What we can know from PISA

Pisa test results usually stir waves when published and countries complain that their education systems are not up to the mark. This is true in particular for countries with Prussian school systems, like Hungary (which started modernising but is now set to slip back to more rigid solutions). Fewer people take the pain to look behind the results. The European Commission organised recently a conference about performance auditing , and one of the presenters was Andreas Schleicher from the Pisa project of the OECD. He outlined (At 177.17 of the Day 2 the webstream or if this link does not work, select day 2 here ; you can watch his presentation) some results of the analysis which may surprise us: excellent results can be achieved in countries which spend a lot or which spend less (per student) on education, the real question is what this money is used for. Only twenty percent of the variation in results is explained by the amount of money spent. So they looked at how Where teachers are not paid well and technical and infrastructural conditions are weak, the results are worse. This seems plausible. However, this means that there will be larger class sizes for the same amount of money per student. That's why Korea performs better than Luxembourg where they spend both a lot on education and Finland better than the U.S. who both spend less. And this correlation was proven for a lot of other countries as well They bought a lot of tuition time and gave also a lot of time for teachers to develop, so the proportion of teaching time is smaller. Methodology you can hear from 180.00, the comparison from 187.00. Another interesting conclusion, not from that presentation but from the PISA report : Over the period, there was a decline of two percentage points in the share of students in OECD countries who reported that students cannot work well during their reading classes. However, some of the countries with the worst records in this respect showed large improvements. In 2000,69% of students in Israel and 74% of students in Hungary disagreed with the statement that students can “never” or “almost never” work well during their reading classes; by 2009, this proportion had increased to 77% in Israel and 80% in Hungary. And this challenges the traditional truth that class discipline is continuously deteriorating. Instead of conclusion, let me quote also fro the PISA report: "Many of the world’s best-performing education systems have moved from bureaucratic “command and control” environments towards school systems in which the people at the frontline have much more control of the way resources are used, people are deployed, the work is organised and the way in which the work gets done. They provide considerable discretion to school heads and scho ol faculties in determining how resources are allocated, a factor which the report shows to be closely related to school performance when combined with effective accountability systems. And they provide an environment in which teachers work together to frame what they believe to be good practice, conduct field-based research to confirm or disprove the approaches they develop, and then assess their colleagues by the degree to which they use practices proven effective in their classrooms. Last but not least, the most impressive outcome of world-class education systems is perhaps that they deliver highquality learning consistently across the entire education system, such that every student benefits from excellent learning opportunities. To achieve this, they invest educational resources where they can make the greatest difference, they attract the most talented teachers into the most challenging classrooms, and they establish effective spending choices that prioritise the quality of teachers."

