2010 e-asean (workshop session 3) - rev 1.1

859 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
859
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
12
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The pace of change is most clearly visible in higher education, and I want to bring two more dimensions into the picture here. Each dot on this chart represents one country. The horizontal axis shows you the college graduation rate, the proportion of an age group that comes out of the system with a college degree. The vertical axis shows you how much it costs to educate a graduate per year.
  • *Lets now add where the money comes from into the picture, the larger the dot, the larger the share of private spending on college education, such as tuition.The chart shows the US as the country with the highest college graduation rate, and the highest level of spending per student. The US is also among the countries with the largest share of resources generated through the private sector. That allows the US to spend roughly twice as much per student as Europe. US, FinlandThe only thing I have not highlighted so far is that this was the situation in 1995. And now watch this closely as you see how this changed between 1995 and 2005.
  • You see that in 2000, five years, later, the picture looked very different. While in 1995 the US was well ahead of any other country – you see that marked by the dotted circle, in 2000 several other countries had reached out to this frontier. Look at Australia, in pink.
  • Thatwasallveryquick, letusgothroughthisdevelopmentonceagain
  • 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.
  • This chart shows you the proportion of teachers who participated in various types of professional development over the last 18 months, with the bars showing the average across countries and the red dot showing the Mexican figures. So you see that just over 60% of Mexican teachers have engaged in some form of individual and collaborative research, just over 30% in qualification programmes, almost every teacher in informal dialogue to improve teaching, 70% in reading professional literature, and so on.These are impressive numbers. But do governments offer, and do teachers take up the kind of professional development that is actually most effective? The yellow bar shows you the proportion of teachers who think that the various types of professional development have a moderate to large impact on their development as a teacher. So you see that, while individual and collaborative research seems to have the largest impact (the yellow bar is long), participation rates here, shown by the blue bar, are comparatively low. The same is true for sustained qualification programs, these seem to make a genuine impact but few teachers pursue such courses. In contrast, lots of teachers participate in one-off seminars and workshops which much fewer teachers perceive to be of value.TALIS thus shows that we need to do better in matching the costs and benefit as well as supply and demand for professional development. Courses and workshopsProfessional development networkMentoring and peer observationObservation visits to other schoolsEducation conferences and seminars
  • But the balance between national prescription and schools leading reform is not an all-or-nothing. In fact, most school systems have started out with highly prescriptive education systems. But gradually the have moved towards building capacity and enabling schools to assume greater responsibility.
  • 2010 e-asean (workshop session 3) - rev 1.1

    1. 1. Seeing your education system in the mirror of other systemsExamples from the OECD<br />Jakarta, May 11 2010<br />Andreas SchleicherEducation Policy Advisor of the OECD Secretary-General<br />
    2. 2. Domain 1<br />Individual learner<br />LevelA<br />LevelB<br />Instructional settings<br />LevelC<br />Schools, other institutions<br />Country or system<br />LevelD<br />Dimensions for educational benchmarking<br />Domain 3<br />Domain 2<br />Antecedentscontextualise or constrain ed policy<br />Policy Leversshape educational outcomes<br />Outputs and Outcomesimpact of learning<br />Quality and distribution of knowledge & skills<br />Individ attitudes, engagement and behaviour<br />Socio-economic background of learners<br />Student learning, teacher working conditions<br />Quality of instructional delivery<br />Teaching, learning practices and classroom climate<br />The learning environment at school<br />Community and school characteristics<br />Output and performance of institutions<br />National educ, social and economic context<br />Social & economic outcomes of education<br />Structures, resource alloc and policies<br />
    3. 3. Domain 1<br />Dimensions for educational benchmarking<br />Domain 3<br />Domain 2<br />Antecedentscontextualise or constrain ed policy<br />Policy Leversshape educational outcomes<br />Outputs and Outcomesimpact of learning<br />Quality and distribution of knowledge & skills<br />Individ attitudes, engagement and behaviour<br />LevelA<br />Socio-economic background of learners<br />Individual learner<br />LevelB<br />Student learning, teacher working conditions<br />Quality of instructional delivery<br />Teaching, learning practices and classroom climate<br />Instructional settings<br />The learning environment at school<br />Community and school characteristics<br />Output and performance of institutions<br />LevelC<br />Schools, other institutions<br />National educ, social and economic context<br />Social & economic outcomes of education<br />Structures, resource alloc and policies<br />Country or system<br />LevelD<br />
