Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Finland and PISA
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Finland and PISA

1,342

Published on

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

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,342
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
49
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • I am delighted to share our analysis of the latest PISA findings with you, and I am particularly pleased to do this in Japan, a country which has maintained its high levels of student performance, and which has seen important improvements in student engagement since 2000, an area that traditionally was one of Japan’s weaknesses.I want to start with a brief overview of the objectives and origins of PISA, then analyse where Japan stands on measures ranging from student performance up to student attitudes to learning and engagement with school, and then conclude with what we have learned about effective policies and practices that may help Japan to further raise its already impressive educational performance.
  • * Let me start by showing you how the global talent pool has changed
  • Education systems responded to this.Look at the proportion of individuals successfully completing secondary school in the 1960s, still sort of the minimum entrance ticket to the knowledge economy. You can see, that two generations ago, the United States was well ahead of everyone else, at the top rank, and evidence at the OECD suggests that today’s economic success of the US draws at least in part on its traditionally high standards of human capital. But already in the 1970s, some countries had caught up, in the 1980s, the expansion of education continued, and the relative standing of countries changed yet again in the 1990s. While the US was number one in the 1960s in terms of the proportion of individuals completing high-school, in the 1990s it was at rank 13, not because standards have fallen, but because they have risen so much faster elsewhere. Korea shows you what is possible. Two generations ago, Korea had the standard of living of Afghanistan today and it was among the lowest performers in education among OECD countries. Today it is the top performer in terms of successful school leavers. But there are many other successful countries as well.
  • 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.
  • What do weseefrom this?- Every country has seen improvements in terms of output The example of the UK shows that you can set ambitious national targets and actually get close to them within a decade What you cannot do is prevent others from surpassing themAnd in a global economy, it is no longer simply improvement by national standards, but the best prepared individuals, companies and countries that are the benchmarks for success. What international comparisons can do is to show how the goal post keeps changing.
  • Thatwasallveryquick, letusgothroughthisdevelopmentonceagain
  • Levy and Murnane show how the composition of the US work force has changed. What they show is that, between 1970 and 2000, work involving routine manual input, the jobs of the typical factory worker, was down significantly. 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 represented here, routine cognitive input, that is cognitive work that you can easily put into the form of algorithms and scripts saw the sharpest decline in demand over the last couple of decades, with a decline by almost 8% in the share of jobs. So those middle class white collar jobs that involve the application of routine knowledge, are most at threat today. And that is where schools still put a lot of their focus and what we value in multiple choice accountability systems.The point here is, that the skills that are easiest to teach and test are also the skills that are easiest to digitise, automatise and offshore. If that is all what we do in school, we are putting our youngsters right up for competition with computers, because those are the things computers can do better than humans, and our kids are going to loose out before they even started. Where are the winners in this process? These are those who engage in expert thinking – the new literacy of the 21st century, up 8% - and complex communication, up almost 14%.
  • The world is undergoing profound changes and these changes are reflected in schools and education systems. Let me just highlight some key points:In the past, learning was considered a place, we brought kids to school. Now learning is an activity that cuts through everything children do at all stages of our lives.In old bureaucratic education systems, teachers were often left alone in classrooms with a lot of prescription what to teach. The most successful systems now set ambitious goals, are clear about what students should be able to do and then provide teachers with the tools to establish what content and instruction they need to deliver to their individual students. The past was about delivered wisdom, the challenge now is to enable user-generated wisdom.In the past, different students were taught in similar ways, today the challenge is to embrace increasing diversity with differentiated pedagogical practices. The goal of the past was standardization and conformity, now it’s about being ingenious, about personalizing educational experiences, about realising that ordinary students have extraordinary talents. Education systems have always talked about equity, now we measure their success by how well they deliver equity, in terms of moderating the impact which social background has on learning outcomes.The past was curriculum-centered, the future is learner centered. In the past, the policy focus was on the provision of education, today it’s on outcomes, shifting from looking upwards in the bureaucracy towards looking outwards to the next teacher, the next school, about creating networks of innovation In the past we emphasized school management, now it is about leadership, with a focus on supporting, evaluating and developing teacher quality as its core, which includes coordinating the curriculum and teaching program, monitoring and evaluating teacher practice, promoting teacher professional development and supporting collaborative work cultures.In the past, we considered social background and culture as obstacles to learning, the best performing systems capitalize on the diversity of learners; see diversity not as the problem, but as the potential of the knowledge society. And Ontario is actually a great example in this respect.
  • 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.
