Source:
Max A. Eckstein and Harold J. Noah,
Metropolitanism and Education: a Comparative Study
of Teachers and School Success in Amsterdam, London,
Paris and New York, Comparative Education Review
18 (October 1974): 359-373.
This article summarizes an investigation conducted by the
authors under the auspices of the Institute of Philosophy
and Politics of Education, Teachers College, Columbia
University and funded by the Ford Foundation and the Institute.
TEACHERS AND SCHOOL SUCCESS IN AMSTERDAM, LONDON, PARIS, AND NEW YORK*
This investigation is a first step toward comparative, systematic study of education in metropolitan areas. Four large cities (Amsterdam, London, Paris, and New York City) were selected and data were assembled on the characteristics of teachers and on the perceived success of school systems, in both the metropolises themselves and in their respective nations.
The Characteristics of Teachers
One of the basic propositions tested in this study is that there is a metropolitan type that transcends the particular nation in which large cities develop. With respect to teachers, this translates into the generalization that teachers in a large city in a given country resemble teachers in large cities in other countries more than they resemble non-metropolitan teachers in their own land. Specifically, we hypothesize that teachers in large cities are very much alike and that they differ from their respective national norms in similar ways.
The teacher variables considered here fall into three groups: basic vital characteristics (such as age and sex); educational characteristics (such as levels of formal education, professional training); and professional characteristics (such as job mobility and membership in professional organizations).
It is predicted that, compared to their national counterparts outside the big city, metropolitan teachers are younger, more mobile, and more likely to be male. Furthermore, it is believed that they will be found to be better educated, though not necessarily in the formal/professional sense, and more likely to move out of teaching into some other career after a period of time. In this sense, therefore, they might be described as less professionally committed. However, being younger, more mobile, probably having a higher proportion of males than the national teacher cadre, they might well be more open to change not only in their personal careers but also in their teaching lives (with respect to changing posts and to being involved in educational innovations).
The rationale for this expected profile of the large-city teacher is fairly clear. It is drawn from the larger picture of life in the metropolis, one of relatively high rates of geographical and economic mobility, especially among those beginning their professional careers, and of higher pay levels and more opportunities for advancement in the nation at large.
Table 1 presents data on the characteristics of teachers for the four cities and the four nations on a series of selected indicators.
Table 2 presents a series of indexes, based on these data, which permit comparison among cities. Indexes were obtained in the following manner. For each indicator, the national figure was equated with 100. The corresponding figure for the metropolis was then expressed as an index with the national average used as the base, i.e., metropolitan values were expressed as percentages of national values on each indicator. Inspection of the metropolitan indexes then makes possible some statements about the direction and extent of deviations by metropolitan teachers from their respective national norms and comparison of the indexes across nations.
The results of the analyses in Table 2 make possible the following generalizations. Teacher cadres of metropolises differ from their respective national norms in the following ways: they include a larger proportion of younger teachers and a smaller proportion of older teachers; they contain a higher percentage of women; they tend to be better qualified academically and, while containing a larger proportion of teachers with superior credentials, have a smaller proportion without full qualifications; they contain a larger proportion of teachers with limited experience, this being consistent with the data on age; they are less prone to belong to professional organizations; they are likely to devote less time to preparing for classes (though this is not true of time spent marking classwork); they are less likely to read professional journals regularly (though more likely to have attended a professional conference during the past year); and they include a larger proportion of part-time teachers.
We have not been able to assemble evidence that would enable us to test the propositions that, compared with their colleagues elsewhere, teachers in the metropolises exhibit a higher rate of mobility out of teaching to other occupations; that they are more innovative in their teaching; or, that they are more varied in their social origins.
The generalizations that we can make do not, of course, apply in every single case, nor, where the data tend to point in the same direction, are the differences always of the same extent. On age, Paris is an exception to the generalization made above, with a lower proportion of young teachers than the national norm (but still with a slightly lower proportion of older teachers, too). This fact is easily explained by reference to the professional reward and promotion system in France and by the general preeminence of Paris secondary schools in the French educational system. The teacher cadres of Amsterdam and New York stand out as especially youthful. The data on teaching experience are, as might be expected, consistent with those on age.
We had hypothesized that the metropolitan teacher cadres are more masculine than the national norms. We find, on the contrary, that with the exception of New York, they are not. Instead they are more feminized, with the extent differing very markedly from country to country.
