• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
20130705SchleicherSydney
 

20130705SchleicherSydney

on

  • 1,928 views

Professor Andreas Schleicher is Deputy Director for Education and Skills, and Special Advisor on Education Policy to the OECD’s Secretary-General. In July 2013 he provided insight into how Australia ...

Professor Andreas Schleicher is Deputy Director for Education and Skills, and Special Advisor on Education Policy to the OECD’s Secretary-General. In July 2013 he provided insight into how Australia could lift its education performance to rank among the top 5 internationally by 2025.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,928
Views on SlideShare
388
Embed Views
1,540

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

4 Embeds 1,540

http://www.cese.nsw.gov.au 1477
http://cese.nsw.gov.au 53
http://localhost 9
http://172.30.5.60 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • You can see a similar relationship between skills and social outcomes. If you lack foundation skills, you are more likely to be in poor health, you are less likely to volunteer, you will have less of an understanding of political issues facing your country.You are also less likely to trust institution and people and constantly think that others are taking advantage of you. You may ask why trust is so important but the bottom line is that there is no functioning democracy without trust in institutions and there is no functioning business relationship without trust in your partners and the rule of law. Afghanistan is an example for what financial capital can achieve in a country without a human capital base. You will also be less likely to reciprocate.Finally, those with poor skills show also low levels of political efficacy, that is, they tend to believe that politicians do what they want and that they themselves have no influence.
  • What our data also show that skill gaps have a price, certainly for individuals.
  • We started to develop PISA in 1998 with 28 OECD countries, but since then country participation has grown and our latest PISA assessment covers 74 education systems that make up 86% of the world economy. Coverage in China and India is still patchy though, in China we have now covered 12 provinces and in India we are working in two states only.One aspect that makes PISA stand apart from traditional school tests is that PISA puts less emphasis on whether students can reproduce what they were taught, but focuses on their capacity to extrapolate from what they know and creatively apply what they know in novel situations. Some people complain that PISA is unfair, because it confronts students with tasks they have not dealt with before, but if you take that line, then you should consider life unfair, because in this fast-changing world, that is precisely what will expect students later in life. You will see that in the callout box.Students also provided data on their socio-economic context, their schools and their attitudes and engagement with school and learning.In addition, PISA collected data from parents, principals and system leaders to yield insights on school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences.
  • It is important that we look at skill utilisation in a dynamic framework. The kind of skills that are needed for success are rapidly evolving. As an example, this chart shows how the composition of the US work force has changed between 1970 and 2000. Work involving routine manual input, the jobs of the typical factory worker, was down significantly, that is the result of automation and outsourcing. Non-routine manual work, things we do with our hands, but in ways that are not so easily put into formal algorithms, was down too, albeit with much less change over recent years – and that is easy to understand because you cannot easily computerise the bus driver or outsource your hairdresser. All that is not surprising, but here is where the interesting story begins: Among the skill categories that you see here, routine cognitive input, that is cognitive work that you can easily put into the form of a script saw the sharpest decline in demand over the last couple of decades. So schools are now challenged on where they have traditionally put much of their focus, and what we tend value in multiple choice tests.The point is, that the skills that are easiest to teach and test are also the skills that are easiest to digitise, automatise and offshore. Where are the winners in this process? These are those who engage in expert thinking, up 8% - and complex communication, up almost 14%. This chart is just translating into numbers what I have said before.
  • Let me conclude this introduction with a couple of factors that were key to the success of PISAAt the heart of PISA is not a bureaucracy but the largest international network of educators and researchers in which Japan is an active player. These experts develop and validate the assessment material and methodologies, guided by governments on the basis of shared policy interests.Whenever you engage in cross-national collaboration, you will run into the question of whether measures and policy lessons travels well across cultural and national contexts. That is an area where PISA has made unprecedented progress.Third, in the field of education, nobody really knows how learning occurs in the classroom, but everybody has a view on this. So in PISA, we approached the issues from many perspectives, collecting data from students, parents, school principals, experts and system leaders and then through triangulation tried to get to the bottom to the issues. Finally, PISA employs a range of methods to ensure adequate measurement at different grain size to serve different decision-making needs.
  • With that introduction, let us turn to the results. The firstthingyou can do is to see how countries line up with regard to the competencies of their 15-year-olds.
