advantage was not only maintained in subsequent years but actually increased: in grade 4, students who had been in smaller classes were 6-9 months ahead of regular class students in reading, math, and science; by grade 8, they were a year ahead. Later, almost 44% of small class size students took college entrance exams, compared to 40% of regular class size students — the difference was greatest for African-Americans; 40.2% compared to 31.7%. 72% of small class students graduated from high school on schedule, compared to 65-6% of regular class students. They were also more likely to complete high school, to graduate with honors, to complete advanced math and English classes.

The SAGE Project

More recently, in Wisconsin, the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) program has reduced the student-teacher ratioto 15:1 in K-3 classrooms in 30 schools, comparing their performance to 14-17 matched schools. The benefits seen were again particularly great for African-American students, who reduced the achievement gap with white students by 19% — in comparison schools, the achievement gap widened by 58%. Interestingly, the results of having 2 teachers in a class of 30 were the same as having 2 classes of 15.

Why have different studies found different results?

Let’s look a little further at why there has been confusion about what educational research has told us about class size, given that this is one of the most studied issues in education. Howard Blake in 1954 reviewed pre-1950 studies. He found 85 that were based on original research, and of these 35 found benefits of small classes, 18 found benefits to large classes, and 32 found no difference. But Blake analyzed the studies further, looking for scientific acceptability. He found only 22 studies that reached this standard (a not surprising result for educational research in this time period). Of the 22, 16 favored small classes, 3 favored large classes, and 3 were inconclusive.

A meta-analysis of 77 studies in 1978 (Glass, Cohen & Smith) concluded that the greatest benefits occurred when class sizes were reduced to 15 students or less. A follow-up study suggested that the benefits were greatest for those below the age of 12 (Smith et al, 1979).

Unfortunately, educational experiments such as STAR — where students are randomly assigned to different treatments — are rare. More usual are attempts at indirectly investigating class size by comparing different situations. This, obviously, has many problems. You can get a feeling for these by reading a British analysis at: https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers/iser/… Apart from anything else, it shows you how one type of statistical analysis in studies of this nature can come up with no clear benefits of class size, while another type shows a very clear benefit.

It also seems that the principal benefit of reduced class size lies in its effect on the teacher; clearly some teachers will be more affected by this than others.

It is also worth noting the considerable international variation in class size -- a variation showing no correlation with performance -- indicating that class size cannot be considered out of the context of teaching method. The TIMSS international study, for example, found that although the average eighth-grade mathematics class was 31 students, there was considerable variation even among the higher-performing countries –- from 42 students in Korea to 19 in Belgium.

Conclusion

Many policy-makers argue that, while class size may be of value, the benefit doesn’t warrant the huge amount it would cost, given that there are other ways to spend the money — more and better trained teachers, for example. And, certainly, there would seem little benefit to reducing class size if you can’t put qualified teachers in the classes. Class size isn’t a factor that can be considered in a vacuum. But it does seem clear that:

• class size can be an important factor in learning outcomes,
• it is more important in the early years,
• it is more important for disadvantaged students,
• benefits may not be seen unless the class size is reduced to around 15.

Resources

The National Education Association (U.S.) has information about class size at: http://neatoday.org/category/class-size/

TIMSS has an interesting international comparison of class size and math achievement at:
https://timss.bc.edu/timss1999b/mathbench_report/mathb_exhibits/T2R51179.html

Some comments on the commonalities between the Suzuki approach to learning music and the Montessori approach to education.

My sons have both been in Montessori since they were three (they are now 8 and nearly 11, respectively). My elder son started learning the violin from a Suzuki teacher when he was around five, and now learns the piano (again, from a Suzuki teacher). My younger son has been learning the violin for the last two years. Over the years I have been somewhat intrigued by the number of parents who, like me, are both Montessori and Suzuki parents.

It is perhaps indicative that we talk about Montessori parents, and Suzuki parents. It is our children who are in these systems, why do we include the parents? I imagine it’s because both philosophies require the parent to be involved, to understand what’s involved in the approach, and do their part.

Why do these approaches go hand-in-hand? Well, they share a number of similarities.

Both Suzuki and Montessori respect the child, and feel that learning must be approached from where the child is, not where we think they should be.

Both believe in leading by example — not by telling (haranguing) the child to do what the adult thinks best, but by providing an example of the behavior the adult wants the child to copy.

