Still 3rd from the bottom
Saistītie raksti
Ārpolitika /
20. novembris
Jāmācās uzņemties risku
Viedoklis /
13. novembris
Neskaidrība aug
Komentāri (18)
Riekstlauzis 08.11.2010. 01.22
It takes balls to reform a heavy system with big inertia and intertangled, often conflicting interests (e.g. state funded universities). Even though the universities are independent politically, an active and smart education minister should be able to guide them into faster reforms (through budgetary, EU financing and other strings). Some eggs will have to be broken to make an omlet..
0
janis_znotins 15.09.2010. 23.47
Right, agree about higher education and competency. But shouldn’t we therefore strive for an improvement (including aiming high in party programs)? :)
1
jaanism > janis_znotins 17.09.2010. 15.05
I agree and believe that we should try and improve. That said; any improvement will take time, resources, expertise (I did not say experts!) and focus.
We should begin “at the bottom” and create a national reading curriculum. The document that IZM has about “language development” is a cut-and-paste mash-up of ambiguous say nothings. There are good evidence based techniques that are appropriate for all alphabetic languages that would be appropriate. But (big BUT) in order to do anything it would take significant political will and a near clean sweep of civil servants in the ISEC.
There are, of course, precedents. When Norway had a big surprise in their PISA results some years ago they formed a national panel and made reading a targeted priority in education.
0
janis_znotins 15.09.2010. 11.02
Latvija nebūt tālu neatpaliek no OECD (un arī EU, ja mēs to skatītu atsevišķi) vidējā izglitības līmeņa. Visplašāk akceptētā un regulāri veiktā izglītības rezultātu (zināšanu un prasmju) mērīšana ir OECD PISA programma. 2006. gada rezultāti ir šeit
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf Meklējam Latvia un redzam , ka lielākajā daļā parametru tā r mazliet zem OECD vidējā, lai arī stabili atpaliek no Igaunijas un ir gaismas gadu attālumā no līderes Somijas…
3
Una Grinberga > janis_znotins 15.09.2010. 11.19
Varbūt arī pamata un vidējā izglītība daudz neatpaliek no OECD valstu vidējā līmeņa, tomēr profesionālā un augstākā izglītība ir pārsvarā kritiskā līmenī (izņemot dažas jomas kā piem. medicīna, farmācija, dabaszinātnes). Diemžēl ar augstu lasītprasmi un rēķināšanu ražošanas efektivitāti nevar paaugstināt.
0
Dzintars > janis_znotins 15.09.2010. 14.24
Agree that PISA is also a good starting point for the quality of education but I also tend to agree with Nasing Speshal re higher education. As I commented on Ivars Latvia never shows up in the rankings of top universities – this is a rough indicator of quality, true, but I think it hold s quite a bit of merit.
And it is not just Latvia that never shows up – very few eastern European universities make it into those rankings, thus maintaining a gulf between east and west (the latter, confusingly, including the far east such as Japan, S Korea, China HK and others… :-) )
0
liga_brice > janis_znotins 15.09.2010. 21.24
Pēteri,
The case of OECD/PISA the average is misleading. What is really important is fraction at or below competency. In reading , notice that more than 20% of LV 9th class students are reading below competency. Finland is less than 5%. Math is a similar story. Even more damning is the comparison between boys and girls. Boys (on average) read one competency level below girls.
Add to that what happens between 4th class (PIRLS international test) and PISA (9th class). The fraction below competency actually grows, whereas in many other countries it decreases.
PIRLS has other surprises. For example, LV has the oldest cohort of 4th class students in the test. This basically means that our 4th class students are older than in other countries. This even holds true for countries where school also starts at 7. From this we could conclude that an inordinate fraction of children are being held back. Retention is one of the primary ways that LV schools try to threaten quality into children.