Incredible

The Monetary Council of the Hungarian National Bank cut the interest rates again. This is no surprise. It can be debated whether the National Bank should only follow the inflation target (the prevailing view in the developed world, at least in Europe) and whether the cut is justified. It is a little bizarre that always the external members (nominated by the government) vote for the cut and the internals for a hold. Last time the National Bank analyst team submitted a study which argued strongly against a cut but it was ignored. It is also becoming commonplace that as long as the president of the National Bank is the person nominated by the previous government which was that of another party, they want to keep interest rates high. The communiqué of the Monetary Council explaining the latest cut, however, is really absurd: The economic and financial portal Portfolio.hu (disclosure: this blog is a "Portfolio" blog - this means that if the editors of portfolio.hu decide, they put a link to a post on their main page and the title page of the blog runs the Portfolio logo and a running news strip) simply published the communiqué just commenting that there is no guidance in the communiqué whether the cuts will continue but it seems that it will. The previous one contained a hint that it will under certain circumstances, i.e. when "data arriving in the next months support the durability of the favourable financial developments and confirm that medium term inflationary outlook is coherent to the target of 3%". OK, so what did the Monetary Council say this time. I only quote the most striking parts: "Medium term inflationary trends can be moderated by the long-term continuing improvement of the risk assessment." This immediately after downgrading and with the perspective of further downgrading. "The consumer price index is basically driven by the increase of food prices, tax increases and other administrative measures." Tax increases - the government propaganda says that they decreased taxes. The extraordinary taxes on financial institutions, telecoms etc. were declared to stay. Administrative measures increasing prices - I do not know what they are but this is not a praise of government either and in particular does not support the statement which follows: "Inflation will significantly exceed the target this year and next year" (this statement just does not explain the rate cut) "but with the running out (a typical saynothing Hungarian term meaning just the expiry of the impact) of the shocks which increased the price level, more and more the slight desinflationary effect of weak demand will have an impact." Apart from the gloomy perspective - which will come up in the next sentence again - painted by this statement, the factors outlined being here to stay, I do not see a justification for optimism. So continuation: "It is paramount that the increase next year of the salaries and within that of the minimum wages (don't ask me why the plural, there is only one set minimum wage) should be in line with the increase in productivity." This is a laudable objective but does spell havoc for the employees. OK, if they had said that the real wages, I could maybe agree. What follows, may be true but spells trouble both for the economy and for inflation:"The measures announced support the commitment of the government for a low budget deficit. Significant uncertainty accompanies the expected macroeconomic impact of the measures: they do not influence significantly the short term outlook of the real economy and inflation, but could cause a cost side inflationary pressure on the middle term (here you have the mid term favourable outlook justifying the cut) and through decrease of the capital attraction capability of the banking system (I would rather say the propensity to lend, not to attract capital - this latter is decreased by the decrease of the interest rates) and the limitation of lending (OK, here we are) can moderate the growth potential of the economy." In a final paragraph, they again emphasise that an oversupply will limit inflation. To me, the many doomsaying passages in the communiqué serve as a proof that it was the improvement of the economic outlook which was the mean objective of the cut and they tried to hide it behind inflationary arguments. Apparently also some parts of a professional analysis were taken over, which cause a significant incoherence in the message given.

Together - Együtt 2014

Good news - Bad news. I'm afraid mostly bad news today. The co-operation platform launched the 23rd October (see my post ) was never promised to have an easy way. Its founder Gordon Bajnai, being an ex-minister in the Gyurcsány-government, prime minister thereafter, was exposed to "character murder" pinpointing a past business failure which harmed a number of small entrepreneurs who sold to the company - the links of Bajnai to the company then are up for discussion but he won a number of lawsuits on the topic which cleared him personally - that the comp,any was due to pay indemnities is no surprise as no one doubts it owed money but bankruptcy is the situation where you cannot pay and limited liability companies are invented to stop the failure of a business to cripple its owners. The panic caused among the ruling party (formally parties) is the good news, and also that the movement achieved the political sympathy rating which in votes would be needed to get into parliament (5%) within days is the good news. Its manifesto was signed by a number of personalities who have credibility (including the founder of the "Danube circle" or Duna-kör, which was one of the cores of the resistance during communism, taking up the symbolic case of the Bős-Nagymaros dam. However, one can hear voices that the signatories are "people of the bad socialist regime" - not the one before 1990 but the "pasteightyears" as FIDESZ likes to condemn. Here the bad news starts. But there are only two people among the signatories who were politicians and both were in the back lines, in particular during the Gyurcsány-government, actually both tied to the smaller partner, the liberal SzDSz. Some days after the announcement of the start of the movement as an association, FIDESZ changed the draft election law under discussion (well, this was an exaggeration) in Parliament to forbid for associations to participate in the elections. This is a sign of their panic, referred to above. Furthermore, the election campaign will be shortened and the media available for election advertisements limited to the public service media (i.e. commercial tv which is watched really is excluded) and to open air posters (in which area FIDESZ-friendly enterprises have a dominant position). Now this can be regarded already a significant limitation of citizens' rights in my opinion. A package of more than 200 modification proposals was submitted by one member of the FIDESZ and half a day was given to the MPs to read, discuss and agree in the factions. The debate was very short and - as is usual for critical issues - scheduled for late night. That's why I called the term "discussed" an exaggeration. Of course private individuals or associations can submit private advertisements which have nothing to do with the elections (but expect a scrutiny by friendly attorneys and courts - here setting the retirement age for judges will serve well). So did a pseudo-civil forum start an ad on buses (look at the picture) (of the Budapest Transport Company which is also managed by political appointees) depicting Bajnai and Gyurcsány together, with the text "they ruined the country together" etc. Some facts about the association: its president, who also organised the pro-government "Peace march" also mentioned in my 23rd October article, is also chairman of the committee distributing the government funds for civil associations (NGO's) and the association received government subsidies this year. So is this election advertising? And finally, the congress of LMP (Politics can be different), the anti-globalist green and human-rights-oriented party, which came from nowhere into Parliament (a nice feat in the Hungarian system) in 2010, refused to co-operate with the movement of Bajnai. The decision was more diplomatic, of course: the congress empowered the leaders to start talks about anything except joining. The also new 4K! (fourth republic - the present one is called the third) welcomed the decision which they took before. This formation is brand new, was created by secession from Milla ("a million for the freedom of Hungarian press", a movement which started on Facebook, achieved about a hundred thousand likes but staged several successful demonstrations - one of these was the 23rd October referred to above where Bajnai announced starting the movement Együtt 2014 (Together 2014, latter being the year of the next elections). Its leader said that they want to resemble most the Scandinavian social democrats, thus they also have a left-wing programme. So two new formations refused co-operation. 4K! could be considered irrelevant (their reaction to the announcement of president Barroso on a federal Europe simply was that they also require the harmonisation of social systems - in a tone as if they were an important political player in a powerful member state and also ignoring that this is to some extent already the case. The "loss" of LMP is also more a loss of image for the new movement as this step may cost LMP more voters than the new movement. The head of the parliamentary faction and his deputy immediately resigned, calling the decision irresponsible and unrealistic both for the party and for the country. Their announcement was greeted with loud "hurray"-s and applause probably by the 77 who voted against the decision (97 voted for). The diplomatic formulation of the decision leaves a small opening to return but already called disappointing comments from some blogs and commenters on websites and also on Facebook.