  • The red dot indicates classroom spending per student, relative to the spending capacity of countries, the higher the dot, the more of its GDP a country invests. High salaries are an obvious cost driver. You see Korea paying their teachers very well, the green bar goes up a lot. Korea also has long school days, another cost driver, marked here by the white bar going up. Last but not least, Korea provides their teachers with lots of time for other things than teaching such as teacher collaboration and professional development, which costs money as well. So how does Korea finances all of this? They do this with large classes, the blue bar pulls costs down. If you go to the next country on the list, Luxembourg, you see that the red dot is about where it is for Korea, so Luxembourg spends roughly the same per student as Korea. But parents and teachers in Luxembourg mainly care about small classes, so policy makers have invested mainly into reducing class size, you see the blue bar as the main cost driver. But even Luxembourg can only spend its money once, and the result is that school days are short, teacher salaries are average at best and teachers have little time for anything else than teaching. Finland and the US are a similar contrast.Countries make quite different spending choices. But when you look at this these data long enough, you see that many of the high performing education systems tend to prioritise the quality of teachers over the size of classes.
  • In my view, one of the most important improvements in Japan has been the significant rise in the performance of Japanese students on open-ended tasks, the kind of tasks that require students to create an answer, rather than to just reproduce an answer from a multiple-choice task. In other words, Japan is advancing fastest on the kind of ‘new skills’ that I spoke about at the beginning.
  • Figure II.5.1
  • The yellow bar on this chart shows you the performance variability among schools. The larger the bar, the more school quality varies. The orange bar tells you about performance variation within schools.What the yellow bar tells you is that the quality of schools differs greatly in countries such as Italy, Turkey, Israel or Germany, while in Finland the yellow bar is very short, virtually every school performs at high levels. Now you might say Finland is a special case because it is not so heterogeneous, but then take Shanghai, a socio-economically every heterogeneous province and you see also here a fairly consistent high level of performance among schools. That has not come about by chance, but is the result of a concerted effort to convert “weaker schools” into stronger schools. If you are a successful school principal in a high performing school in Shanghai, you will get a salary raise, but they then put you in a disadvantaged school to create another success. And you will not be alone but you can take part of your teachers with you. Listen to how the Director of the Education Bureau in Pudong explains that success.
  • Whether and how long students are enrolled in pre-primary education is also an important resource consideration. Many of the inequalities that exist within school systems are already present once students enter formal schooling and persist as students’ progress through school. Earlier entrance into the school system may reduce these inequities. On average across OECD countries, 72% of today’s 15-year-old students reported that they had attended pre-primary education for more than one year. Attendance in more than one year of pre-primary education was practically universal in Japan (97%), and in the Netherlands, Hungary, Belgium, Iceland and France, over 90% of 15-year-old students reported that they had attended pre-primary school for more than one year. More than 90% of students in 27 OECD countries had attended pre-primary school for at least some time, and 98% or more of students in Japan (99%), Hungary, France and the United States reported having done so. Pre-primary education is rare in Turkey, where less than 30% of 15-year-olds had attended pre-primary school for at least a year. More than one year of pre-primary education is uncommon in Chile, Ireland, Canada and Poland, where less than 50% of students attended pre-primary school for that length of time (Table IV.3.18).PISA 2009 results show that, in general, students who had attended pre-primary education perform better in reading at the age of 15 than students who had not (Figure II.5.9 and Table II.5.5). In 32 OECD countries, students who had attended pre-primary education for more than one year outperformed students who had not attended pre-primary education at all – in many countries by the equivalent of well over a school year. This finding holds in most countries even after accounting for students’ socio-economic backgrounds. However, across countries, there is considerable variation in the impact of attendance in pre-primary education and reading performance when students are 15 years old. Among OECD countries, in Israel, Belgium, Italy and France, students who attended pre-primary education for more than one year perform at least 64 score points higher in reading than those who did not, which corresponds to the equivalent of roughly one-and-a-half school years. This was the case even after accounting for students’ socio-economic background. On the other hand, in Estonia, Finland, the United States and Korea, there is no marked difference in reading scores between those who attended pre-primary school for more than one year and those who did not attend at all, after accounting for students’ socio-economic background. In Japan, the students who had attended pre-primary education for one year or more scored an average of 39 points higher on the PISA reading scale than those who did not – roughly the equivalent of one school year – and after accounting for students’ socio-economic background, the performance advantage is 24 score points. These results underline the importance of pre-primary education, and international comparisons of primary-school children show high pre-primary enrolment rates among both advantaged and disadvantaged Japanese children. The next challenge will be to increase the positive impact of pre-primary education on performance later on in students’ school careers.One factor that may explain the variations in the impact of pre-primary education on later school performance is the quality of pre-primary education. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the impact tends to be greater in education systemswhere pre-primary education is of longer duration, has smaller pupil-to-teacher ratios or benefits from higher public expenditure per pupil (Table II.5.6). When this impact is compared according to socio-economic background, in most OECD countries, there is no significant difference in the impact between students from socio-economically disadvantaged and advantaged backgrounds (Table II.5.8). Students benefit equally from attending pre-primary school in 31 OECD countries including Japan and 25 partner countries and economies. The United States is the only OECD country where PISA shows that disadvantaged students benefit more from pre-primary education. Part of the difference in the impact of attendance in pre-primary education on the performance of students from different socio-economic backgrounds may be due to the fact that many factors other than pre-primary education (e.g. education in and out of school that students received between the ages of 6 and 15) may influence 15-year-olds’ performance.