Both provide the child with an orderliness that permits the child to learn. In the Montessori classroom this is expressed in the orderliness of the materials — everything has a place, every task has a sequence. In Suzuki, this is expressed through the set order of music pieces expressly designed to take the student step by step through the techniques necessary to learn the relevant skills.

Both philosophies stress the importance of providing the right environment to nurture the child’s developing character and self-image. Both feel that individuals learn at their own pace, not according to some standard drawn up by educators. In both methods, age does not determine what work the child is doing — they do what is appropriate for their skill level, not their age.

Both Montessori and Suzuki appreciate that repetition is the key to mastery.

Both philosophies believe that education is about bringing out potential, rather than “instructing”. The adult is a director rather than a dictator.

Many parents enrol their children in Montessori preschools because they are an "educational" way of getting childminding - if you're going to put your child in a creche, why not put them in a preschool instead - or because they want to give their child a "head start" on education. Quality preschool education is a rarity and Montessori are certainly leaders in the field.

My own children have been involved with Montessori since they were three.Like many parents, I came to Montessori education more by accident than design, and my belief in the system has grown over the years. When a Montessori primary (elementary) class opened in time for my older child, I was very pleased.

It is probably fair to say that parents send their children to a Montessori preschool because they provide a quality preschool education, but they send their children to Montessori schools because they have become converts to the Montessori approach and/or because they have deep dissatisfactions with the traditional education system.

I admit freely that both are true of me. Would I have been so keen on sending my son to a Montessori primary if I had been happier at school myself (rather than bored out of my tree)? But my sons' involvement with Montessori has only deepened my commitment and appreciation of its approach.

It is interesting that Montessori education seems particularly attractive to parents of sons. The preponderance of boys in my sons' classes may well be an anomaly, but I observe that those children who come to us at an older age, having had problems in mainstream (traditional) schools, are invariably boys. It is a truism today that the traditional education system favors girls. The Montessori environment and program doesn't penalize boys for their difficulty in sitting still; their later maturing; their need to touch and manipulate objects. The Montessori program is based around the individual. Thus, for example, the student determines when they'll do maths and for how long. This doesn't mean the child can choose never to do maths, merely that the child has control within the limits set by the teacher.

One of the most fundamental, and misunderstood, tenet of the Montessori approach is encapsulated in the phrase "Follow the child".

"Follow the child" does not mean let the child do what he wants. It is simply an acknowledgment that the child has her own pattern - that we need to take into account where the child is at, rather than impose our idea of what the child should learn now. Montessori saw the child's development as passing through four developmental phases, with a pattern of intense growth reaching a peak and then declining, within each phase.

Each of these developmental phases is marked by:

• a specific developmental goal
• a readily identifiable direction to reach that goal
• specific sensitivities that facilitate reaching that goal

This scenario is the basis for the Montessori structure of 3-6, 6-9, 9-12 classes. The age-bands reflect the developmental phases, and the program and environment provided for that phase reflects the sensitivities characteristic of that phase.

The color of these triangles reflects the similarity between, for example, the developmental phases at 0-6 and 12-18, a similarity that has been remarked on by many parents and teachers of adolescents.

Maria Montessori was ahead of her time in recognizing that babies were active learners, and it is also instructive to note that she saw development continuing to age 24. However, for the most part, Montessori education has concentrated on the periods 3-6 (preschool) and 6-12, with particular emphasis on the preschool years. This emphasis no doubt reflects the much greater void that existed in preschool education.

It is also partly an historical artifact - when Montessori decided (on the basis of her amazing success with so-called "uneducable" children) to try her methods on normal children, she had no opportunity to work with school-age children, as they were already in school. However, an opportunity arose to have custody of children below school age in a reclaimed public-housing project in Rome. Hence, quite by accident, Montessori's first successes were with preschool children. The success of her methods was of course, also much more obvious with this group of children, since few children below the age of six received any sort of education.

You can now read Maria Montessori's 1909 book online. There is an illustrated edition available at http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/montessori/method/method.html

Introduction

In 1997, the U.S. Congress asked the Director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at the National Institutes of Health, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, to convene a national panel to assess the effectiveness of different approaches used to teach children to read. For over two years, the National Reading Panel reviewed research-based knowledge on reading instruction and held open panel meetings in Washington, DC, and regional meetings across the United States. On April 13, 2000, the NRP concluded its work and submitted "The Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read."

Below are edited excerpts from the report, regarding their findings on a variety of reading instruction strategies.