    4. 4. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Cost per student<br />Graduate supply<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    5. 5. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />United States<br />Cost per student<br />Finland<br />Japan<br />Graduate supply<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    6. 6. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Australia<br />Finland<br />United Kingdom<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    7. 7. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    8. 8. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    9. 9. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    10. 10. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    11. 11. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    12. 12. A world of change – highereducation<br />What about international students?<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />United States<br />Australia<br />A<br />A<br />United Kingdom<br />Finland<br />A<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    13. 13. Domain 1<br />Dimensions for educational benchmarking<br />Domain 3<br />Domain 2<br />Antecedentscontextualise or constrain ed policy<br />Policy Leversshape educational outcomes<br />Outputs and Outcomesimpact of learning<br />Quality and distribution of knowledge & skills<br />Individ attitudes, engagement and behaviour<br />LevelA<br />Socio-economic background of learners<br />Individual learner<br />LevelB<br />Student learning, teacher working conditions<br />Quality of instructional delivery<br />Teaching, learning practices and classroom climate<br />Instructional settings<br />The learning environment at school<br />Community and school characteristics<br />Output and performance of institutions<br />LevelC<br />Schools, other institutions<br />National educ, social and economic context<br />Social & economic outcomes of education<br />Structures, resource alloc and policies<br />Country or system<br />LevelD<br />
    14. 14. Domain 1<br />Dimensions for educational benchmarking<br />Domain 3<br />Domain 2<br />Antecedentscontextualise or constrain ed policy<br />Policy Leversshape educational outcomes<br />Outputs and Outcomesimpact of learning<br />Quality and distribution of knowledge & skills<br />Individ attitudes, engagement and behaviour<br />LevelA<br />Socio-economic background of learners<br />Individual learner<br />LevelB<br />Student learning, teacher working conditions<br />Quality of instructional delivery<br />Teaching, learning practices and classroom climate<br />Instructional settings<br />The learning environment at school<br />Community and school characteristics<br />Output and performance of institutions<br />LevelC<br />Schools, other institutions<br />National educ, social and economic context<br />Social & economic outcomes of education<br />Structures, resource alloc and policies<br />Country or system<br />LevelD<br />
    15. 15. Components of the private net present value for a male with higher education<br />27K$<br />56K$<br />170K$<br />105K$<br />35K$<br />26K$<br />367K$<br />Net present value in USD equivalent<br />
    16. 16. Public cost and benefits for a male obtaining <br />post-secondary education<br />Public costs<br />Public benefits<br />Net present value, USD equivalent<br />(numbers in orange shownegative values)<br />USD equivalent<br />
    17. 17. Domain 1<br />Dimensions for educational benchmarking<br />Domain 3<br />Domain 2<br />Antecedentscontextualise or constrain ed policy<br />Policy Leversshape educational outcomes<br />Outputs and Outcomesimpact of learning<br />Quality and distribution of knowledge & skills<br />Individ attitudes, engagement and behaviour<br />LevelA<br />Socio-economic background of learners<br />Individual learner<br />LevelB<br />Student learning, teacher working conditions<br />Quality of instructional delivery<br />Teaching, learning practices and classroom climate<br />Instructional settings<br />The learning environment at school<br />Community and school characteristics<br />Output and performance of institutions<br />LevelC<br />Schools, other institutions<br />National educ, social and economic context<br />Social & economic outcomes of education<br />Structures, resource alloc and policies<br />Country or system<br />LevelD<br />
    18. 18. Spending choices on secondary schoolsContribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher compensation costsper student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004)<br />Percentage points<br />
    19. 19. Benchmarking<br />Teacher quality and professional development opportunities<br /><ul><li>Attention to sectors, subjects, positions and individual learning needs
    20. 20. Incentives for teachers to enhance classroom practice
    21. 21. Time for teachers to prepare lesson and teaching material, as well as collaboration and exchange of ideas between teachers</li></ul>School leadership<br /><ul><li>Internal processes for audit of quality and effectiveness of teaching across schools, external corroboration
