PROGRAMME OF SUPPORT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCHERS IN THE AREA OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
Secondary Analyses of Data Collected through the PISA Survey
Preschool Education and Student Achievement in Serbia: Evidence from PISA
Aim of the Study
Previous literature which used PISA, TIMSS and/or PIRLS
data (Haahr et al., 2005; PISA in Focus, 2011), showed that
preschool education has positive effect on subsequent
academic success. Accounting for factors of the socioeconomics status (SES), the same studies showed that
estimated effect of preschool education on later student
scholastic success is significantly reduced. The aim of this
paper is to examine the effect of preschool education on
subsequent academic success of students in Serbia, taking
into account SES background characteristics. Student
achievement is measured through fifteen-year-old students’
scholastic performance in reading, mathematic and scientific
literacy evaluated through PISA.
Preliminary Findings
•
Authors: Sunčica Vujić and Hana Baronijan
Preschool education has a positive effect on later scholastic success even
if we compare students with similar socio-economic backgrounds.
•
London School of Economics, Department of
Management E-mail: s.vujic@lse.ac.uk
When we control for all factors of economic, social and cultural status,
estimated effect of preschool education on school performance is
significantly reduced and remains significant only for girls. We conclude
therefore that preschool education in Serbia has compensatory effect for
girls, especially those coming from less advantaged backgrounds.
IPSOS
Strategic
Marketing,
hana.baronijan@ipsos.com
E-mail
Regression Analysis of the Preschool Effect
on Mathematic Literacy on PISA Test
• According to the Statistical Yearbook for 2010, in 2008/09 year,
only 41% of the total number of children in Serbia, aged between
0 and 7 years, were enrolled in the preschool education. On the
other hand, in the same year 92% of children aged 5.5 to 6.5
years were enrolled in the PPP. The last figure presents significant
improvement since before introduction of the compulsory
preschool preparatory program (PPP) in 2006, approximately half
of children aged from 5.5 to 6.5 years were engaged in preschool
education (49% of 6 year-olds according to LSMS data in 2002).
Hypothesis (PISA in Focus, 2011)
1. Do teenagers who come from families with higher SES in
Serbia benefit more from preschool education compared
with teenagers who come from less privileged families?
2. Does preschool education in Serbia have a compensatory
effect, such that the subsequent success in school is better for
children from less privileged and/or immigrant families?
•
3. Do children from families with higher SES in Serbia have
better access to preschool education, which is the case in
most OECD countries which participated in 2009 PISA
survey?
4. To what extent does the way that the preschool education in
Serbia is provided affect student success?
The ratio between the number of children and the number of
educators in the preschool education in Serbia in 2008/09 was on
average 17 (17 children per educator) and the ratio between the
number of children and the number of all employees (taking into
account health and other workers) in the same year was on
average 9 (9 children per employee). This has significantly been
improved in comparison to 1998/99 (20 children per educator),
when teenagers evaluated through PISA 2009 attended preschool.
Policy Recommendations
Methodology, Data and Variables
•
•
•
Methodology and data: Quantitative (regression) and
descriptive analysis of the PISA 2009 data, the Multiple
Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) 2005 data, the Living
Standards Measurement (LSMS) 2007 data, and data from
the Statistical Yearbooks of Serbia in 2010 and 2002.
Output variables: Fifteen-year-old students’ scholastic
performance in reading, mathematic and scientific literacy
evaluated through PISA.
Control variables: Composite Index of economic, social
and cultural status, as well as separate variables contained
in this Index (parents’ occupational status, parents’
education, cultural possessions, home educational
resources, wealth and number of books).
Note: Results estimated using Stata PV module which accounts for final and 80 replicate weights. Coefficient
significant at the 99 (***), 95 (**), and 90 (*) percent level. Average R2 calculated as the average of five R2-s,
showing goodness-of-fit of a regression on each mathematic literacy measure (plausible value).
•
Comparing PISA with MICS and LSMS data, the PISA 2009 sample is
skewed towards teenagers who come from higher SES backgrounds and
has a larger percentage of teenagers who attend preschool education. It
is possible that the influence of preschool education would be different
on the national representative sample of teenagers.
•
In accordance with findings of the PISA 2009 survey (PISA in
Focus, 2011), Serbia should continue to promote coverage by
the preschool education, as well as reduce the ratio between the
number of children attending preschool and the number of
educators in the preschool education
•
Since the PISA survey is performed on a sample of secondary
school pupils which is skewed towards teenagers coming from
higher SES backgrounds, it would be important to include the
question about ever attending preschool education in the
national representative surveys also for school-age children.
Acknowledgements
The authors would lie to thank the Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction Unit
(SIPRU) for funding under the research grant, as well as Dragica Pavlović and
Aleksandar Baucal for their help with the PISA database and methodology.