Institutional contexts of education systems: cross-cultural comparative
research into country configurations and their performance from 1995 -2009
This paper focuses on subtheme 1: School Effectiveness, School Improvement and School
Transformation - What do they Mean in Different Contexts and Different Paradigms. It
specifically presents findings based on cross-cultural comparative research related to the topics
of (a) Educational governance (b) assessment and evaluation and using evidence for decision
making in different cultural contexts.
Note that if accepted I would like to join a paper session including cross-cultural comparative
research like the ones of Catalina Lomos and Maria-Magdalena Isac).
ABSTRACT
‘Institutional context’ has come to play an important role in the explanation of differences in
‘effectiveness’ between schools. But what is meant by such a concept differs from system to
system. In this study we typify education systems based on indicators of institutional contexts
such as: the financial base of public-private education/schools, differences in their governance
structure, locus of control, and the degrees of freedom of (parental) school choice available in
countries. We develop configurations of education systems based on these institutional context
characteristics and establish the relationships between quality and equity of West European
education systems and certain institutional characteristics. Based on TIMSS-1995 data
significant differences were found between the three types of countries in maths performance.
This paper will further answer the questions on how these three types of countries fared from
1995 to 2009 and whether there are subject differences in student performance in these types of
countries in 2009. Results will be discussed upon regarding the importance of this study for
educational theory, improvement of practice, and reflected upon from the perspective of
educational governance and effectiveness.
Introduction
Institutional contexts of schools can play an important role in the explanation of variation in
effectiveness between education systems. In the nineties, researchers like Chubb and Moe (1990)
made a case that the type of funding has a significant impact on the governance and autonomy of
schools and in this way is of importance for the quality of schooling. Bishop and Woessmann
(2001) argue that competition from privately managed schools within a country’s education
system is generally associated with positive effects on the quality of the education system. Fuchs
and Woessmann (2004) claim that students performed better in privately operated schools and
that their models account for more than 85% of the between-country variation, with roughly 25%
accruing to institutional variation.
The implication is that improving institutional policies may be effective in increasing the quality
of schooling within a country and leads to the assumption that understanding the institutional
context of an education system is fundamental to understanding how education works within
different countries. Cross-cultural comparative research is necessary to (a) include a broader
range of variables than research in one single country would provide (i.e. governance; funding,
choice) and (b) to obtain more knowledge about possible context-specificity of effective policies
to avoid easy transplants) (Hanushek, Link & Woessman, 2011; Hofman, Hofman & Gray,
2010). Creemers & Kyriakides (2012) make clear that international studies on educational
1
effectiveness are necessary to get a deeper understanding of the complex structures of education
and Reynolds (2000) added to that the point that the between-country variance is likely to be
much larger than the within-between-country variance.
A comparative analysis of education systems requires clear concepts to describe the situation in
each country. Hofman, Hofman, Gray and Daly (2004) explored the relationship of the
institutional context of schooling with the quality of education and showed that a group of
Western European countries could be classified into different configurations of education
systems. Using the same original database and descriptors, this article explores how these
country types have fared since then over a period of more than 10 years from 1995 – 2009.
Research questions:
1. How did the quality of schooling regarding math of the four original types of education
systems progress from 1995 onwards (trend analysis)?
2. Is there also a difference in student performance for these types of countries regarding
different subjects?
Method
Configuration theory and Multi-Dimensional Scaling
A range of country ‘experts’ was helpful to alert us to the fundamentals of their education
systems and they gave us a greater purchase on the key structural dimensions which make up
what we refer to as the ‘institutional context’. Configuration theory is a tool for constructing
empirically-based typologies of countries (Mintzberg, 1979). To see whether such configurations
are empirically valid we made use of ALSCAL, a procedure that performs classical non-metric
multidimensional scaling. The key characteristics of the institutional context of education
systems used in our MDS scaling procedure are: (a) the funding policy of education in each
country, (b) the type of governance of schools and the distribution of power of decision-making
within education systems and (c) the degree to which freedom of school choice is available in
these countries (see Figure 1). For each of these 2 indicators were constructed.
Cross-cultural comparison of countries
In our original study we made use of data from the Third International Mathematics and Science
Study – widely known as TIMMS of 1995 (Hofman et al, 2004). The outcomes of the
multidimensional scaling were related to the quality of the education systems using the TIMSS
1995 data. Multi-level analyses with mathematics achievement as the dependent variable were
conducted including as covariates: education level of both parents, country of birth of both
2
parents, home language and pupil’s age. These resulted in ‘quality’ estimates (average
mathematics scores of the 13 year-olds) of the countries. The range of pupils involved ranged
from 2073 to 3741 with a total of 35929; schools ranged from 91 – 154 totalling to 1687 schools.
Trend and subject analysis
Trend analysis concerning the math performance of our types or configurations of countries over
the years is conducted using our original configurations as a starting point. After that, the
relationship of types of countries and student performance for different subjects is conducted
(math, science, literacy). For both analyses PISA-data were used.
Results
Our experts developed country profiles based upon the six indicators (two for each of the key
concepts funding, governance, and choice) and through MDS three empirically-based
configurations of education systems were constructed.
The first type of countries includes Ireland, both the Belgian systems and the Netherlands. These
education systems include the highest numbers of grant-aided private schools, while no school
fees are charged. These education systems show the highest scores with respect to the extent of
freedom of school choice. Schools in these education systems are mostly privately-run by school
boards, but these boards do not allow parents to exercise much influence in decision-making
(Acronym: F+G+C+). The second type includes the countries Denmark, France, Portugal and
Spain. In this type, the percentage of students attending grant-aided private education is between
10 and 30 per cent. Parents in these countries seem to be influential actors in developing the
policy of their schools. This type of country we call the moderate grant-aided private sector, with
mixed governance and fees (Acronym: F+GoC-). The last configurations include Sweden,
Austria and Germany and are largely publicly funded and organised, usually by local authorities
or other organisations including parents. The type of education systems includes only a very
limited number of grant-aided private schools. (Acronym: F-G-Co).
Based on TIMSS 1995 data significant differences were found between the three types of
countries in maths performance. This paper will further answer the questions on how these three
types of countries fared from 1995 to 2009 and whether there are subject differences in student
performance in these types of countries in 2009. Results will be discussed and reflected upon
regarding the importance of this study for educational theory, practice, and policy.
3