One explanation for the fact that females form a smaller proportion of teachers in New York City than in the United States as a whole might be that women have more employment opportunities other than in teaching in New York than elsewhere. However, since this is probably true for the other major cities in this study, that explanation is not sufficient. A more sturdy explanation might refer to the relatively high salaries, the high proportion of administrative positions (relative to classroom positions), and the extensive opportunities for additional part-time employment, that might make a career in teaching in New York more attractive for males than is usual in the United States. In any event, it should be noted that the United States has the most feminized teacher corps of the four nations and that the present trend is toward an increase in the proportion of male teachers.
In general, the data on teacher experience and qualifications do support the expectation that metropolitan teachers are a somewhat more variegated group than their national counterparts. Amsterdam stands out as having the greatest contrast between metropolitan and national standards and Paris stands out with the least. While the latter is clearly explicable by the nation-wide standardization and direction of education, the reason for Amsterdam's striking departure from national norms is not so apparent. The answer may well lie in the greater opportunities for secondary and higher education offered by Amsterdam compared with the rest of the country.
The data on teacher mobility show mixed results, with London and New York having a slightly larger proportion of teachers with relatively less staying power than the national averages, and Paris and Amsterdam both having a smaller group of teachers with five years or less experience in their current schools than is average for the nation. If it can be assumed that younger teachers tend to be more mobile, these data on turnover are consistent with the data on age and experience for London, Paris, and New York.
On the variable "professionalism," metropolitan teachers tend to be below national norms according to the indicators used here. While these data are not cross-nationally complete or reliable, there is a widespread impression that metropolitan teachers are more likely to hold additional part-time employment, though whether this is moonlighting in teaching or in other occupations is not established.
Does the lower level of professionalism of metropolitan teachers occur in spite of, or because of, their relatively higher levels of qualifications? Is it that metropolitan teachers simply do not need to read so many professional journals, belong to professional organizations, and devote so much time to preparation as do their less qualified colleagues in the provinces? Or, is it that their environment places more pressure on their time and provides greater opportunities for other activities, including extra employment or preparation for different careers? These questions, unanswerable without further data and analyses, relate to the interplay between metropolitan environmental conditions and the particular characteristics of its teacher cadres. However, another set of questions points to the possible relationship between these characteristics of teachers and the extent to which metropolitan school systems are successful according to the several criteria conventionally used. It is to that dimension that we now turn.
The Perceived Success of School Systems
Success is a highly debatable term in education. And, much of the argument about school issues derives from differences in unexpressed definition of the word "success," which may very well obscure fundamental differences in values. In this study, we attempt no refinements at the philosophical level and no more justification at the operational level than to say that the indicators of success used have been chosen to cover several dimensions of the term, and are conventionally put forward by school systems and discussed by teachers and parents as important and relevant criteria. It is for these reasons that we use the qualification "perceived," to emphasize the relative nature of the word "success" and to avoid any hint of absoluteness in the operational definitions referred to in this study.
All school systems are concerned with the achievements of their pupils and measure these from time to time by means of examinations or tests in particular subjects of the curriculum at various levels. In addition to the regional and national assessments within countries, we have been able also to obtain achievement scores in science and native language from the I.E.A. Project.1
While the achievement of pupils is one important measure, a series of additional indicators is conventionally used as a criterion of institutional or system success. This includes such items as average class size (or teacher/pupil ratio); the system's ability to retain pupils beyond the age of compulsory schooling and to usher them on to more than minimal qualifications (retentivity); and the degree to which the system has developed special facilities for those, pupils who are not within the normal range of competencies (facilities for special education).
These by no means exhaust the possibilities for data collection on measures of success. In particular, we would have liked to assemble evidence of the extent of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the school system expressed by teachers, pupils, parents, and other public voices. The kind and extent of criticism leveled at school operations, attempts to disrupt schooling by strikes and demonstrations, and even the amount of vandalism against school property are all likely to be indicative. However, the difficulties in obtaining documented evidence of a comparable nature for both metropolis and nation are especially acute here. Impressions, of course, abound, and are cited here and there in this study. But in the absence of hard, comparable data, we have been forced to limit severely the indicators of perceived success used in the analysis.
It is hypothesized that the achievement of metropolitan pupils differs from national norms by being, on the average, higher, more diversified (having a larger spread) and, in particular, by having a larger proportion of high achievers; that metropolitan school systems show more pupils per teacher, more facilities for special groups, and greater retentivity. Finally, we can consider as a mark of dissatisfaction with the public schools the extent to which parents seek alternative arrangements for their children in private and parochial schools, and hypothesize that in the metropolis parents will be more likely to choose non-public school alternatives.