Phonemic Awareness

Phonemes are the smallest units composing spoken language. For example, the words “go” and “she” each consist of two sounds or phonemes. Instruction in phonemic awareness (PA) involves teaching children to focus on and manipulate phonemes in spoken syllables and words. PA instruction should not be confused with phonics instruction (see below), or with auditory discrimination, which refers to the ability to recognize whether two spoken words are the same or different.

The evidence seems very clear that PA training caused improvement in students’ phonemic awareness, reading, and spelling. PA instruction also helped normally achieving children learn to spell, but was not effective for improving spelling in disabled readers.

The characteristics of PA training found to be most effective in enhancing PA, reading, and spelling skills included:

• explicitly and systematically teaching children to manipulate phonemes with letters,
• focusing the instruction on one or two types of phoneme manipulations rather than multiple types,
• teaching children in small groups.

It is important to note that PA instruction is a component of a successful reading program, not a complete reading program.

It is also important to note that there are many ways to teach PA effectively, and that the motivation of both students and their teachers is a critical ingredient of success.

Phonics instruction

Phonics instruction is a way of teaching reading that stresses the acquisition of letter-sound correspondences and their use in reading and spelling. The primary focus of phonics instruction is to help beginning readers understand how letters are linked to sounds (phonemes) to form letter-sound correspondences and spelling patterns and to help them learn how to apply this knowledge in their reading. Phonics instruction may be provided systematically or incidentally. A variety of systematic approaches are listed below. In incidental phonics instruction, the teacher simply highlights particular elements opportunistically when they appear in text.

The ability to read and spell words was enhanced in kindergartners who received systematic beginning phonics instruction. First graders who were taught phonics systematically were better able to decode and spell, and they showed significant improvement in their ability to comprehend text. Older children receiving phonics instruction were better able to decode and spell words and to read text orally, but their comprehension of text was not significantly improved.

Systematic synthetic phonics instruction also had a positive and significant effect on disabled readers’ reading skills. Additionally, systematic synthetic phonics instruction was significantly more effective in improving low socioeconomic status children’s alphabetic knowledge and word reading skills than instructional approaches that were less focused on these initial reading skills.

Across all grade levels, systematic phonics instruction improved the ability of good readers to spell. The impact was strongest for kindergartners and decreased in later grades. For poor readers, the impact of phonics instruction on spelling was small.

Although conventional wisdom has suggested that kindergarten students might not be ready for phonics instruction, this assumption was not supported by the data. The effects of systematic early phonics instruction were significant and substantial in kindergarten and the 1st grade, indicating that systematic phonics programs should be implemented at those age and grade levels.

While the findings provide converging evidence that explicit, systematic phonics instruction is a valuable and essential part of a successful classroom reading program, there is a need to be cautious in giving a blanket endorsement of all kinds of phonics instruction. In particular, to be able to make use of letter-sound information, children need phonemic awareness. Programs that focus too much on the teaching of letter-sound relations and not enough on putting them to use are unlikely to be very effective. Systematic phonics instruction is only one component—albeit a necessary component—of a total reading program; systematic phonics instruction should be integrated with other reading instruction in phonemic awareness, fluency, and comprehension strategies to create a complete reading program. Unfortunately, there is as yet insufficient research to tell us exactly how phonics instruction can be most effectively incorporated into a successful reading program.

Fluency

Fluency is one of several critical factors necessary for reading comprehension. Despite its importance as a component of skilled reading, fluency is often neglected in the classroom. Reading practice is generally recognized as an important contributor to fluency. Two instructional approaches, each of which has several variations, have typically been used to teach reading fluency:

• guided repeated oral reading - encourages students to read passages orally with systematic and explicit guidance and feedback from the teacher
• independent silent reading - encourages students to read silently on their own, inside and outside the classroom, with minimal guidance or feedback

These results apply to all students—good readers as well as those experiencing reading difficulties. Nevertheless, there were important gaps in the research. In particular, the Panel could find no multiyear studies providing information on the relationship between guided oral reading and the emergence of fluency.

Independent Silent Reading

There has been widespread agreement that encouraging students to engage in wide, independent, silent reading increases reading achievement. Literally hundreds of correlational studies find that the best readers read the most and that poor readers read the least. These correlational studies suggest that the more that children read, the better their fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. However, these findings are correlational in nature, and correlation does not imply causation.