  • 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.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.
  • The idea of PISA is to support governments in preparing students for life. In a sense, PISA provides schools and nations with a mirror in which they can judge their performance in light of what other systems show is possible to achieve.
  • 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. 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Reading a lot is not enough: students who read a lot but who do not understand how to learn effectively perform worse in reading than students who read less but understand how to learn in all countries including Japan (Table III.1.28). While enjoying reading is a necessary step towards becoming a better reader, it is not sufficient if it does not go hand-in-hand with a good understanding of how to use reading to learn effectively. In Japan, an awareness of strategies to summarise information plays an important role in closing the performance gap between boys and girls and between socio-economically disadvantaged and advantaged students. In general across OECD countries, girls and socio-economically advantaged students tend to have a better awareness of strategies to summarise information than boys and disadvantaged students, and, in turn, students with this better awareness tend to perform better (Table III.3.10). In other words, an awareness of these strategies mediates the impact of students’ background and gender on performance. This mediating effect is particularly strong in Japan: 22% of the total impact of students’ socio-economic background on performance is filtered through the different levels of students’ awareness of these strategies (the OECD average is 17%); and 38% of the total impact of students’ gender on performance is filtered through the different levels of students’ awareness of these strategies. This underlines the importance for parents, teachers and schools to provide students with the tools to become effective readers and learners. It is important for students to develop an awareness of the most effective learning strategies to summarise information, especially boys and socio-economically disadvantaged students. This can be fostered by letting students experiment with different approaches, discussing with students what they find helpful and unhelpful, and encouraging them to reflect on the different approaches they use to achieve learning goals.
  • Positive teacher-student relations can help to establish an environment that is conducive to learning. Research finds that students, particularly disadvantaged students, tend to learn more and have fewer disciplinary problems when they feel that their teachers take them seriously. One explanation is that positive teacher-student relations help foster social relationships, create communal learning environments and promote and strengthen adherence to norms conducive to learning. PISA asked students to agree or disagree with several statements regarding their relationships with the teachers in school. These statements include whether students get along with the teachers and whether teachers are interested in their personal well-being, whether teachers take the student seriously, whether teachers are a source of support if students need extra help, and whether teachers treat the student fairly. Students in Japan reported one of the weakest teacher-student relations among OECD countries (Figure IV.4.1). For example, 28% of students in Japan agree or strongly agree that their teachers are interested in their well-being (the OECD average is 66%), 63% agree or strongly agree that most teachers really listen to what the student has to say (the OECD average is 67%), 64% agree or strongly agree that teachers are a source of support if students need extra help (the OECD average is 79%), 73% agree or strongly agree that they get along with their teachers (the OECD average is 85%) and 74% agree or strongly agree that teachers treat the student fairly (the OECD average is 79%). There is a positive relationship between teacher-student relations and student performance in Japan. For example, the quarter of students in Japan reporting the poorest student-teacher relations are two times more likely to also be among the quarter of the poorest performing students, which is the highest likelihood among the countries and economies that participated in PISA (Table IV.4.1). Differences in student-reported teacher interest in their well-being may reflect either different student expectations of their teachers’ level of involvement, or different roles that teachers assume with respect to their students. A low percentage of agreement with these statements suggests a possible mismatch between student expectations and what teachers are actually doing.
  • Let me briefly summarise the influences that we have measured in PISA.
  • You have seen very large performance differences among schools and countries, but how predictive are these for the success of students and nations?
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • First, there is no question that most nations declare that education is important. But the test comes when these commitments are weighed against others. How do countries pay teachers, compared to other highly-skilled workers? How are education credentials weighed against other qualifications when people are being considered for jobs? Would you want your child to be a teacher? How much attention do the media pay to schools and schooling? What we have learned from PISA is that in high performing systems political and social leaders have persuaded citizens to make choices that show they value education more than other things. But placing a high value on education is only part of the equation. Another part is belief in the possibilities for all children to achieve success. In some countries, students are separated into different tracks at an early age, reflecting a notion shared by teachers, parents and citizens that only a subset of the nation’s children can or need to achieve world class standards. Our analysis shows that systems that track students in this way, based differing expectations for different destinations, tend to be fraught with large social disparities. By contrast, the best performing systems deliver strong and equitable learning outcomes across very different cultural and economic contexts. In Finland, Japan, Singapore, Shanghai-China and Hong Kong-China, parents, teachers and the public at large share the belief that all students are capable of achieving high standards and need to do so, and they provide great examples for how public policy can support the achievement of universal high standards.
