Public Policy versus Power Policy PISA Results Desegregation

Public Policy versus Power Policy PISA Results, Desegregation, Education Policy The Case of Hungary before and after 2010 Bálint Magyar Dubai, 19 th March, 2017 Global Education and Skills Forum

Reading performance, PISA 2000 -2009, Central European countries (Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria) Poland Hungary Slovenia Czech Rep. Slovakia Austria Source: PISA 2000 -2009

Major means of the improvement in Hungary • Raising the duration of compulsory education until the students’ 18 th year • Alternative, personalised routes in education • Increased autonomy for the actors of education (local governments, schools, teachers, parents, students) • Complex desegregation programs • Flexible, competency based National Core Curriculum

Student performance and segregation Relationship _____ between student performance and student SE background _____ between student performance and intra-school segregation _____ between student performance and inter-school segregation Source: OECD (2010): PISA 2009 Results… Vol. II.

The share of underperformers in literacy, math and science in the EU and Hungary

PISA results between 2003 and 2015 in literacy, math and science (Hungary)

Number of ghetto schools in Hungary (where the share of roma students exceeds 50 %)

Direct causes of the backlash in Hungary’s PISA result • New policy of „ affectionate segregation” • Abolishing programs aiming equal chances • Diminishing the duration of compulsory education from the students’ 18 th year to their 16 th year • Early divergance of carrier routes • Reducing the number of general education and digital literacy subjects (in favor of vocational training) • Reducing the schools’ autonomy to tailor the education to students’ needs

Share of 17 and 18 years old students in school 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 Share of 17 years old students in school 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 Share of 18 years old students in school

Public Policy versus Power Policy after 2010 • Public policy is replaced by power policy • Power policy has no educational policy motives, but only education policy consequences • Conservative U-turn in „education policy”: q. Nationalization q. Centralization q. Monopolization q. Ideologization

1. Abolishment of the autonomy of the actors of education • Nationalization of public education depriving local governments from their schools • All schools’ headmasters are appointed by the Minister of Education • Employment of teachers is the right of the district level government commissioners • A centralized government agency carries out the financial management of the schools • A government controlled Chamber of Teachers was set up with compulsory membership accompanied by the reduction of the teachers’ trade union’s rights

2. Ideological indoctrination • Abolishment of the schools’ right to choose from accredited curriculums; introduction of a single core curriculum • Abolishment of the textbook market; the schools are not allowed to choose freely from accredited textbooks • The Mo. E produces the textbooks with increasing pro-government political content • Introduction of ethics and religion education (= registration of students)

3. Control of the channels of mobility • Diminishing the duration of compulsory education from the students’ 18 th year to their 16 th year • Early divergance of carrier routes • Raising the share of religious schools • Requiring foreign language certificate as a precondition for being a university student • Establishing the National University of Public Service having the monopoly of training for high level administrative positions

4. Resource withdrawal from education

Thanks for your attention.