  • You have seen very large performance differences among schools and countries, but how predictive are these for the success of students and nations?
  • Let me briefly summarise the influences that we have measured in PISA.
  • To what extent is performance in school predictive of success in later life?The best way to find out whether what students have learned at school matters for their life is to actuallywatch what happens to them after they leave school. This is exactly what we have done that with around 30,000 students in Canada. We tested them in the year 2000 when they were 15 years old in reading, math and science, and since then we are following up with them each year on what choices they make and how successful they are in their transition from school to higher education and work.The horizontal axis shows you the PISA level which 15-year-old Canadians had scored in 2000. Level 2 is the baseline level on the PISA reading test and Level 5 the top level in reading.The red bar shows you how many times more successful someone who scored Level 2 at age 15 was at age 19 to have made a successful transition to university, as compared to someone who did not make it to the baseline PISA level 1. And to ensure that what you see here is not simply a reflection of social background, gender, immigration or school engagement, we have already statistically accounted for all of these factors. The orange bar. …How would you expect the picture to be like at age 21? We are talking about test scores here, but for a moment, lets go back to the judgements schools make on young people, for example through school marks. You can do the same thing here, you can see how well school marks at age 15 predict the subsequent success of youths. You see that there is some relationship as well, but that it is much less pronounced than when we use the direct measure of skills. What this tells you how important reliable measures of student performance are, an area where the UK is leading the field since some years.
  • You can see a similar relationship between skills and social outcomes. If you lack foundation skills, you are more likely to be in poor health, you are less likely to volunteer, you will have less of an understanding of political issues facing your country.You are also less likely to trust institution and people and constantly think that others are taking advantage of you. You may ask why trust is so important but the bottom line is that there is no functioning democracy without trust in institutions and there is no functioning business relationship without trust in your partners and the rule of law. Afghanistan is an example for what financial capital can achieve in a country without a human capital base. You will also be less likely to reciprocate.Finally, those with poor skills show also low levels of political efficacy, that is, they tend to believe that politicians do what they want and that they themselves have no influence.
  • I am going to present evidence on separate issues in turn, but it is their interdependence that is key to understanding the nature of the policy and implementation challenges. If you simply raise entrance standards for teachers, you will choke off supply unless compensation and working conditions are aligned. Raising pay and changing working conditions alone won’t automatically translate into improvements in teacher quality unless standards are raised. Teacher evaluation systems have limited impact where they only relate to compensation but not professional development and career advancement. Giving teachers more autonomy can be counterproductive if the quality and education of the teachers are inadequate.Education is ultimately about student learning outcomes……and these Learning outcomes are the result of what happens in the classroom.Instructional policies and practices, in turn, are shaped by people - teachers, principles and families. And that’s why the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers.But it works the other way round too: The quality of teachers cannot exceed the quality of work organization, the quality of teacher selection and education, teacher careers and teacher evaluation.And it is those processes that we can shape with policy tools. And success depends on the design and implementation of effective policies.