The rationale for these expectations is drawn from our general profile of big city populations and structures. Metropolitan pupils, we assume, are more heterogeneous than those in the rest of the nation, as are the teachers, whether by socioeconomic origin, ethnic, or religious affiliation, or other dimensions of life style. They will represent a more diversified set of behaviors, attitudes, and aspirations which might be expected to reveal themselves in more diversified levels of achievement in school. But, because of the concentration of wealth and high-level schools, we would also expect to find in the metropolises a relatively larger concentration of high achievers. Not only will pupils and teachers represent a more diversified group, but so also will parents, whose educational aspirations for their children will be more varied than those of the nation as a whole.
Population size and higher density are expected to yield two results: more pupils per teacher (or more overcrowded classrooms) and more developed facilities for special educational provisions. Finally, school systems in large cities might be expected to have greater powers of retaining students beyond compulsory schooling for several reasons. The array of opportunities is larger; horizons and aspirations of students broader and higher; occupational vistas are more numerous and more likely to require higher educational qualifications than in locations outside the metropolis.
Tables 3A through 3D present the quantified data on selected indicators for each city and nation, while Table 4 presents indexes based on the data which permit comparison of the direction and extent of divergence of each city from its national norms.
The results of the analyses in Table 4 permit the following generalizations: school achievement of students in the four metropolises tends to be higher than the national average on some measures and lower on others; school retentivity is usually higher in the metropolis; the big-city school system is more highly developed in the sense of providing more special facilities for special groups outside the normal range of primary/secondary schooling; and these school systems have more pupils per teacher and more overcrowded classrooms. We hasten to add, however, that although these generalizations are permitted by the comparative an alyses, the data are not always complete or consistent. The picture is mixed, with enough variability to require careful scrutiny of each indicator and each city.
For Paris and Amsterdam, all the indicators of achievement show means higher than the national, except for science in Paris. For London and New York, the achievement norms are mixed: the IEA results also show that pupils in the metropolises do rather better than those in the nation at large, New York being marginally better and London markedly so. But in the basic skill areas, especially reading, both cities fall below the national norms. In achievement at the higher level leading to continued full-time education beyond the secondary level, Paris and Amsterdam are above the national norms, New York is below, and London the same or slightly below. However, other evidence from England suggests that the comparison of metropolitan and national means probably obscures very different distributions of patterns of success in achievement, with a pattern approximating a normal distribution nationally and a tendency toward a bimodal distribution, with high proportions of both high and low levels of achievement in London. This phenomenon, we suspect, is not limited to London alone, it may well be a general metropolitan phenomenon and would explain some of the inconsistencies among indicators of success, especially for achievement and retentivity.
Rates of staying on at school beyond compulsory schooling are, on the whole, consistent with rates of continuing on to higher education, except in the case of London. In Paris and Amsterdam, as in the case of achievement, retentivity is above the national norms, while in New York retentivity is below. However, in London, retentivity is higher while rates of continuing to university or other full-time education after schooling are lower.
In each country, the metropolis tends to have developed a more elaborate system to accommodate those pupils outside the normal range of the primary/secondary schools. The ratio of pre-school and special education pupils to primary pupils is higher in the metropolis compared with the respective national norms, sometimes extremely so (one exception: Amsterdam, pre-schooling). As to the last dimension of system development, the finding that classes in the city are larger should be considered more as a function of the factor of population density, than of deliberate choice. Rural classes and the number of pupils per teachers, we assume, are smaller simply because pupils and schools are more dispersed
Attention must now be given to the relative size of the private sectors of schooling in nation and city. In London and New York, metropolitan parents are considerably more likely to select an alternative to the public school system for their children than is the norm nationally, while in Paris the reverse is true. We cannot include Amsterdam in this comparison because the familiar distinctions between Church and State schooling simply do not obtain. Even for England, France, and the United States, policies and practices in this matter differ in each case. The distinctions, furthermore, may be denominational, or on the basis of social class, or a combination of both. However, if in these last three instances, schooling is considered simply as the alternative to the public school system and as an option used by parents according to their degree of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the public schools, then we could assert that, on this measure, schools in Paris are more successful and those in New York and London less successful than their respective national norms in satisfying the preferences of parents.