0
daina_tabuna 15.09.2010. 09.42
I disagree with …because its level of education is also significantly below the EU level…
We have pretty high level of education. Problem is in ratio between social sciences and exact scieneces. 10 teachers can’t generate as high GDP as one velder even if the velder has only 8 classes education. 10 lawyers probably will generate even less. 10 journalists? Almost nothing. Same time business owner will have a huge costs on those 10 journalists. Menawhile velder is pretty humble on costs.
It’s impossible to have high GDP only on services. But to have new industrial revolution we need people with education in exact sciences. And only then serious industrial investors will come. It doesn’t work vice versa.
3
ciparsone > daina_tabuna 15.09.2010. 09.58
And that welder is probably also a chronic alcoholic with a heart disease and life expectancy of 55yrs. So soon only journalists and layers will be left.
0
daina_tabuna > daina_tabuna 15.09.2010. 10.17
Optimist :-)
0
Una Grinberga > daina_tabuna 15.09.2010. 11.29
I would formulate it as: ratio of governmental+private “support” employed against value added employed is far to high. But yes – so to say administrative costs are very high compare to state’s turnover (i.e. GDP)!
0
martins_spravniks 14.09.2010. 20.06
What we need is really educated specialists to be employed in our official (paper) world. It’s really hard to fill sophisticated forms in right way.
0
martins_kibilds 14.09.2010. 18.07
There are many things I tend to agree with in the article, however, I don’t think that the conclusion about the low level of educations follows from the premises stated above. To claim that the level of education is lower than in other EU countries you should show as some empirical data. I don’t say that there is none. I just want to point out hat none is mentioned in the article.
1
Dzintars > martins_kibilds 15.09.2010. 14.14
Empirical data are hard to come by when it comes to quality of education (much easier with quantity) but here is a perhaps too simplistic one:
http://www.online-universities.us/top500universities.htm
500 top universities in the world – not a single one from Latvia (or the other Baltics for that matter)
0
jeers 14.09.2010. 17.35
Pirmkārt. GDP per Capita protams ir vispārpieņemts rādītājs, tomēr tas ir tālu no labklājības mērījuma. GDP per Capita mēs varētu būtiski paaugstināt arī iedodot vienam bagātam cilvēkam licenci neierobežotai toksisko atkritumu pieņemšanai no ārvalstīm. Vai tas palielinās labklājību? Šaubos.
Otrkārt. Problēma ir tā, ka korupcija un oligarhu vara ir tas kas nosaka, kāds bizness uz mūsu valsti nāks/ kāda tipa investīcijas tiks izdarītas.
Nasing spešal ir taisnība par lētā darba spēka zemi, tomēr tās ir sekas tiesiskumam.
Nav noslēpums ka Indiešu, Ķīniešu, Krievu bizness labāk jūtas tajās zemēs, kur nejūt spiedienu uz darbaspēka algām, sociālo aizsardzību no Rietumu firmām, kuras ir efektīvākas. Šāds spiediens nav tajās zemēs, kur Rietumu firmu konkurētspēju ietekmē viņu nespēja un nevēlēšanās iet koruptīvās shēmās un nepiekrītu Hansena kungam, ka ar to nevar izskaidrot lielāko daļu problēmu. No biznesa ekosistēmas rodas pieprasījuma struktūra, tai skaitā gan motivācija, gan pieprasījums pēc izglītības.
Tā kā korupcija pati par sevi ir nozīmīgākais netiešais faktors.
0
Una Grinberga 14.09.2010. 15.03
There is nothing I would disagree; however, labor force and its efficiency can be regarded from the side of business structure.
We may agree or not, but Latvia is a cheap labor-force country. Foreign companies invest in labor-force intensive industries. There is by default assumption that labor resource is less efficient and also cheaper.
When the government will start to stimulate value-added/technology intensive businesses, we can expect investment inflow and also increase of efficiency. And improvement of education will be a nice background and base for increase of efficiency. Otherwise, we may create bright minds and the best specialists in the world, but they will find job somewhere abroad, because here’s no proper job supply.
0