  • Now, so far so good, and we all get very exited when we talk about teacher recruitment and initial training. And the reason why we get exited is because public policy can easily shape these. Some claim that the best performing systems all recruit their teachers from the top third of school graduates. That’s true for Finland and Korea. But if I look around the table, how many more countries can really claim that teaching is the first choice of graduates? Singapore perhaps? But it simply does not hold for the majority of countries around the table here. If we wait for this marvellous spaceship that will arrive one day and bring us new teachers – and maybe send those who are not effective to the moon - then we will find ourselves in the same situation years from now. And you see that other sectors have acted in much smarter ways. Imagine Nokia, the Finnish technology leader. In the 1960s, Nokia produced car tyres and rubber products. Imagine where they would be now if they had said then: We would really like to produce something more advanced than car tyres, but our engineers are not up to the task. Lets wait until they are retired, then we will train new engineers, and when the new graduates trickle into the labour-market, we will start to do something great. And there is more to this. If you put great teachers into a poor system, the system will win every time. There are plenty of examples for this. No matter how good the pre-service education for teachers is, it cannot be expected to prepare teachers for all the challenges they will face throughout their careers. So let us move on to the second summit topic. [Slide – How teachers are developed] So as important as recruitment and selection of promising graduates is, it can only be one component of human resource management in education. Successful reform requires investment in quality professional development to continuously: Simply look at how significantly the profile of teacher requirements has changed in the last decade alone: They must now place much greater emphasis on integrating students with special learning needs. They need to make more effective use of information technologies. They are required to engage more in planning within evaluative and accountability frameworks. And they are asked to do more to involve parents in schools. I think we all recognize that education is still far from being a knowledge industry, in the sense that its own practices are being continuously transformed by greater understanding of their efficacy. While in many other fields, people enter their professional lives expecting that what they do and how they do it will be transformed by evidence and research, this is still not generally the case in education. Ongoing professional development is a crucial instrument to:update teachers subject knowledge;  update teachers skills and approaches in light of new teaching techniques, new circumstances, and new research; enable teachers to master changes made to curricula or teaching practice;  enable schools to develop and apply new strategies;  and facilitate exchange of experience;  In some countries, ongoing professional development already plays an important role. In Shanghai, each teacher is expected to engage in 240 hours of professional development within five years. Singapore provides teachers with 100 hours of professional development per year. But there is a lot of variation in the incidence and intensity of teacher participation in professional development both across and within countries.
  • There are some lessons we have learned about teacher development: Well-structured and resourced induction programs can support new teachers in their transitionMany countries carefully induct their teachers before they confer on them all the rights and responsibilities of full-time teachers. During that period, they are supervised by master teachers and they get additional instruction and coaching from their supervisory teachers, and observe other teachers.  Typically, teachers in this induction period can be coached out of the profession, if, in the opinion of their supervisory teachers, they have not demonstrated that they have the knowledge and skills needed to be a competent professional. [Slide: percentage of teachers without mentoring or induction] But our data show a substantial share of teachers is left without induction - or mentoring. Effective professional development is on-going, include training, practice and feedback, and provide adequate time and follow-up supportSecond, we have learned that effective professional development needs to be on-going, include training, practice and feedback, and provide adequate follow-up. Successful programs involve teachers in learning activities that are similar to those they will use with their students, and encourage the development of teachers’ learning communities. Teacher development needs to be linked with appraisal and feedback practices and school evaluationTeacher development also needs to be linked with appraisal and feedback.  And it’s important to provide sufficient room for teachers to employ inquiry- and group-based approaches, especially in the core areas of curriculum and assessment. Our data show that teachers’ participation in professional development goes hand-in-hand with their mastery of a wider repertoire of pedagogical practices. We also see a close relationship between professional development and a positive school climate, co-operation between teachers and teacher job satisfaction. But we also see that that schools and systems need to better match the costs and benefits of, and supply and demand for, professional development.
  • Here you see the percentage of teachers that participate in various types of professional development across the countries that took part in our TALIS survey. 
  • When you now contrast this with the impact of such professional development, you see that relatively few teachers participate in the kinds of professional development that they believe has the largest impact on their work, namely qualification programs and individual and collaborative research.  Teacher demand for professional development is often not met, sometimes for lack of time, sometimes for lack of opportunity…More than half the teachers surveyed also said that they wanted more professional development than they received. Of course, people never feel well enough prepared, but the extent of unsatisfied demand appears large.  We have no data on the extent to which this undermines the effectiveness of these teachers. But the cost of providing additional professional development needs to be seen in relation to the cost of not providing it.
