The "Education Monitor 2019" (Bildungsmonitor 2019) was prepared by the Initiative New Social Market Economy (Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft, INSM). Founded in 2000, this public organization promotes ideas of liberal economic policy close to big business, on whose money it exists. As noted by "Russkaya Germaniya", the annual study of the quality of school education in all federal states of Germany is conducted by the "Initiative" taking into account a wide variety of aspects—including economic ones. Sociologists working on behalf of INSM derived and evaluated 93 different indicators influencing the final ranking of the states—from the availability of nursery places and the number of offers for preschoolers to the level, quality, and funding of universities and academies.
The winner of 2019, as in the previous year, was Saxony, which has topped the ranking for the 14th time out of twenty. Second was Bavaria, third was Thuringia: these three federal states have consistently been in the top three of the "Education Monitor." The places immediately behind the leaders are occupied by Saarland, Hamburg, and Baden-Württemberg. There is also a new outsider in the ranking—Berlin: education in schools, preschools, and universities of the German capital is the worst in the country. Slightly better than Berlin, the "Initiative" recognizes the situation in Bremen, Brandenburg, and North Rhine-Westphalia (last year Bremen was at the bottom of the list, Berlin was thirteenth).
The grades obtained by students in schools do not have the greatest weight in the "Monitor's" assessments: the final ranking of the states is influenced by a wide variety of factors—from the availability of nursery places and the number of offers for preschoolers to the level, quality, and funding of universities and academies. In Germany, education issues are within the competence of the states—there are 16 ministries of education, 16 different school programs, different types of schools, and different versions of final exams. Thus, the INSM study largely helps to compare how states shape their educational policies, how they finance them, what the differences in systems are, and what their prospects are.
In particular, the authors of the "Education Monitor" calculate how much a federal state spends on each student, how many students there are per teacher, what the proportion of young teachers is, and how many students drop out of schools or vocational schools. When compiling the ranking, indicators such as the availability of nursery places, the number of offers for preschoolers, the level, quality, and aspects of funding of universities and academies are taken into account. Grades also matter—including results shown by students in tests in mathematics and reading skills.
Overall, the "Education Monitor" goes much further than the usual lists based on students' academic achievements and differs greatly from the ceremonial competition for the best school or best teacher—and therefore, perhaps, does not enjoy much respect in teaching circles. "This is not a study of the quality of education—it assesses the level from an economic point of view, taking into account, besides quite understandable criteria of students' successes or failures, many others that are debatable," points out the shortcomings of the INSM work the president of the German Teachers' Association (Deutscher Lehrerverband), Hans-Peter Meidinger. "From our point of view, the results of this study should be relied upon even less than PISA data, where the evaluation criteria are at least open and obvious."
The teachers' position is clear: the quality of education is not measured by money. But for all those who do not belong to the teachers' union—especially parents wondering what schools their children attend—the ranking, compiled taking into account economic factors, will seem far from useless, as will the comments of its authors.
In particular, they explain the regular leadership of the eastern states partly by the legacy of the socialist era. In the east, views on preschool education have partially been preserved from old times, and many new states are ready to outdo the old ones in terms of nurseries and kindergartens. In addition, on the territory of the former GDR, the fight against the shortcomings of higher education is being successfully waged, and local universities are able to provide applicants with the required number of study places and good conditions for development—especially in the technical field and in the faculties of natural sciences.
Berlin's failure is explained partly by the large proportion of students dropping out of school before obtaining any kind of certificate. In the capital, the proportion of undereducated children from foreign families is particularly high—20.8% of schoolchildren with a migration background do not finish Berlin schools. In the field of vocational education, the situation is even worse: over 39% of young residents of the capital drop out after starting the process of obtaining a profession. Compared to other states, Berlin does not have many opportunities for vocational education.
The preparation of capital's schoolchildren also leaves much to be desired. The proportion of students who failed to achieve even minimal indicators in mathematics and reading is higher here than in any other federal state of Germany.