Finally, in reviewing all the indicators of perceived success discussed here, and notwithstanding the mixed results, it is possible to discriminate among the four cities. Relative to their respective national norms, New York rates low on most measures, London high on some but low on others, Paris and, on the whole, Amsterdam, too, rate high. If we rank the four cities in descending order of perceived success of the school system relative to their national norms, then, the final order appears to be: 1. Paris; 2. Amsterdam; 3. London; and 4. New York.
Relating Teacher Characteristics and School Success
We do appear to have generated considerable evidence to support one central and two subsidiary propositions. The first is that there are certain definable and measurable characteristics of teachers and schools in metropolitan areas that differentiate them systematically from their respective national norms. The secondary propositions are that the metropolitan/national differences run mostly in the same direction in the four countries examined and differences in degree of contrast (and sometimes in direction) can usually be ascribed without difficulty to certain identifiable characteristics of the national educational system.
Specifically, we have found that in the four countries examined, the teacher cadre of the metropolis differs from that of the nation as a whole by containing a larger proportion of younger teachers and a smaller proportion of older teachers; by having higher educational and training qualifications on the average and also a smaller proportion without full qualifications; and by being less professionally committed. In these respects our findings support our initially stated hypotheses. However, in one important respect our initial hypothesis is not confirmed: metropolitan teachers are not more likely to be male than teachers elsewhere in the nation. Only in New York city is this so. Moreover this result is found in spite of the fact that the school systems of the metropolises tend to contain a larger proportion of secondary school teachers (who tend to be male) and a smaller proportion of primary school teachers (who tend to be female). We find it difficult at this point to suggest why this is so.
With respect to the perceived success of the metropolitan school system, relative to that of the nation as a whole, once again our initial hypotheses are largely supported by our findings, though we would wish to emphasize that we are far removed indeed from providing firm confirmation. There is some weak evidence that school achievement levels in the metropolis are higher than elsewhere (except in New York) and that the distribution of metropolitan achievement scores perhaps tends to be bimodal to a greater extent than in non-metropolitan areas. Certainly, the special facilities of metropolitan areas are greater and the retentivity of their schools higher; but their teacher/pupil ratios are less favorable and parents in metropolises are more likely than other parents to select a non-public school alternative for their children.
Let us now attempt to associate the relative characteristics of metropolitan teachers with the relative perceived success of metropolitan school systems. Table 5 ranges the four metropolises from left to right in descending order of relative perceived school success, based upon summary of the comparative indexes given in Table 4. That is, the Paris school system relative to France is first, because it is perceived to be more successful than any of the other three; New York's school system relative to the U.S. is perceived as being less successful than any of the other three, and is listed last. Amsterdam ranks in second place, London is third.
In the body of the table the metropolises are ranked on 17 aspects of teacher characteristics (based on comparative indexes in Table 2). A high rank indicates a high value for the metropolis in question relative to its national norm, and not necessarily a high value in absolute terms (though this is not, of course, excluded). Thus, in the first line, the ranks indicate that New York has the highest proportion of young teachers relative to the U. S. norm, and Paris the smallest relative to the French norm.
Looking down the column for Paris, it is noteworthy that Paris, the city with the highest relative success ranking, has not only the smallest relative proportion of young teachers and the highest of older teachers, but also the lowest proportion lacking full qualifications, the highest with high qualifications, readership of journals about teaching and attendance at educational conferences. At the same time, Paris has the highest relative proportion with a degree and the lowest with over four years of full-time post-secondary education.
The composite picture that is thus conveyed is of a teaching force that, relative to France as a whole, is older, more female, more qualified by education and training, more stable and more professionally committed than are London's teachers relative to England and Wales, Amsterdam's relative to the Netherlands, and New York's relative to the U. S. Especially in the case of New York, there is an impression of a relatively very young, male, highly unionized, professionally uncommitted and mobile teaching cadre, with education and training qualifications not much different from those of teachers in the U. S. as a whole.
Amsterdam also has a large number of extreme ranks, but no clear pattern of variables emerges. London, too, demonstrates no clear pattern, with few extreme ranks. None of the immediately preceding analysis is meant to imply that the relative superiority of Paris teachers' characteristics is causally related to the perceived success of the Paris school system. This can be by no means demonstrated with the evidence we supply. Instead, though, we would suggest an associative relationship: a teaching cadre in Paris that looks relatively "old-fashioned" is associated with a school system that is perceived to be relatively highly successful.
That this is so is probably due to antecedent factors common to both sets of observed phenomena: such factors as rates of demographic and social change, the pace of educational reform, system size, adequacy of financing metropolitan enterprises in general and education in particular, and the prestige attached to metropolitan institutions.