  • I want to conclude with what we have learned about successful reform trajectories In the past when you only needed a small slice of well-educated people it was efficient for governments to invest a large sum in a small elite to lead the country. But the social and economic cost of low educational performance has risen substantially and all young people now need to leave school with strong foundation skills.When you could still assume that what you learn in school will last for a lifetime, teaching content and routine cognitive skills was at the centre of education. Today, where you can access content on Google, where routine cognitive skills are being digitised or outsourced, and where jobs are changing rapidly, the focus is on enabling people to become lifelong learners, to manage complex ways of thinking and complex ways of working that computers cannot take over easily.In the past, teachers had sometimes only a few years more education than the students they taught. When teacher quality is so low, governments tend to tell their teachers exactly what to do and exactly how they want it done and they tend to use Tayloristic methods of administrative control and accountability to get the results they want. Today the challenge is to make teaching a profession of high-level knowledge workers. But such people will not work in schools organised as Tayloristic workplaces using administrative forms of accountability and bureaucratic command and control systems to direct their work. To attract the people they need, successful education systems have transformed the form of work organisation in their schools to a professional form of work organisation in which professional norms of control complement bureaucratic and administrative forms of control.

20130705SchleicherSydney 20130705SchleicherSydney Presentation Transcript

  • 11ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Strong performers and successful reformers in education Policy lessons from top-performers ANZSOG 2013 Andreas Schleicher Special advisor to the Secretary-General on Education Policy Deputy Director for Education Programme for International Student Assessment
  • 66ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Across the world more people obtain better qualifications but the pace of change varies hugely across countries
  • 77ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1995 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate (%) Costperstudent Graduate supply
  • 88ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1995 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate (%) Costperstudent Graduate supply United States
  • 99ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2000 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate United Kingdom
  • 1010ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2001 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate Australia
  • 1111ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2002 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate
  • 1212ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2003 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate
  • 1313ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2004 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate
  • 1414ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2005 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate
  • 1515ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2006 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate
  • 1616ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2007 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate
  • 1717ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2008 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate
  • 1818ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2009 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate
  • 1919ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2010 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate Iceland Poland UK Australia
  • 2020ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2010 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate US
  • 2626ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher The net public return on investment for a man in tertiary education is over USD 100 000. Net private and public returns associated with a man attaining tertiary education (2009) 0 50 000 100 000 150 000 200 000 250 000 300 000 350 000 400 000 United States Ireland Czech Republic Poland Slovenia Slovak Republic Hungary Austria United Kingdom Canada Finland EU21 average France Portugal OECD average Korea Italy Australia Israel Netherlands Japan Estonia Germany Spain Belgium Norway Sweden Denmark Greece New Zealand Turkey Equivalent USD Private net returns Public net returns Chart A7.1
  • 4040ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Benchmarking progress
  • 4141ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 1998PISA countries in 20002001200320062009 77%81%83%85%86%Coverage of world economy 87% PISA 2009 in brief  Over half a million students…  representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 74* countries/economies … took an internationally agreed 2-hour test…  Goes beyond testing whether students can reproduce what they were taught… … to assess students’ capacity to extrapolate from what they know and creatively apply their knowledge in novel situations … and responded to questions on…  their personal background, their schools and their engagement with learning and school  Parents, principals and system leaders provided data on…  school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences . * Data for Costa Rica, Georgia, India, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Venezuela and Vietnam will be published in December 2011
  • 4242 PISA OECDProgrammefor InternationalStudentAssessment Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 13October2011 How the demand for skills has changed Economy-wide measures of routine and non-routine task input (US) 40 45 50 55 60 65 1960 1970 1980 1990 2002 Routine manual Nonroutine manual Routine cognitive Nonroutine analytic Nonroutine interactive (Levy and Murnane) Meantaskinputaspercentilesofthe1960taskdistribution The dilemma for education and training: The skills that are easiest to teach and test are also the ones that are easiest to digitise, automate and outsource
  • 4444ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Shanghai-China Canada Korea Japan Poland HongKong-China Australia Israel Singapore Portugal CzechRepublic Spain NewZealand Hungary ChineseTaipei Germany RussianFederation Italy Greece Ireland Dubai(UAE) Denmark UnitedKingdom UnitedStates Belgium Slovenia Turkey Mexico Austria Qatar Chile Colombia Argentina Kazakhstan Brazil Indonesia Student performance, country average (PISA reading) Student performance in large cities Countries and cities