23 October in Hungary

We are living in challenging times aren't we? To increase the enthusiasm of its followers who staged a demonstration the 21st January to support them and to show that Hungary does not want to be a colony (whoever wants to colonise it - there is a joke that all alliances which were joined by Hungary have collapsed and the EU is also in big trouble now), the rumour was raised that if this "Peace march" had not taken place, the EU (or the IMF, you never know who is the actual enemy) would have caused his demise. So as the January march was a response to the opposition demonstration (the biggest and most successful of its type since long), now they staged a second "Peace march" simultaneously to the opposition demonstration on the anniversary of the 1956 revolution (or was it a late reaction on the also successful March 15 opposition demonstration?). This time Van Rompuy was favouring Orban (last year he called a European Council meeting for the 23rd October and thus Orbán could not speak on the FIDESZ/government demonstration and therefore the whole demonstration was cancelled) and so he could be the main orator on the government festive assembly, which was also the final point of the "Peace marchers". Let me save you - and myself - from commenting on the numbers and on the foreign participants and those who were bussed from the countryside from our taxes. It was more interesting what happened on the opposition demonstration and around it: Gordon Bajnai, the ex-prime minister of Hungary, whose face is like that of a young pioneer, and who never was a big orator, but "blackmailed" the government (socialist and liberal) factions of the previous Hungarian Parliament to support his almost neo-liberal austerity programme - simply putting the Hungarian budget back on track by avoiding the collapse of the budget. It is forgotten that meanwhile he could also set up a programme to collect memories of still living witnesses of the 1956 revolution and the times around it. He was a businessman before, and this makes him vulnerable to "character murder" by distributing rumours that a failure of one of his ventures was pushing his suppliers to commit suicide as he did not pay them. As FIDESZ follows left-wing policies and almost the whole opposition is leftist, quite a number of opposition forces are at most moderately enthusiastic about him as prospective leader of the opposition. Why should he? Because the election laws were thwarted by FIDESZ in a way that - there is no lower participation limit to the validity of elections and - there is no second round. This means that even if most of the voters do not vote, the candidate winning the most votes will take the constituency. Thus the opposition has to have a single candidate and convince those who do not like the present government, but are disappointed with politics as such or do not like the common candidate (who can represent only one of the divergent opposition forces) to go voting and vote against FIDESZ. Additionally, most probably only those will be able to vote, who register in advance. About this another time but this means that only citizens with a strong conviction and ready to take some inconvenience on them will vote which decreases the chances of the opposition. I do not agree, however, with those who look at the divergences and reservations with horror: it is maybe better not to lay all cards on the table. If a strong opposition unity will be visible, the government may change the election system again, quoting the critics, and use the fact that they are formally two parties, to favour themselves again. So challenging times now? Rather ahead of us,