What is peculiar to the metropolis and what distinguishes this type of human organization from others is its educational function. It is in this role that the metropolis appears to be unique. It is at once the progenitor, importer and exporter of culture, a powerful agency of education in its national and international contexts. People, ideas, and skills are attracted to the large city. In the metropolitan setting, their ideologies and technologies are generated, institutionalized and disseminated. The metropolis is itself the means for routing people and knowledge, defining and sorting them for the nation and for the world. The goods handled by this distribution system are ideas, skills and values; the operation is, therefore, centrally an educational one.
Ideally, then, we would want to shed some direct light not only on the schools and other institutions of formal education, but also upon the educational roles and function of the entire metropolitan environment -- its streets, stores, jobs, museums, art galleries, presses and broadcasting studios. In this exploratory study, we have been unable to do this, and we have instead concentrated on a number of selected aspects of the formal school system. Obviously there, too, we have only scratched the surface of the range of topics awaiting attention. However, our particular purpose has been achieved: to test the propositions that cross-cultural study of like sub-national units can be done, and that it is, at least potentially, interesting and illuminating.
TABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF TEACHERS: INTRA- AND INTERNATIONAL
COMPARISONS
AMST. NETH. LOND. E&W. PARIS FRANCE N.Y. USA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age
% under 30 yrs* 45.0 | 42.0 | 36.8 | 65.0 33.9
% under 27 yrs* 33.0 18.8 | 42.0 32.7 | 14.0 18.8 | 43.1 34.4
% over 48 yrs* 11.0 26.2 | 12.0 18.5 | 22.0 24.5 | 12.0 17.5
| | |
Sex | | |
% females 60.8 38.8 | 63.0 57.0 | 54.8 50.3 | 59.2 67.3
| | |
Qualifications | | |
% lacking full quali- | | |
fications for post 11.0 | 18.3 12.3 | 22.3 26.0 | 4.7 4.9
% possessing high aca- | | |
demic qualifications | | |
for post 57.6 | 28.6 22.2 | 77.7 74.0 | 4.7 30.3
% specialists with no | | |
university degree 22.0 86.5 | 25.0 51.2 | 14.0 7.3 | 0.0 0.0
% with over 4 yrs. | | |
post-sec. full-time | | |
education 89.0 35.7 | 13.0 9.0 | 56.0 54.5 | 94.0 83.5
| | |
Experience | | |
% with 3 yrs. or less | | 24.2 | 39.0 21.0
% with 5 yrs. or less 56.0 21.7 | 42.0 36.3 | 29.0 32.3 | 59.0 38.0
| | |
Turnover | | |
% of teaching force | | |
| | |
leaving p.a. 25.0 | 13.3 10.6 | | 14.3 19.5
% less than 5 yrs. | | |
in current school 22.0 54.3 | 72.0 64.5 | 41.0 54.1 | 76.0 59.9
| | |
Professionalism | | |
% working for supple- | | |
mentary income 25.0 | 29.0 23.0 | | 20.0
% who are members of | | |
largest union | 97.0 80.0 | | 25.0 59.9
% who are members of | | |
gen. teaching assoc. 56.0 74.6 | 73.0 81.6 | 67.0 74.6 | 76.0 77.3
% who are members of | | |
subj. matter teach- | | |
ing assoc. 56.0 27.5 | 12.0 28.6 | 43.0 54.5 | 56.0 48.1
% spending less than | | |
3 hrs./wk: | | |
preparing lessons 22.0 27.1 | 33.0 24.9 | 4.0 1.9 | 26.0 7.0
marking 0.0 13.6 | 30.0 21.3 | 4.0 3.8 | 15.0 14.0
% who regularly read | | |
journals: | | |
about teaching 33.0 49.3 | 28.0 44.6 | 29.0 27.8 | 35.0 50.7
about subject 78.0 57.5 | 48.0 49.4 | 61.0 63.7 | 56.0 58.4
% attendance at ed. | | |
conf. in past year 56.0 53.6 | 56.0 50.5 | 70.0 42.5 | 44.0 61.4
% of teachers | | |
teaching full-time 44.0 83.5 | 67.0 92.3 | 81.0 89.3 | 93.0 91.7
% of teachers not | | |
teaching full-time | 14.6 5.5 | |
*Data for these indicators were usually derived from different sources. This explains the apparent contradiction in, for example, the N.Y./U.S.A. data (where there appear to be more teachers under 27 than under 30 years).
