Abstract
In 2012, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) proposed an assessment for early learning outcomes known as the International Early Learning and Child Well-Being Study (IELS). The assessment, dubbed ‘baby PISA,’ will explore the learning and well-being of five-year-olds. Worryingly, early childhood educators, researchers and scholars were given little consultation about the project and fear the potential problems if ‘baby PISA’ takes hold across the world. Scholars have argued that the standardisation of early childhood would lead to more academic drills, tests and the loss of child choice, hands-on activities, less play and developmentally meaningful learning. And also a fear that it will change the nature of early childhood education as we currently know it. This chapter will explore the current debates about baby PISA, contrasting it with some of the critique directed towards PISA assessment for 15-year-olds. The perspective of teacher in the form of personal narratives will provide new realities for understanding the contextual and cultural contexts. Teacher voices are yet to be clearly heard within the baby PISA debate. As authors, we write from a Swedish perspective. The chapter will conclude with alternative ways of supporting children’s well-being, advocating the need for supporting all children in meaningful ways. This includes practices that are cultural and contextually specific to support the diversity and individual needs of all children.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Akers, R., & Sellers, C. (2011). Social learning theory. In D. M. Bishop & B. C. Feld (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice (Part IV). USA: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195385106.013.0014
Alexander, R. J. (2012). Moral panic, miracle cures and educational policy: What can we really learn from international comparisons? Scottish Education Review, 44(1), 4–21.
Arffman, I. (2007). Kansainvälisten lukukokeiden kääntämiseen liittyviä ongelmia (The problem of equivalence in translating international reading literacy studies). Kasvatus, 38(4), 348–353.
Auld, E., & Morris, P. (2016). PISA, policy and persuasion: Translating complex conditions into education ‘best practice’. Comparative Education, 52(2), 202–229.
Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9
Castle, C. (2000). For every child: The UN convention on the rights of the child in words and pictures. Hong Kong: Midas Printing.
Feniger, Y., & Lefstein, A. (2014). How not to reason with PISA data: An ironic investigation. Journal of Education Policy, 29(6), 845–855.
Fernandez-Cano, A. (2016). A methodological critique of the PISA evaluations. Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 22, 1, art. M15. https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.22.1.8806
Feytor Pinto, P., & Kouki, E. (2015). PISAn vaikutus opetuskäytäntöihin ja yliopistomenestykseen (PISA’s effect on educational practices and success at university). Puheenvuoroja. Kasvatus, 1, 85–90.
Gardner, F., Burton, J., & Klimes, I. (2006). Randomised controlled trial of a parenting intervention in the voluntary sector for reducing child conduct problems: Outcomes and mechanisms of change. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 1123–1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01668.x
Hemmeter, M. L., Ostrosky, M. M., Santos, R. M., & Joseph, G. (2006). Promoting children’s success: Building relationships and creating supportive environments. Presenters Scripts, Module 1 http://csefel.vanderbilt.edu/modules-archive/module1script.pdf
Hood, K. K., & Eyberg, S. M. (2003). Outcomes of parent–child interaction therapy: Mothers’ reports of maintenance three to six years after treatment. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3203_10
Hyson, M., & Taylor, J. L. (2011). Caring about caring: What adults can do to promote young children’s social skills. Young Children, 66(4), 74–83.
Karlsson, L., Hohti, R., Tammi, T., Olli, J., & Hakomäki, H. (2014). Päättäjä, kuuntele lasta! (Policy maker, listen to the child!) (Vol. 1, pp. 65–66). Kasvatus.
Kazdin, A. (2005). Parent management training. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kivinen, O., & Hedman, J. (2017). Moniselitteiset PISA-tulokset ja niiden ongelmalliset koulutuspoliittiset tulkinnat (Ambiguous PISA-results and its problematic political interpretations). Politiikka, 59(4), 250–263.
Morris, P. (2016). Education policy, cross-national tests of pupil achievement, and the pursuit of world-class schooling. London: UCL Institute of Education Press.
Moss, P., Dahlberg, G., Grieshaber, S., Mantovani, S., May, H., Pence, A., … Vandenbroeck, M. (2016). The organisation for economic co-operation and development’s international early learning study: Opening for debate and contestation. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17(3), 343–351.
Moss, P., & Urban, M. (2017). The organisation for economic co-operation and development’s international early learning study: What happened next. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 18(2), 250–258.
O’Connor, T., Matias, C., Futh, A., Tantam, G., & Scott, S. (2013). Social learning theory parenting intervention promotes attachment-based caregiving in young children: Randomized clinical trial. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 42(3), 358–370.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2018). PISA 2015: Results in focus.http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf
Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychology, 44, 329–335.
Pizzolongo, P. J., & Hunter, A. (2011). I am safe and secure: Promoting resilience in young children. Young Children, 66(2), 67–69.
Scaramella, L. V., & Leve, L. D. (2004). Clarifying parent-child reciprocities during early childhood: The early childhood coercion model. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 7, 89–107.
Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., McMahon, R. J., & Lengua, L. J. (2000). Parenting practices and child disruptive behavior problems in early elementary school. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Journal of Clinical and Child Psychology, 29, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424jccp2901_3
Swedish National Agency for Education. (2018). Lpfö 18. Translated-curriculum for the preschool. https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/forskolan/laroplan-for-forskolan/reviderad-laroplan-for-forskolan
Wahler, R. G., & Meginnis, K. L. (1997). Strengthening child compliance through positive parenting practices: What works? Journal of Clinical and Child Psychology, 26, 433–440. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2604_12
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Garvis, S., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Yngvesson, T. (2019). Towards a Test-Driven Early Childhood Education: Alternative Practices to Testing Children. In: Barton, G., Garvis, S. (eds) Compassion and Empathy in Educational Contexts. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18925-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18925-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-18924-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-18925-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)