  • 4545ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher What 15-year-olds can do
  • 4646ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Average performance of 15-year-olds in reading – extrapolate and apply High reading performance Low reading performance … 17 countries perform below this line Shanghai-China Korea Finland Hong Kong-China Singapore Canada New Zealand Japan Australia NetherlandsBelgium Norway , EstoniaSwitzerlandPoland, IcelandUnited States LiechtensteinSwedenGermany, IrelandFrance, Chinese Taipei DenmarkUnited KingdomHungary, Portugal Macao-China Italy Latvia Slovenia Greece Spain Czech RepublicSlovak Republic, Croatia IsraelLuxembourg, Austria Lithuania Turkey Dubai (UAE) Russian Federation Chile Serbia440.000 460.000 480.000 500.000 520.000 540.000 25354555
  • 4848ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Average performance of 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance
  • 4949ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance Australia Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US 2009 1525354555 2009
  • 5050ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance Australia Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US 2009
  • 5151ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher -10 -5 0 5 10 15 Portugal Spain Switzerland Belgium Korea Luxembourg Germany Greece Japan Australia UnitedKingdom NewZealand France Netherlands Denmark Italy Austria CzechRepublic Hungary Norway Iceland Ireland Mexico Finland Sweden UnitedStates Poland Salary as % of GDP/capita Instruction time 1/teaching time 1/class size -10 -5 0 5 10 15 Portugal Spain Switzerland Belgium Korea Luxembourg Germany Greece Japan Australia UnitedKingdom NewZealand France Netherlands Denmark Italy Austria CzechRepublic Hungary Norway Iceland Ireland Mexico Finland Sweden UnitedStates Poland Difference with OECD average High performing systems often prioritize the quality of teachers over the size of classes Contribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher compensation costs per student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004) Percentage points
  • 5252 London,10.September2012 AndreasSchleicher EducationataGlance2012 Contribution of various factors to the change in the salary cost of teacher per student at the lower secondary level (2000, 2010) -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Austria Denmark Finland Australia Italy Spain Japan Portugal UnitedStates Ireland France Iceland Korea Hungary CzechRepublic Mexico Contribution of teachers' salary Contribution of instruction time Contribution of teaching time Contribution of estimated class size Change in salary cost between 2000 and 2010 In equivalent USD using PPPs
  • 5656ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher In only 6 countries were relative salaries for teachers higher than those of comparably educated workers Ratio of teachers' salary to earnings for full-time, full-year workers with tertiary education aged 25-64 (2011 or latest available year) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Spain Korea Luxembourg Portugal NewZealand Canada Germany Finland Israel England Australia Denmark Belgium(Fl.) OECDaverage EU21average Netherlands Belgium(Fr.) Ireland Sweden Slovenia France Scotland Poland Chile Norway UnitedStates Estonia Austria Italy Hungary CzechRepublic Iceland SlovakRepublic Ratio Chart D3.1-2 But teacher salaries in the EU rose by 20% between 2000 and 2011 (in contrast in the US they remained stable) EU/U S
  • 5858ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance Australia Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US 2009
  • 5959ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance Australia Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US 2000
  • 6060ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance Australia Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US 2000
  • 6262ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Changes in performance by type of taskIncrease percentage correct 0.8 1.71.7 6.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Multiple-choice - reproducing Open-ended - constructing OECD Japan OECD OECDJapan Japan
  • 6363ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 -1 0 1 2 Score School performance and socio-economic background AustraliaStudentperformance AdvantagePISA Index of socio-economic backgroundDisadvantage School performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools Student performance and schools’ socio-economic background Private school Public school in rural area Public school in urban area
  • 6969ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Catching up with the top-performers
  • 70707070ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Policies and practices Learning climate Discipline Teacher behaviour Parental pressure Teacher-student relationships Dealing with heterogeneity Grade repetition Prevalence of tracking Expulsions Ability grouping (all subjects) Standards /accountability Nat. examination Policy System     R School        R Equity     E
  • 7676ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Catching up with the top-performers Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins
  • 7777ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence
  • 7878ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  A commitment to education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve  Universal educational standards and personalisation as the approach to heterogeneity in the student body… … as opposed to a belief that students have different destinations to be met with different expectations, and selection/stratification as the approach to heterogeneity  Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom
  • 7979ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance 2009 Early selection and institutional differentiation High degree of stratification Low degree of stratification
  • 8080ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the system and aligned with high stakes gateways and instructional systems  Well established delivery chain through which curricular goals translate into instructional systems, instructional practices and student learning (intended, implemented and achieved)  High level of metacognitive content of instruction