Sources:
Amsterdam and the Netherlands
Bureau van Statistiek der Gemeente Amsterdam, Statistiek van het Onderwijs te Amsterdam (1968/'69, Deel I). Amsterdam 1970.
Jahrbock 1970. Amsterdam. Bureau van Statistiek, 1970.
Planning and Development in the Netherlands, Vol. III, No. 1/2.1969.
Council of Europe, School Systems: a Guide. Strasbourg, 1965.
Central Bureau voor de Statistiek, Statistiek van het VWO, HAVO en MAVO 1968/69. 's-Gravenhage, 1970.
Materials supplied by personnel of City School System, Amsterdam.
London and England/Wales
Greater London Council, 1968: Annual Abstract of Greater London Statistics. London, 1969.
Department of Education and Science, Statistics of Education. Vol.1:Schools(1968);Vol.4:Teachers(1968);Vol.1:Schools(1969). London, 1969, 1970.
Materials provided by Dr. A. Little, Director, Research and Statistics Group and additional personnel of I.L.E.A.
Paris and France
Ministère de I'Education Nationale, Statistiques des Enseignements (1968-69). Nos. 3.1; 3.2; 3.3. Paris, 1969.
Ministère de I'Education Nationale, Tableaux Statistiques 1969-70. Paris, 1970. (Mimeo. doc. no. 3870)
Ministère de I'Education Nationale, Etudes et Documents No.19. Paris, 1971.
New York and the United States
National Education Association, Research Division, The American Public-School Teacher, 1965-66. Washington, D.C., 1967
New York State Division of the Budget, Statistical Yearbook 1970. Albany, 1970.
University of the State of New York, State Education Department, Annual Educational Summary 1968-69. Albany, 1969.
New York City Public Schools, Facts and Figures 1969-1970. New York, 1970.
Materials supplied by Division of Teacher Education, City University of New York and Central Board of Education, New York City.
TABLE 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF TEACHERS: COMPARATIVE INDEXES
INDEXES AMST. LONDON PARIS N.Y.
(rate for nation is always 100)
Age
under 30 - 130 - 127
under 27 176 128 74 189
over 48 42 65 90 69
Sex
female 157 111 109 88
Qualifications
lacking full qualifications - 149 86 96
possessing high qualifications - 129 105 115
with no univ. degree 25 49 192 -
with over 4 yrs. full-time
post-secondary education 249 144 103 113
Experience
with 3 yrs or less - - - 186
with 5 years or less 258 116 90 155
Turnover
leaving teaching p.a. - 125 - 73
with 5 yrs. or less in current
school 41 112 76 127
Professionalism
working for supplementary income - 126 - -
membership of largest union - 121 - 42
membership of general teaching
association 75 89 90 98
membership of subject matter
association 204 42 79 116
less than 3 hrs. per week for
preparation 81 133 211 371
less than 3 hrs. per week for
grading - 141 105 107
regular reading of journals
about teaching 67 63 104 69
regular reading of journals
about subject 136 97 96 96
attendance at educational
conference in past year 104 111 165 72
teachers teaching full-time 53 73 91 101
teachers not teaching full-time - 265 - -
TABLE 3A. PATTERNS OF SCHOOL SUCCESS: INTRA-NATIONAL COMPARISONS
Amst. Neth.
Achievement
% of elem. students who fail (1968) Public 5.0 -
Denom. 4.9 -
Science achievement means* 26.0 17.8
Reading comprehension means* 34.3 25.2
Retentivity
% of 15 yr. olds in school 1968/69 84.1 77)
% of 16 yr. olds in school 1968/69 64.1 58) 1969
% of 17 yr. olds in school 1968/69 45.5 39.4)
System Development
Average class size, elementary Public 31.4 -
Denom. 29.3 -
Total 30.4 -
Teacher/pupil ratio 1:23.8 1:29
Ratio of primary pupils(Index lOO)
to pre-school 28.9 34
to special ed. 6.3 4.9
Sources:
*IEA data
Bureau van Statistiek der Gemeente Amsterdam, Jaarboek 1970. Amsterdam, 1970. Pp. 264-5, 272.
Bureau van Statistiek der Gemeente Amsterdam, Statistische Mededelingen No. 170: Statistiek van het Onderwijs te Amsterdam 1968/69. Amsterdam, 1970. Pp. 28, 30.
Gemeente Amsterdam, Statistische Mededelingen van de Afdeling Onderwijs No. 74: Openbaar Onderwijs Staat der Schoolbevolking. Amsterdam, 1970.