The image of Hungary in the world

Zoltán Kosubek's interesting contribution on Linkedin

Food speculation and food prices - food for thought

The German left-leaning daily Süddeutsche Zeitung has first called attention to the research of Ingo Pies which called into question the statement of a report from Foodwatch and other reports of Oxfam and the Welthungerhilfe , renowned non-profit organisations, that speculation (forward index deals on food prices) has contributed to the recent steep increase in food prices. (Deutsche Bank has published an English version of the article.) Mr Pies deals with ethics of the economy and is rather sympathetic to ONGs, he himself founded one as a student. The main point of his argument is to list the real reasons for food price increase, but he also shows that prices of other raw materials also subject to forward index deals have not risen. The reaction of the two organisations is at least disappointing: Oxfam just states that they did not demand the total ban on these deals just their regulation. Andreas Winkler, responsible for public relations in Foodwatch reacts in a comment saying also that they did not ask for total ban, but also implying that only hedging is a justified reason (he writes that they are a certain degree of speculation is useful for farmers, dealers and processors) and finally stating that if speculation did not increase prices, it has increased their swings. He also points out that their study was dealing with all counter-arguments. The counter-arguments of Jens Berger , that the speculators are always the counterparty of the farmers and that they are always winning and thus always interested on price rises, is just showing that he does not really understand how markets and forward deals in particular work. It has to be noted that before there was an exchange between Foodwatch and Deutsche Bank where the bank’s reaction was rather muted and not too convincing. As a result, Commerzbank stopped dealing in food speculation . Further information can be found on the following site (in German)

State of the Union and the f-word

Blogactive analysed the reactions to the State of the union address of president Barroso and fond surprisingly small activity in Eastern Europe. The map also shows that there was none in Hungary. The Hungarian press was also not very active, and in my opinion misunderstood a little the message or at least what is behind it. "Barroso uttered the F-word" was the main message - as it was also tweeted by Dave Keating , a journalist in the Economist group who writes fairly regularly for European Voice . The Hungarian press mostly reacted as if they had hear the first time a call for closer co.operation in Europe and thus as if this were really a call for this which partly it was. But in a well-tempered way and it was less in depth than what the Germans talked about for the last some months. Eurosceptics used to talk about federation instead of a superstate - and the president said: " Not a superstate. A democratic federation of nation states..." So, is it a step backward? In some respect, yes. But reading the text, however, it called for a broader co-operation and also announced some concrete steps. It was no doubt provocative, whichever way we look at it: The parliament Magazine and also other sources familiar with EU matters also mentioned the mixed reaction in the European Parliament where the MEPs took the F-word as a retreat. Verhofstadt even said that we have the federation of states in Europe. Barroso's answer where he refused to engage in discussion about wording, shows that the issue is sensitive It is remarkable, however, that while trying to appease the present institutions ("We do not need to separate institutions or to create new institutions for that. Quite the contrary: for this to be effective and quick, the best way is to work with and through the existing institutions: The European Commission as the independent European authority, and overseen by the European Parliament as the parliamentary representation at the European level.") and argued for the community method to be applied (unlike in the case of the fiscal discipline accord). But he made an acidic remark: "If it was left to the Member States, I can tell you they will not resist pressure from big corporations or large external powers." Another important point: he emphasised several times the social dimension. What was new and breaking a taboo: he called for a treaty change, well prepared by public debate. This is a courageous undertaking: - let's see what future holds.