Maltese schoolchildren are underperforming in science, maths and reading relative to the amount of resources allocated to their education, according to an international report.
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report, published on Tuesday, analysed educational developments through standardised testing in 72 countries, focusing primarily on science, maths and reading.
The report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found that high-income countries, including Malta, cumulatively spend an average of around $87,000 (€82,000) on each student, compared to an average of $28,000 in developing countries.
Malta spends approximately $113,000 (€107,000) on each student between the ages of six and 15 throughout their education yet registered lower scores in science than any other high-income country.
A similar situation was noted in maths and reading – with the exception of the United States, which scored lower than Malta in maths despite spending marginally more.
Overall, Singapore outperformed all other participating countries in science, while Japan, Estonia, Finland and Canada were the four highest-performing OECD countries.
Malta’s scores in science, reading and maths were all below in the OECD average, although significant improvement was registered in maths since the last similar study in 2006.
School systems which prioritised after-school learning, such as homework, tended to perform less well
The country also managed to narrow the gender gap, particularly in reading, where the highest reduction in the average gender score difference between male and female students was registered in Malta.
Moreover, equity between immigrant and native students was among the highest in the OECD.
Among higher-earning countries, the PISA report found that the manner in which resources for education were allocated was just as important as the amount of resources available, with no firm link between increased public spending and better results.
Countries which overperformed relative to spending tended to be those which made teaching more prestigious and selective, directed more resources to children in most need, enrolled most children in high-quality preschools, and applied rigorous, consistent standards across all classrooms.
Students scored five points higher in science for every additional hour spent per week in regular science lessons, after accounting for socio-economic status.
Meanwhile, school systems which prioritised after-school learning – such as homework, additional instruction or private study – tended to perform less well.
Time spent learning and the method of teaching were more strongly linked to performance in science and the expectation of a science-based career than staffing and equipment, extracurricular science activities and science teachers’ qualifications.
“For disadvantaged students and those who struggle with science, additional resources, targeted to students or schools with the greatest needs, can make a difference in helping students acquire a baseline level of science literacy and develop a lifelong interest in the subject,” the report recommended.
“All students, whether immigrant or non-immigrant, advantaged or disadvantaged, would also benefit from a more limited application of policies that sort students into different programme tracks or schools, particularly if these policies are applied in the earliest years of secondary school.”