If anyone has ever read one of the international PISA reports or seen Andreas Schleicher present they will know that the OECD is rather fond of cross-national scatterplots. These illustrate the relationship between two variables measured at the country level.
Take, for instance, the chart below. This has been taken from one of Mr Schleicher’s blogposts, and illustrates the relationship between a country’s test scores and its rate of economic growth. It has been interpreted by the OECD as showing “that the quality of schooling in a country is a powerful predictor of the wealth that countries will produce in the long run”.
Source: Research by Hanushek and Woessmann, via the OECD Education and Skills Today blog
Sounds convincing, right?
The trouble is, correlation does not equal causation. And, despite the OECD’s obsession with such cross-country relationships, they can often deceive.
Should we eat more fish?
Of course, it is not only the OECD that produces such analyses. Academics do as well.
One of the more unusual examples I have found is this study by a group of epidemiologists. They look (I kid you not) at the relationship between average fish consumption and average PISA test scores.
Somehow, the study manages to find a strong positive correlation of around 0.6! It then goes on to conclude that a “linear association between fish consumption and PISA scores is likely” and that “it is plausible to assume that a higher level of fish consumption drives improvement at school level”.
As a nation of fish-and-chip lovers, this should be good news for our PISA scores…
But isn’t eating ice-cream just as important?
Getting kids to eat more fish is difficult. My little boy hates the stuff! He does, however, like ice-cream – and lots of it (who doesn’t?). If only eating ice-cream were as good for PISA scores as eating fish.
Well, apparently it is.
The chart below provides one of my all-time favourite PISA graphs. It plots the level of ice-cream consumption of a country against average PISA reading scores. There is actually quite a strong positive relationship, with around half the variation in PISA scores explained.
It also seems that the relationship is exponential (i.e. the line of best fit is curved upwards). Not only should we eat more ice-cream, but we should be eating lots of it.
The take-away message (no pun intended)
Hopefully, the point of this blogpost has become clear.
When the PISA results get released at the start of December, the international report and presentations given by the OECD are bound to include this kind of graph, along with stories about how ‘high-performing countries’ all do X, Y or Z.
Clearly, we should be treating any such interpretation of the PISA results with caution. There are likely to be hundreds, if not thousands, of reasons why some countries do well on PISA and others don’t. In reality, it is almost impossible to separate these competing reasons out.
What we do know is that overly simplistic “explanations” for the PISA results must be avoided. Organisations like the OECD have their own agenda, and it is just too easy for such groups to use the results to promote their own hobby-horses.