Unfortunately only 14 of the studies that examined the effect of independent silent reading on reading achievement could meet the NRP research review methodology criteria, and these studies varied widely in their methodological quality and the reading outcome variables measured. Thus, a meta-analysis could not be conducted. Rather, the 14 studies were examined individually and in detail to identify converging trends and findings in the data.

In other words, even though encouraging students to read more is intuitively appealing, there is still not sufficient research evidence obtained from studies of high methodological quality to support the idea that such efforts reliably increase how much students read or that such programs result in improved reading skills.

The available data do suggest that independent silent reading is not an effective practice when used as the only type of reading instruction to develop fluency and other reading skills, particularly with students who have not yet developed critical alphabetic and word reading skills.

Comprehension

Vocabulary Instruction

The importance of vocabulary knowledge has long been recognized in the development of reading skills. For various reasons, a formal meta-analysis could not be conducted. Instead the vocabulary instruction database was reviewed for trends across studies. Fifty studies dating from 1979 to the present were reviewed in detail. There were 21 different methods represented in these studies.

The studies reviewed suggest that vocabulary instruction does lead to gains in comprehension, but that methods must be appropriate to the age and ability of the reader.

The following approaches appeared to be helpful:

• learning words before reading a text
• techniques such as task restructuring and repeated exposure (including having the student encounter words in various contexts)
• substituting easy words for more difficult words can assist low-achieving students.
• use of computers in vocabulary instruction was found to be more effective than some traditional methods in a few studies
• vocabulary also can be learned incidentally in the context of storybook reading or in listening to others

The Panel concluded that:

• vocabulary should be taught both directly and indirectly
• repetition and multiple exposures to vocabulary items are important
• learning in rich contexts, incidental learning, and use of computer technology all enhance the acquisition of vocabulary
• direct instruction should include task restructuring as necessary and should actively engage the student
• dependence on a single vocabulary instruction method will not result in optimal learning.

They also concluded that, while much is known about the importance of vocabulary to success in reading, there is little research on the best methods or combinations of methods of vocabulary instruction and the measurement of vocabulary growth and its relation to instruction methods.

Text Comprehension Instruction

Comprehension is defined as “intentional thinking during which meaning is constructed through interactions between text and reader” (Harris & Hodges, 1995). Thus, readers derive meaning from text when they engage in intentional, problem solving thinking processes. The data suggest that text comprehension is enhanced when readers actively relate the ideas represented in print to their own knowledge and experiences and construct mental representations in memory.

In its review, the Panel identified 16 categories of text comprehension instruction of which 7 appear to have a solid scientific basis for concluding that these types of instruction improve comprehension in non-impaired readers. Some of these types of instruction are helpful when used alone, but many are more effective when used as part of a multiple-strategy method. The types of instruction are:

• Comprehension monitoring, where readers learn how to be aware of their understanding of the material;
• Cooperative learning, where students learn reading strategies together;
• Use of graphic and semantic organizers (including story maps), where readers make graphic representations of the material to assist comprehension;
• Question answering, where readers answer questions posed by the teacher and receive immediate feedback;
• Question generation, where readers ask themselves questions about various aspects of the story;
• Story structure, where students are taught to use the structure of the story as a means of helping them recall story content in order to answer questions about what they have read; and
• Summarization, where readers are taught to integrate ideas and generalize from the text information.

In general, the evidence suggests that teaching a combination of reading comprehension techniques is the most effective. When students use them appropriately, they assist in recall, question answering, question generation, and summarization of texts. When used in combination, these techniques can improve results in standardized comprehension tests.

Nevertheless, some questions remain unanswered. More information is needed on ways to teach teachers how to use such proven comprehension strategies. The literature also suggests that teaching comprehension in the context of specific academic areas—for example, social studies—can be effective. If this is true of other subject areas, then it might be efficient to teach comprehension as a skill in content areas.

Questions remain as to which strategies are most effective for which age groups. More research is necessary to determine whether the techniques apply to all types of text genres, including narrative and expository texts, and whether the level of difficulty of the texts has an impact on the effectiveness of the strategies. Finally, it is critically important to know what teacher characteristics influence successful instruction of reading comprehension.

Nowadays every school has to have computers. I don't refer to legal requirementbut to perception. Schools are judged on how many computers they have. It would be more to the point if they were judged on their computer-savvy.

I'm a fan of computers; my computer is a vital part of my work. I believe computer literacy is as important for our children to acquire as any other "basic skill". But I'm not a fan of the wholesale introduction of computers into our schools, particularly the junior ones. How many computers a school has is not the issue - the issue is, how do they use them?