    22. 22. Instructional leadership
    23. 23. Innovation and knowledge management
    24. 24. Staff development, quality assurance and quality improvement
    25. 25. Support for other schools or networks, “system leaders”
    26. 26. Relationships between teachers, heads, supervisors, inspectors and advisors etc.</li></ul>Infrastructure<br />Teaching and learning<br />Strategies<br />Funding<br />Definition of expected standards<br />Competencies and content, relevance and links to “real world”<br />Alignment of curricula with standards<br />Quality of materials to support work of teachers<br />Assessment approaches around the standards <br />Assessment for learning<br />Assessment of learning and monitoring<br />Standards and intervention in inverse proportion to success<br />Leadership and school ethos<br />Devolution of first line responsibility for the quality of educational provision to the point of delivery<br />Local leadership and teacher development<br />Feedback systems which provide information about effectiveness and trends in outcomes<br />Performance indicators, stakeholder surveys, professional evaluation<br />Stakeholder involvement<br />Human capital<br />High quality learning for every student<br />Teaching quality and professional development<br />State and regional context<br />Effective classroom practice<br />Organisation of schooling<br />Autonomy and accountability<br />Curriculum and assessment<br />
    27. 27. Domain 1<br />Dimensions for educational benchmarking<br />Domain 3<br />Domain 2<br />Antecedentscontextualise or constrain ed policy<br />Policy Leversshape educational outcomes<br />Outputs and Outcomesimpact of learning<br />Quality and distribution of knowledge & skills<br />Individ attitudes, engagement and behaviour<br />LevelA<br />Socio-economic background of learners<br />Individual learner<br />LevelB<br />Student learning, teacher working conditions<br />Quality of instructional delivery<br />Teaching, learning practices and classroom climate<br />Instructional settings<br />The learning environment at school<br />Community and school characteristics<br />Output and performance of institutions<br />LevelC<br />Schools, other institutions<br />National educ, social and economic context<br />Social & economic outcomes of education<br />Structures, resource alloc and policies<br />Country or system<br />LevelD<br />
    28. 28. Domain 1<br />Dimensions for educational benchmarking<br />Domain 3<br />Domain 2<br />Antecedentscontextualise or constrain ed policy<br />Policy Leversshape educational outcomes<br />Outputs and Outcomesimpact of learning<br />Quality and distribution of knowledge & skills<br />Individ attitudes, engagement and behaviour<br />LevelA<br />Socio-economic background of learners<br />Individual learner<br />LevelB<br />Student learning, teacher working conditions<br />Quality of instructional delivery<br />Teaching, learning practices and classroom climate<br />Instructional settings<br />The learning environment at school<br />Community and school characteristics<br />Output and performance of institutions<br />LevelC<br />Schools, other institutions<br />National educ, social and economic context<br />Social & economic outcomes of education<br />Structures, resource alloc and policies<br />Country or system<br />LevelD<br />
    29. 29. How the demand for skills has changedEconomy-wide measures of routine and non-routine task input (US)<br />Mean task input as percentiles of the 1960 task distribution<br />The dilemma of schools:<br />The skills that are easiest to teach and test are also the ones that are easiest to digitise, automate and outsource<br /> (Levy and Murnane)<br />
    30. 30. OECD’s PISA assessment of the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds<br />Coverage of world economy<br />83%<br />77%<br />81%<br />85%<br />86%<br />87%<br />
    31. 31. Example Mathematics<br />The real world<br />The mathematical World<br />Making the problem amenable to mathematical treatment<br />A mathematical model<br /> A model of reality<br />Understanding, structuring and simplifying the situation<br />Using relevant mathematical tools to solve the problem<br />A real situation<br />Validating the results<br />Mathematical results<br />Real results<br />Interpreting the mathematical results<br />
    32. 32. High science performance<br />Average performanceof 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply<br />Poland 2000<br />… 18 countries perform below this line<br />Low science performance<br />
    33. 33. High science performance<br />Average performanceof 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply<br />High average performance<br />Large socio-economic disparities<br />High average performance<br />High social equity<br />Strong socio-economic impact on student performance<br />Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities<br />Low average performance<br />Large socio-economic disparities<br />Low average performance<br />High social equity<br />Low science performance<br />
    34. 34. High science performance<br />Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik<br />High average performance<br />Large socio-economic disparities<br />High average performance<br />High social equity<br />Strong socio-economic impact on student performance<br />Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities<br />Low average performance<br />Large socio-economic disparities<br />Low average performance<br />High social equity<br />Low science performance<br />