  • High-performing education systems also share clear and ambitious standards across the board. Everyone knows what is required to get a given qualification, both in terms of the content studied and the level of performance needed to earn it. Students cannot go on to the next stage—be it in work or in further education—unless they show that they are qualified to do so. They know what they have to do to realise their dream, and they put in the work that is needed to do it.
  • Third, the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers and principals. Just like companies, high quality school systems pay attention to how they select and train their staff. They watch how they improve the performance of those who are struggling; how structure teachers’ pay packets; and how they reward their best teachers. They provide an environment in which teachers work together to frame good practice. That is where teachers conduct field-based research to confirm or disprove the approaches they develop, and they judge their colleagues by the degree to which they use these practices in their classrooms. Listen to what the Finnish Minister had to say about that.
  • Fourth, as you have seen, success has to do with incentives and accountability, and how these are aligned in the system. It has also to do with how vertical accountability to superiors is balanced with horizontal or professional accountability towards peers, how knowledge is shared and spread. have we learned?
  • The most impressive outcome of world class education systems is perhaps that they deliver high quality learning consistently across the entire education system so that every student benefits from excellent learning opportunity. To achieve this, they invest educational resources where they can make most of a difference, they attract the most talented teachers into the most challenging classroom, and they establish effective spending choices that prioritise the quality of teachers. Let me come back to the example of Shanghai once more here. Let us have a look at the struggling schools six years later.
  • Some of the most successful systems are also actively looking outward, realising that the benchmark for success is no longer simply improvement by national standards, but the best performing systems internationally. Whether Singapore is interested in designing a better sewer system, retirement system or school system, it sends key people in the relevant sector to visit those countries that are the world’s best performers in those areas with instructions to find out how they do it, and to put together a design for Singapore that is superior to anything that they have seen anywhere.
  • Last but not least, in high performing systems these policies and practices are aligned across all aspects of the system, they are coherent over sustained periods of time, and they are consistently implemented. And PISA shows, success is within the reach for nations that have the capacity to creating and executing policies with maximum coherence in the system. Of course, the path to reform is not easy and it can be fraught with political controversy. Moving away from administrative and bureaucratic control toward professional norms of control can be counterproductive if a nation does not yet have teachers and schools with the capacity to implement these policies and practices. Pushing authority down to lower levels can be as problematic if there is not agreement on what the students need to know and should be able to do. Recruiting high quality teachers is not of much use if those who are recruited are so frustrated by what they perceive to be a mindless system of initial teacher education that they will not participate in it and turn to another profession. Or if they become school teachers, but are so turned off by the bureaucratic forms of work organisation they find there that they leave teaching for some other occupation. So this is all about alignment.
  • 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.
  • Figure II.5.8
  • Figure II.5.9
  • Transcript

    • 1. Programme for International Student Assessment<br />Education and learning of the futureLessons from PISA<br />Andreas Schleicher<br />Special advisor to the Secretary-General on Education Policy<br />Head of the Indicators and Analysis Division, EDU<br />
    • 2. There is nowhere to hide<br />The yardstick for success is no longer improvement by national standards but the best performing education systems<br />
    • 3. A world of change in baseline qualificationsApproximated by percentage of persons with high school or equivalent qualfications in the age groups 55-64, 45-55, 45-44 und 25-34 years<br />%<br />1<br />13<br />1<br />27<br />1. Excluding ISCED 3C short programmes 2. Year of reference 2004<br />3. Including some ISCED 3C short programmes 3. Year of reference 2003.<br />
    • 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. 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. 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. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    • 8. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    • 9. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    • 10. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    • 11. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    • 12. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />United States<br />Australia<br />United Kingdom<br />Finland<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    • 13. A world of change – highereducation<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 />
    • 14. 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 assessments:<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 />
    • 15. Changing skill demands<br />The great collaborators and orchestrators<br />The more complex the globalised world becomes, the more individuals and companies need various forms of co-ordination and management <br />The great synthesisers<br />Conventionally, our approach to problems was breaking them down into manageable bits and pieces, today we create value by synthesising disparate bits together<br />The great explainers<br />The more content we can search and access, the more important the filters and explainers become<br />
    • 16. Changing skill demands<br />The great versatilists<br />Specialists generally have deep skills and narrow scope, giving them expertise that is recognised by peers but not valued outside their domain<br />Generalists have broad scope but shallow skills<br />Versatilists apply depth of skill to a progressively widening scope of situations and experiences, gaining new competencies, building relationships, and assuming new roles. <br />They are capable not only of constantly adapting but also of constantly learning and growing<br />The great personalisers<br />A revival of interpersonal skills, skills that have atrhophied to some degree because of the industrial age and the Internet<br />The great localisers<br />Localising the global<br />
    • 17.