In many cases, the answer is: poorly.

The reasons are simple enough. Foremost, the teachers have insufficient training and experience with computers. Relatedly, computers are not yet an integrated part of the school curriculum, and every school and teacher re-invents the wheel, trying to find good software, trying to work out how to fit it into the classroom curriculum, trying to work out schedules to make sure every student gets a fair go, struggling with the lack of technical support. And of course, in many cases (perhaps most), the computers are old, with the associated problems of being more likely to have technical problems, being slow, limited in memory, incompatible with current software, and so on.

The most important problems schools have with computers:

• lack of financial resources (to buy enough computers, up-to-date computers, enough printers and other peripherals, licenses for good software, technical support)
• the inability of teachers to know how to use the computers effectively
• difficulty in integrating computers into the school / classroom curriculum (problems of use, of scheduling, of time)

Using computers effectively is much more than simply being able to type an essay or produce a graph. Parents and educators who deplore the obsession with computers in schools see computers as eroding children's basic skills and knowledge, because they only see computers being used as copy-and-paste and making-it-pretty devices. But computers have potential far beyond that.

Computers can be used to help:

• extend the scope of searches
• retrieve precisely targeted data with greater speed and accuracy
• increase the amount of data held ready for use
• sift relevant data from irrelevant
• turn data into information

The true value of a computer isn't seen until the user can use it not only as a presentation tool (for making work attractive), and as a productivity tool (for producing work more quickly, effectively, thoroughly), but also as a cognitive tool.

Using computers as cognitive tools

A cognitive tool helps you think.

Many people thought computers would revolutionize education by providing individual instruction in the form of tutorials. In particular, as a means of drilling students. Drilling can be helpful to overlearn a skill to achieve automaticity, but it doesn’t help transfer to meaningful problems. That is, you can learn a skill, you can rote-learn facts, but drilling doesn't help meaningful learning - it doesn't teach understanding.

Although computer tutorials have become somewhat more sophisticated, they still only present a single interpretation of the world - they don’t allow students to find their own meaning. They don't teach students to reflect on and analyze their own performance.

“I do not believe that students learn from computers or teachers — which has been a traditional assumption of most schooling. Rather, students learn from thinking in meaningful ways. Thinking is engaged by activities, which can be fostered by computers or teachers.” (Jonassen, p4)

So, the computer itself isn't the issue - the issue, as always, is what you do with it. For example, when the Web is simply used as a source of material that can be downloaded and pasted without thought, then no, it is not of value. But when the learner searches the Web, evaluates the information, finds the gold in the dross, uses that to construct a knowledge base, to develop meaning, then yes, it is a valuable resource.

Computers can support meaningful learning by

• reducing time spent on mechanical tasks such as rewriting, producing graphs, etc
• helping find information
• helping organize information
• making it easier to share information and ideas with others

The Suggested Benefits of Homework

The most obvious presumed benefit of homework is, of course, that it will improve students' understanding and retention of the material covered. However, partly because this (most measurable) benefit has not been consistently demonstrated, it has also been assumed that homework has less direct benefits:

• improving study skills, especially time management
• teaching students that learning can take place outside the classroom
• involving parents
• promoting responsibility and self-discipline

The Possible Negative Effects of Homework

Probably the most obvious negative effect is the stress homework can produce in both student and parent. Homework can be a major battleground between parent and child, and in such cases, it's hard to argue that it's worth it. There are other potential problems with homework:

• homework demands can limit the time available to spend on other beneficial activities, such as sport and community involvement
• too much homework can lead to students losing interest in the subject, or even in learning
• parents can confuse students by using teaching methods different from those of their teachers
• homework can widen social inequalities
• homework may encourage cheating

What Research Tells Us

Because homework has been a difficult variable to study directly, uncontaminated by other variables, research has produced mixed and inconclusive results. However, it does seem that the weight of the evidence is in favor of homework. According to Cooper's much-cited review of homework studies, there have been 20 studies since 1962 that compared the achievement of students who receive homework with students given no homework. Of these, 14 showed a benefit from doing homework, and six didn't.

The clearest point is the striking influence of age. There seems, from these studies, to be a clear and significant benefit to doing homework for high school students. Students 11 to 13 years of age also showed a clear benefit, but it was much smaller. Students below this age showed no benefit.