Central Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Yearbook ofthe Netherlands 1971. The Hague, 1971. P. 82.
Council of Europe, School Systems: A Guide: The Netherlands. Strasbourg, 1965. Pp. 28-29.
TABLE 3B. PATTERNS OF SCHOOL SUCCESS: INTRA-NATIONAL COMPARISONS
Lond E & W.
Achievement
% of pupils who are good readers (1967) 10 16.7
% of pupils who are poor readers (1967) 17 8.6
% of school leavers bound for university B 6 6
G 2 3
for Col. of Ed. B 1 1
G 4 5
for other full-time ed. B 4 8
G 5 11
Science achievement means* 26.8 21.3
Reading comprehension means* 32.4 25.3
Literature achievement means* 22.5 16.1
Retentivity
% of leavers leaving at 15 yrs. (all
maintained schools 1966/7) B 33 46
G 32 47
Pupils aged 16 as % of those aged 13
3 yrs. previously 36.3 30.2
Pupils aged 17 as % of those aged 13
4 yrs. previously 17.5 16.1
System Development
% of all pupils in private schooling 6.4 4.7
Av. teacher/pupil ratio -- primary 26.2 27.8
-- secondary 15.9 15.9
Ratio of primary pupils (Index 100)
to pre-school (2-4 yrs.) 7.4 5.0
to special ed. 4.4 1.5
Sources:
*IEA data
Department of Education and Science, Statistics of Education 1969: Vol. 1, Schools. London, 1970 Pp. 2, 8, 23, 27, 100-101, 142.
Department of Education and Science, Statistics of Education 1968: Vol. 4, Teachers. London, 1970.
Central Statistical Office, Social Trends. No. 1, 1970. London, 1970. Pp. 126, 128-131.
Greater London Council, 1968: Annual Abstract of Greater London Statistics. Vol. 3, London, 1969. Pp. 132-133, 136, 139-143.
Data supplied by officials of I.L.E.A.
Inner London Education Authority Statistics Group. School Leavers. London (n.d., mimeo.). Pp. 3-6, 9-26.
Inner London Education Authority, Literacy Survey: Summary of Interim Results of the Study of Pupils' Reading Standards. London (n.d., mimeo.).
Department of Education and Science, Reports on Education. Dec. 1970, No. 67.
TABLE 3C. PATTERNS OF SCHOOL SUCCESS: INTRA-NATIONAL COMPARISONS
Paris France
Achievement
% receiving graduating diplomas
at end of 2nd cycle long (1969) Académie 20.7 17.8
Ville 91.2 85.9
% of candidates passing baccalaureat
(1967-8) Académie 90.6 -
Mean scores in 3rd class
verbal aptitude Ville 34.06 30.75
numerical apt. 18.49 18.21
spatial 27.77 24.92
Science achievement mea ns* 17.0 18.3
Retentivity
% scolarization in 1st cycle
(public and private) Académie 75.3 72.4
% scolarization at 2nd cycle
(public and private) Académie 44.5 34.6
System Development
% of all pupils in private ed.
in all 1st cycle 15.4 20.0
Average class size (primary) 29.0 26.3
% overcrowded classes (35 pupils
or more, primary) 10.0 6.4
Ratio of primary pupils
(Index 100) to pre-school Ville 52.8 38.8
to special ed. Ville 8.6 3.6
Sources:
*IEA data
Ministère de l'Education Nationale, Service Central des Statistiques et Sondages, Indicateurs Relatifs aux Disparités Regionales 1968/9 en Matière d'enseignement du Second Degr*. Paris, 1971 (Doc. No. 3932).
Ministère de l'Education Nationale, Statistiques des Enseignements 1968-69. Paris, 1970. Vols, 2, No. 1; 4, 1; 6, 2.
Materials supplied by Mlle, Bacher, Institut National d'Etudes du Travail et d'Orientation Professionelle, and by officials of the central statistical services.
TABLE 3D. PATTERNS OF SCHOOL SUCCESS: INTRA-NATIONAL COMPARISONS
N.Y. U.S.
Pupil Achievement
Performance on standardized achievement
tests, expressed as grade equivalents:
4th grade reading 4.6 4.7
study skills 4.2 4.7
math skills 4.3 4.7
8th grade reading 7.8 8.5
study skills 7.9 8.5
math skills 7.3 8.5
Science achievement means* 22.8 21.5
Reading comprehension means* 27.8 27.3
Literature means* 17.7 16.5
Retentivity
H.S. graduates as % of 9th graders 4 yrs.
previously 65 71.6
System Success
% of all pupils in private schools 27.9 13.8
Teacher/pupil ratio (elem.) 23.4 24.8
or 28.0
Ratio of elem. pupils (Index 100)
to pre-school pupils 19.6 9.2
to special education pupils 17.4 7.3
Sources:
*IEA Data.