    35. 35. Consistency in quality standardsVariation in the performance of 15-year-olds in mathematics<br />20<br />
    36. 36. Consistency in quality standardsVariation in the performance of 15-year-olds in mathematics<br />Variation of performance within schools<br />Variation of performance between schools<br />OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 4.1a, p.383.<br />
    37. 37. OECD Level 2<br />OECD Level 6<br />Identifying<br />Recognising issues that can be investigated scientifically<br />Identifying keywords in a scientific investigation<br />Recognising the key features of a scientific investigation<br />Explaining<br />Applying knowledge of science in a situation<br />Describing or interpreting phenomena scientifically or predicting change<br />Using evidence<br />Interpreting scientific evidence and drawing conclusions<br />Identifying the assumptions, evidence and reasoning behind conclusions<br />Students can determine if<br />scientific measurement can be applied to a given variable in an investigation. Students can appreciate the relationship between a simple model and the phenomenon it is modelling. <br />Students can demonstrate ability to understand and articulate the complex modelling inherent in the design of an investigation.<br />Context<br />- Personal<br /><ul><li> Social/public
    38. 38. Global</li></ul> Competencies<br /><ul><li>Identify scientific issues
    39. 39. Explain phenomena scientifically
    40. 40. Use scientific evidence</li></ul>Students can recall an<br />appropriate, tangible, scientific fact applicable in a simple and straightforward context and can use it to explain or predict an outcome.<br />Students can draw on<br />a range of abstract scientific knowledge and concepts and<br />the relationships between these in developing explanations of<br />processes<br />Knowledge<br /><ul><li>Knowledge of science
    41. 41. Knowledge about science</li></ul>Attitudes<br />-Interest in science<br />-Support for scientific enquiry<br />-Responsibility<br />Students demonstrate<br />ability to compare and differentiate among competing explanations by<br />examining supporting evidence. They can formulate arguments by synthesising evidence from multiple<br />sources.<br />Students can point to an obvious feature in a simple table in support of a given statement. They are able to recognise if a set of given characteristics apply to the function of everyday<br />artifacts.<br />
    42. 42. Top and bottom performers in science<br />These students can consistently identify, explain and apply scientific knowledge, link different information sources and explanations and use evidence from these to justify decisions, demonstrate advanced scientific thinking in unfamiliar situations…<br />These students often confuse key features of a scientific investigation, apply incorrect information, mix personal beliefs with facts in support of a position… <br />Large prop. of poor perf.<br />Large proportion of top performers<br />20<br />
    43. 43. Domain 1<br />Dimensions for educational benchmarking<br />Domain 3<br />Domain 2<br />Antecedentscontextualise or constrain ed policy<br />Policy Leversshape educational outcomes<br />Outputs and Outcomesimpact of learning<br />Quality and distribution of knowledge & skills<br />Individ attitudes, engagement and behaviour<br />LevelA<br />Socio-economic background of learners<br />Individual learner<br />LevelB<br />Student learning, teacher working conditions<br />Quality of instructional delivery<br />Teaching, learning practices and classroom climate<br />Instructional settings<br />The learning environment at school<br />Community and school characteristics<br />Output and performance of institutions<br />LevelC<br />Schools, other institutions<br />National educ, social and economic context<br />Social & economic outcomes of education<br />Structures, resource alloc and policies<br />Country or system<br />LevelD<br />
    44. 44. Increased likelihood of postsec. particip. at age 19/21 associated with PISA reading proficiency at age 15 (Canada)after accounting for school engagement, gender, mother tongue, place of residence, parental, education and family income (reference group PISA Level 1)<br />Odds ratioCollege entry<br />School marks at age 15<br />PISA performance at age 15<br />
    45. 45. Relationship between test performance and economic outcomesAnnual improved GDP from raising performance by 25 PISA points<br />Percent addition to GDP<br />
    46. 46. Increase average performance by 25 PISA points (Total 115 trillion $)<br />bn$<br />
    47. 47. Public and private schools<br />%<br />Score point difference<br />Public schools perform better<br />Private schools perform better<br />
    48. 48. School autonomy, standards-based examinations and science performanceSchool autonomy in selecting teachers for hire<br />PISA score in science <br />