    • 18. Education reform trajectories<br />The old bureaucratic system<br />The modern enabling system<br />Student inclusion<br />Some students learn at high levels<br />All students need to learn at high levels<br />Curriculum, instruction and assessment<br />Routine cognitive skills, rote learning<br />Learning to learn, complex ways of thinking, ways of working<br />Teacher quality<br />Few years more than secondary<br />High-level professional knowledge workers<br />Work organisation<br />‘Tayloristic’, hierarchical<br />Flat, collegial<br />Accountability<br />Primarily to authorities<br />Primarily to peers and stakeholders<br />
    • 19. PISA 2009 in brief<br /> PISA countries in<br />2000<br />2003<br />1998<br />2001<br />2006<br />2009<br />Coverage of world economy<br />83%<br />77%<br />81%<br />85%<br />86%<br />87%<br />Over half a million students…<br />representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 74* countries/economies<br />… took an internationally agreed 2-hour test…<br />Goes beyond testing whether students can reproduce what they were taught…<br />… to assess students’ capacity to extrapolate from what they know and creatively apply their knowledge in novel situations<br />… and responded to questions on… <br />their personal background, their schools and their engagement with learning and school<br />Parents, principals and system leaders provided data on…<br />school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences .<br />* Data for Costa Rica, Georgia, India, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Venezuela and Vietnam will be published in December 2011<br />
    • 20. PISA 2009 in brief<br /> PISA countries in<br />2000<br />2003<br />1998<br />2001<br />2006<br />2009<br />Coverage of world economy<br />PISA seeks to…<br />… Support governments to prepare students…<br />… to deal with more rapid change than ever before…<br />… for jobs that have not yet been created…<br />… using technologies that have not yet been invented…<br />… to solve problems that we don’t yet know will arise<br />… Provide a basis for policy dialogue and global collaboration in defining and implementing educational goals, policies and practices<br />Show countries what achievements are possible<br />Help governments set policy targets in terms of measurable goals achieved elsewhere<br />Gauge the pace of educational progress <br />Facilitate peer-learning on policy and practice .<br />83%<br />77%<br />81%<br />85%<br />86%<br />87%<br />
    • 21. PISA 2009 in brief<br /> PISA countries in<br />2000<br />2003<br />1998<br />2001<br />2006<br />2009<br />Key principles<br />‘Crowd sourcing’ and collaboration<br />PISA draws together leading expertise and institutions from participating countries to develop instruments and methodologies…<br />… guided by governments on the basis of shared policy interests<br />Cross-national relevance and transferability of policy experiences<br />Emphasis on validity across cultures, languages and systems<br />Frameworks built on well-structured conceptual understandingof assessment areas and contextual factors<br />Triangulation across different stakeholder perspectives<br />Systematic integration of insights from students, parents, school principals and system-leaders<br />Advanced methods with different grain sizes<br />A range of methods to adequately measure intended constructs with different grain sizes to serve different decision-making needs <br />Productive feedback, at appropriate levels of detail, to fuel improvement at multiple levels .<br />Coverage of world economy<br />83%<br />77%<br />81%<br />85%<br />86%<br />87%<br />
    • 22. High reading performance<br />Average performanceof 15-year-olds in reading – extrapolate and apply<br /> … 17 countries perform below this line<br />Low reading performance<br />
    • 23. High reading 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 reading performance<br />
    • 24. High reading performance<br />2009<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 reading performance<br />
    • 25. High reading performance<br />2009<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 reading performance<br />
    • 26. Contribution of various factors to salary cost per lower secondary student (US$)<br />TB7.2<br />
    • 27. High performing systems often prioritize the quality of teachers over the size of classesContribution of various factors to primary school teacher compensation costsper student as a percentage of GDP per capita <br />
    • 28. High performing systems often prioritize the quality of teachers over the size of classesContribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher compensation costsper student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004)<br />Percentage points<br />
    • 29. High reading performance<br />2009<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 reading performance<br />
    • 30. High reading performance<br />2000<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 reading performance<br />
    • 31. High reading performance<br />2000<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 />Other rapid improvers in reading:<br />Peru, Indonesia, Latvia, Israel and BrazilRapid improvers in mathematics:<br />Mexico, Brazil, Turkey, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Germany<br />Rapid improvers in science:<br />Qatar, Turkey, Portugal, Korea, Brazil, Colombia, Italy, Norway, United States, Poland<br />Low average performance<br />Large socio-economic disparities<br />Low average performance<br />High social equity<br />Low reading performance<br />