New York State Division of the Budget, New York State Statistical Yearbook 1970. Albany, N.Y., 1970. Pp. 201-204, 212.
United States Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstact of the United States. Washington, D.C., 1970.Pp.105,113,115,122,125.
New York Dept. of City Planning, Plan for 1969: A Proposal Vol. 1: Critical Issues. New York City, 1969.Pp.99,104.
New York City Public Schools, Facts and Figures 1969-70. New York, 1970. Pp. 58, 59, 61, 66, 75
New York State Dept. of Education, Annual Education Summary, 1968-69. Albany, N.Y. 1969, P.11.
Material provided by officials of New York Central Board of Education.
City School District of the City of New York, Summary of City-wide Reading Test Results for 1969-70. New York, 1970 (mimeo.). Pp. 2, 3, 13.
Board of Education of the City of New York, Analysis of City-Funded per Capita Costs and Staff Ratiosfor 1969-70. New York, (n.d., mimeo.). Pp. 1, 2.
Board of Education of the City of New York, Community District Profiles for 1969-70 School Year by Newly Aligned Community School Districts. New York, (mimeo.). Pp. 1, 2.
TABLE 4. PATTERNS OF SCHOOL SUCCESS: COMPARATIVE INDEXES
AMSTERDAM LONDON PARIS NEW YORK
ACHIEVEMENT Good readers 60 Graduating, 4th Grade
Poor readers 198 2nd cycle 116 Reading 98
Study skills 89
Destination of Baccalaureat 106 Math skills 91
Leavers: 105
8th Grade
Univ. B 1OO 3rd Class Reading 92
G 67 verbal apt.111 Study skills 93
Col of Ed B1OO num. apt. 102 Math skills 86
G 80 spatial 111
Other
FT Ed B 50
G 46
IEA Science 146 126 93 106
Reading Comp. 136 128 - 102
Literature - 140 - 107
RETENTIVITY 15 yrs. in Leavers B 72 1st Cycle 104 H.S.Grads 91
school 109 at 15 G 68 2nd Cycle 129
16 yrs. 111 Stayers
at 16 120
17 yrs. 115 at 17 109
SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT T/P Ratio 82 T/P Ratios: Av. class T/P Ratio 94
prim. 94 size 110 or 112
sec. 100 % over-
crowded 151
Pre-school/primary 85 148 (Ville de
Paris) 136 213
(Académie) 117
Special ed./prim. 129 293 (Ville de
Paris) 238 238
(Académie) 125
Rel. of private
to public schooling - 136 77 202
TABLE 5. RANKINGS OF METROPOLISES: CHARACTERISTICS OF TEACHERS RELATIVE TO THEIR NATIONAL NORMS
Rankings on Relative School Success
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
PARIS AMSTERDAM LONDON N.Y.
I. AGE. Relative prop. of young teachers 4 2 3 1
of older teachers 1 4 3 2
II. SEX. Proportion female 3 1 2 4
III. QUALIFICATIONS.
Proportion lacking full qualifications 3 - 1 2
Proportion without degree 1 3 2 -
Proportion with high qualifications 1 - 3 2
Proportion with over 4 years of full-
time post-secondary education 4 1 2 3
IV. EXPERIENCE.
Proportion with 5 years or less of
teaching experience 4 1 3 2
V. PROFESSIONALISM.
Membership of general teaching association 2 4 3 1
Membership of subject matter association 3 1 4 2
Less than 3 hrs. per week for preparation 2 4 3 1
Less than 3 hrs. per week for grading - 3 1 2
Regular reading of journals about teaching 1 2 2 2
Regular reading of journals about subject 2 1 2 2
Attendance at educ. conferences in past yr 1 3 2 4
Teachers teaching full-time 2 4 3 1
VI. TURNOVER.
Proportion with 5 years or less in
current school 3 4 2 1
NOTES
-
The International Association for the Assessment of Educational Achievement has
recently completed a comparative study of student performance in science and native
language (known as the IEA Project). Samples of students at several age/grade levels
were tested in twenty-one countries (though not all of the countries participated in
all tests). In addition to performance data, the study gathered information on student
background and on teacher and school characteristics.
[BACK]