  • 8181ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  Capacity at the point of delivery  Attracting, developing and retaining high quality teachers and school leaders and a work organisation in which they can use their potential  Instructional leadership and human resource management in schools  Keeping teaching an attractive profession  System-wide career development
  • 8282ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Teacher in-service development  No matter how good the pre-service education for teachers is … it cannot prepare teachers for rapidly changing challenges throughout their careers  High-performing systems rely on ongoing professional to… … update individuals’ knowledge of a subject in light of recent advances … update skills and approaches in light of new teaching techniques, new circumstances, and new research … enable teachers to apply changes made to curricula or teaching practice … enable schools to develop and apply new strategies concerning the curriculum and teaching practice … exchange information and expertise among teachers and others … help weaker teachers become more effective .  Effective professional development is on-going… … includes training, practice and feedback, and adequate time and follow-up support FIN,
  • 8484 PISA OECDProgrammefor InternationalStudentAssessment Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 13October2011 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Impact Participation Impact Participation Impact Participation Impact Participation Impact Participation Impact Participation Impact Participation Impact Participation Impact Participation Individual and collaborative research Qualification programmes Informal dialogue to improve teaching Reading professional literature Courses and workshops Professional development network Mentoring and peer observation Observation visits to other schools Education conferences and seminars TALIS Average% Relatively few teachers participate in the kinds of professional development which they find has the largest impact on their work Comparison of teachers participating in professional development activities and teachers reporting moderate or high level impact by types of activity
  • 8585 PISA OECDProgrammefor InternationalStudentAssessment Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 13October2011 Relatively few teachers participate in the kinds of professional development which they find has the largest impact on their work Comparison of teachers participating in professional development activities and teachers reporting moderate or high level impact by types of activity SIN plc
  • 8686ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  Incentives, accountability, knowledge management  Aligned incentive structures For students  How gateways affect the strength, direction, clarity and nature of the incentives operating on students at each stage of their education  Degree to which students have incentives to take tough courses and study hard  Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing well For teachers  Make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation  Improve their own performance and the performance of their colleagues  Pursue professional development opportunities that lead to stronger pedagogical practices  A balance between vertical and lateral accountability  Effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread innovation – communication within the system and with stakeholders around it  A capable centre with authority and legitimacy to act
  • 8989ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Schools with less autonomy Schools with more autonomy 480 490 500 Systems with more accountability Systems with less accountability 495 School autonomy in resource allocation System’s accountability arrangements PISA score in reading School autonomy, accountability and student performance Impact of school autonomy on performance in systems with and without accountability arrangements
  • 9090ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Local responsibility and system-level prescription System-level prescription ‘Tayloristic’ work organisation Schools leading reform Teachers as ‘knowledge workers’ Schools today The industrial model, detailed prescription of what schools do Schools tomorrow? Building capacity Finland today Every school an effective school Trend in OECD countries
  • 9292ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  Investing resources where they can make most of a difference  Alignment of resources with key challenges (e.g. attracting the most talented teachers to the most challenging classrooms)  Effective spending choices that prioritise high quality teachers over smaller classes
  • 9393ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  A learning system  An outward orientation to keep the system learning, technology, international benchmarks as the ‘eyes’ and ‘ears’ of the system  Recognising challenges and potential future threats to current success, learning from them, designing responses and implementing these
  • 9494ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  Coherence of policies and practices  Alignment of policies across all aspects of the system  Coherence of policies over sustained periods of time  Consistency of implementation  Fidelity of implementation (without excessive control)
  • 9595ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence
  • 9696ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Average school systems High performers in PISA Some students learn at high levels  All students learn at high levels Uniformity  Embracing diversity Curriculum-centred  Learner-centred Learning a place  Learning an activity Low status of the teaching profession  Countries attract and develop high quality teachers Prescription  Informed profession
  • 9797ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Some students learn at high levels All students need to learn at high levels Student inclusion Routine cognitive skills, rote learning Learning to learn, complex ways of thinking, ways of working Curriculum, instruction and assessment Few years more than secondary High-level professional knowledge workers Teacher quality ‘Tayloristic’, hierarchical Flat, collegial Work organisation Primarily to authorities Primarily to peers and stakeholders Accountability Education reform trajectories The old bureaucratic system The modern enabling system
  • 9898ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Thank you ! Find out more about PISA at…  OECD www.pisa.oecd.org – All national and international publications – The complete micro-level database  U.S. White House www.data.gov  Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org … and remember: Without data, you are just another person with an opinion