In 50 studies, time students reported spending on homework was correlated with their achievement. 43 of the 50 studies showed that students who did more homework achieved more; only 7 studies showed the opposite. The effect was greatest for the high school students and, again, didn't really exist for the elementary school students.For the students in the middle age range (11-13 years), more time spent on homework was associated with higher levels of achievement only up to one to two hours; more than this didn't lead to any more improvement.

TIMSS, however, found little correlation between amount of homework and levels of achievement in mathematics. While they did find that, on average, students who reported spending less than an hour a day on homework had lower average science achievement than classmates who reported more out-of-school study time, spending a lot of time studying was not necessarily associated with higher achievement. Students who reported spending between one and three hours a day on out-of-school study had average achievement that was as high as or higher than that of students who reported doing more than three hours a day.

Two British studies found that while homework in secondary schools produced better exam results, the influence was relatively small. Students who spent seven hours a week or more on a subject achieved about a third of an A level grade better than students of the same gender and ability who spent less than two hours a week.

How much homework is 'right'?

A survey conducted by the United States Bureau of the Census (1984) found that public elementary school students reported spending an average of 4.9 hours and private school elementary students 5.5 hours a week on homework. Public high school students reported doing 6.5 hours and private school students 14.2 hours. Recent research studies by the Brown Center on Education Policy concluded that the majority of U.S. students (83% of nine-year-olds; 66% of thirteen-year-olds; 65% of seventeen-year-olds) spend less than an hour a day on homework, and this has held true for most of the past 50 years. In the last 20 years, homework has increased only in the lower grade levels, where it least matters (and indeed, may be counterproductive).

In America, NEA and the National PTA recommendations are in line with those suggested by Harris Cooper: 10 to 20 minutes per night in the first grade, and an additional 10 minutes per grade level thereafter (giving 2 hours for 12th grade).

In Britain, the Government has laid down guidelines, recommending that children as young as five should do up to an hour a week of homework on reading, spelling and numbers, rising to 1.5 hours per week for 8-9 year olds, and 30 minutes a day for 10-11 year olds. The primary motivation for the Government policy on this seems to be a hope that this will reduce the time children spend watching TV, and, presumably, instill good study habits.

TIMSS found that students on average across all the TIMSS 1999 countries spent one hour per day doing science homework, and 2.8 hours a day on all homework (the United States was below this level). On average across all countries, 36% of students reported spending one hour or more per day doing science homework.

There is some evidence that the relationship between time on homework and academic achievement may be curvilinear: pupils doing either very little or a great deal of homework tend to perform less well at school than those doing 'moderate' amounts. Presumably the association between lots of homework and poorer performance occurs because hard work is not the only factor to consider in performance -- ability and strategic skills count for a great deal, and it is likely that many very hard-working students work so long because they lack the skills to work more effectively.

What makes homework effective?

By which I mean, what factors distinguish "good", i.e. useful, homework, from less productive (and even counterproductive) homework. This is the $64,000 question, and, unfortunately, research can tell us very little about it.

Cooper did conclude that there is considerable evidence that homework results in better achievement if material is distributed across several assignments rather than concentrated only on material covered in class that day.

There is no evidence that parental involvement helps, although it may well be that parental involvement can help, if done appropriately. Unfortunately, parental involvement can often be inappropriate.

Can students really watch TV or listen to music while doing homework?

A burning question for many parents!

A British study found that watching TV while doing homework was associated with poorer quality of work and more time spent. However, simply listening to the soundtrack did not affect the quality of the work or time spent. It's assumed that it's the constant task-switching caused by looking back and forth between the screen and the work that causes the negative effect. From this, it would also seem that listening to the radio should not be a problem. It's worth noting that we become less able to multi-task as we age, and that parents' objections to their children's study environment probably reflect their awareness that they themselves would find it difficult to concentrate in such circumstances.

Resources

You can read the TIMSS report at:
https://timss.bc.edu/timss1999b/sciencebench_report/t99bscience_chap_4_2.html

https://timss.bc.edu/timss1999b/mathbench_report/t99bmath_chap_6_6.html

You can read an article on the motivational benefits of homework at:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_3_43/ai_n6361599

And there are more articles about homework, with more details of Cooper's review at:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/03/980304073520.htm

https://www.ericdigests.org/pre-921/homework.htm

And a British review of homework research is available at:
https://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/HWK01/HWK01_home.cfm?publicationID=501&title=Homework:%20a%20review%20of%20recent%20research

 

April 2012: my update to this article.