    49. 49. Pooled international dataset, effects of selected school/system factors on science performance after accounting for all other factors in the model<br />School principal’s positive evaluation of quality of educational materials(gross only)<br />Schools with more competing schools(gross only)<br />Schools with greater autonomy (resources)(gross and net)<br />School activities to promote science learning(gross and net)<br />One additional hour of self-study or homework (gross and net)<br />One additional hour of science learning at school (gross and net)<br />School results posted publicly (gross and net)<br />Academically selective schools (gross and net) but no system-wide effect<br />Schools practicing ability grouping (gross and net)<br />One additional hour of out-of-school lessons (gross and net)<br />20<br />Each additional 10% of public funding(gross only)<br />School principal’s perception that lack of qualified teachers hinders instruction(gross only)<br />Effect after accounting for the socio-economic background of students, schools and countries<br />Measured effect<br />OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies from Tomorrow’s World, Table 6.1a <br />
    50. 50. Paradigm shifts<br />
    51. 51. High policy value<br />A real-time assessment environment that bridges the gap between formative and summative assessment .<br />Quick wins<br />Must haves<br />Examine individual, institutional and systemic factors associated with performance<br />Extending the range of competencies through which quality is assessed<br />Monitor educational progress<br />Measuring growth in learning<br />Low feasibility<br />High feasibility<br />Establish the relative standing of students and schools<br />Assuming that every new skill domain is orthogonal to all others<br />Money pits<br />Low-hanging fruits<br />Low policy value<br />
    52. 52. High ambitions and universal standards<br />Rigor, focus and coherence<br />Great systems attract great teachers and provide access to best practice and quality professional development<br />
    53. 53. Challenge and support<br />Strong support<br />Poor performance<br />Improvements idiosyncratic<br />Strong performance<br />Systemic improvement<br />Lowchallenge<br />Highchallenge<br />Poor performance<br />Stagnation<br />Conflict<br />Demoralisation<br />Weak support<br />
    54. 54. International Best Practice<br />The past<br /><ul><li>Principals who are trained, empowered, accountable and provide instructional leadership
    55. 55. Principals who manage ‘a building’, who have little training and preparation and are accountable but not empowered
    56. 56. Attracting, recruiting and providing excellent training for prospective teachers from the top third of the graduate distribution
    57. 57. Attracting and recruiting teachers from the bottom third of the graduate distribution and offering training which does not relate to real classrooms
    58. 58. Incentives, rules and funding encourage a fair distribution of teaching talent
    59. 59. The best teachers are in the most advantaged communities</li></ul>Human capital<br />
    60. 60. International Best Practice<br />The past<br /><ul><li>Expectations of teachers are clear; consistent quality, strong professional ethic and excellent professional development focused on classroom practice
    61. 61. Seniority and tenure matter more than performance; patchy professional development; wide variation in quality
    62. 62. Teachers and the system expect every child to succeed and intervene preventatively to ensure this
    63. 63. Wide achievement gaps, just beginning to narrow but systemic and professional barriers to transformation remain in place</li></ul>Human capital (cont…)<br />
    64. 64. 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<br />Figure 3.15<br />
    65. 65. High ambitions<br />Devolved responsibility,the school as the centre of action<br />Accountability and intervention in inverse proportion to success<br />Access to best practice and quality professional development<br />
    66. 66. Local responsibility and national prescription<br />Towards system-wide sustainable reform<br />National prescription<br />Schools today<br />The industrial model, detailed prescription of what schools do<br />Schools tomorrow?<br />Building capacity<br />Finland today<br />Every school an effective school<br />Schools leading reform<br />
    67. 67. Strong ambitions<br />Devolvedresponsibility,the school as the centre of action<br />Integrated educational opportunities <br />From prescribed forms of teaching and assessment towards personalised learning<br />Accountability<br />Access to best practice and quality professional development<br />
    68. 68. High science performance<br />Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik<br />High average performance<br />Large socio-economic disparities<br />High average performance<br />High social equity<br />Strong socio-economic impact on student performance<br />Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities<br />Early selection and institutional differentiation<br /> High degree of stratification<br /> Low degree of stratification<br />Low average performance<br />Large socio-economic disparities<br />Low average performance<br />High social equity<br />Low science performance<br />
    69. 69. www.oecd.org; www.pisa.oecd.org<br />All national and international publications<br />The complete micro-level database<br />email: pisa@oecd.org<br />Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org<br />… and remember:<br /> Without data, you are just another person with an opinion<br />Thank you !<br />

    ×