    • 32. Variability in student performance <br />Variance<br />
    • 33. Variability in student performance between and within schools<br />Variance<br />Performance differences between schools<br />Performance variation of students within schools<br />
    • 34. Student performance<br />PISA Index of socio-economic background<br />Advantage<br />Disadvantage<br />School performance and socio-economic background Italy<br /> Private school<br /> Public school in rural area<br /> Public school in urban area<br />700<br />
    • 35. Student performance<br />PISA Index of socio-economic background<br />Advantage<br />Disadvantage<br />School performance and socio-economic background Finland<br /> Private school<br /> Public school in rural area<br /> Public school in urban area<br />700<br />493<br />
    • 36. Student performance<br />PISA Index of socio-economic background<br />Advantage<br />Disadvantage<br />School performance and socio-economic background Finland<br /> Private school<br /> Public school in rural area<br /> Public school in urban area<br />700<br />493<br />
    • 37. Percentage of resilient students among disadvantaged students<br />%<br />Resilient student: Comes from the bottom quarter of the socially most disadvantaged students but performs among the top quarter of students internationally (after accounting for social background)<br />Less than 15% resilient students among disadvantaged students<br />More than 30% resilient students among disadvantaged students<br />Between 15%-30% of resilient students among disadvantaged students<br />
    • 38. Reading performance and awareness of effective learning strategies<br />
    • 39. Student engagement with learning and school<br />
    • 40. Students' views of their teacher-student relations<br />
    • 41. Students’ views of how well teachers motivate them to read Index of teachers’ stimulation of students’ reading engagement based on students’ reports<br />%<br />
    • 42.
    • 43. Does it all matter?<br />
    • 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 ratiohigher education entry<br />School marks at age 15<br />PISA performance at age 15<br />
    • 45. High reading performance<br />Average performanceof 15-year-olds in reading – extrapolate and apply<br /> … 17 countries perform below this line<br />Low reading performance<br />
    • 46. Relationship between test performance and economic outcomesAnnual improved GDP from raising performance by 25 PISA points<br />Percent addition to GDP<br />
    • 47. Increase average performance by 25 PISA points (Total 115 trillion $)<br />bn$<br />
    • 48. What does it all mean?<br />
    • 49. Tools<br />Standards<br />Curricula<br />Technology<br />Assessments<br />Data systems<br />Processes<br />Selection<br />Preparation<br />Recruitment/induction<br />Work organisation<br />Development<br />Supervision<br />Retention<br />People<br />TeachersPrincipals<br />Support personnel<br />Families<br />Practices<br />Instruction<br />Intervention<br />Support systems<br />Design, implementation and alignment of policies<br />Student learning<br />
    • 50. <ul><li>A commitment to education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve
    • 51. Universal educational standards and personalisation as the approach to heterogeneity in the student body…</li></ul>… as opposed to a belief that students have different destinations to be met with different expectations, and selection/stratification as the approach to heterogeneity<br /><ul><li>Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom</li></ul>Lessons from PISA on successful education systems<br />
    • 52. Schools transferring students due to low achievement or behavioural problems: 33%, and where students are grouped by ability for all subjects: 38%<br />Schools transferring students due to low achievement or behavioural problems: 15%, and where students are grouped by ability for all subjects: 8%<br />Grade repetition: 7%<br />Students out of modal starting ages: 7%<br />How school systems select and group students for schools, grades and programmes<br />Grade repetition: 29%<br />Students out of modal starting ages: 11%<br />High vertical differentiation<br />Low vertical differentiation<br />Low horizontal differentiation at the school level<br />High horizontal differentiation at the school level<br />High horizontal differentiation at the school level<br />Low horizontal differentiation at the school level<br />Number of programmes: 1.1<br />First age of selection: 15.8<br />Selective schools: 17%<br />Lowhorizontaldifferentiation at thesystemlevel<br />Australia, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Iceland,NewZealand, Norway,Poland, Sweden, United States, United Kingdom, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Russian Federation<br />Jordan<br />Spain, Argentina, Brazil, Tunisia, Uruguay<br />Chile, Colombia, Peru<br />Number of programmes: 3.0<br />First age of selection: 14.5<br />Selective schools: 42%<br />Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan,Korea, Slovenia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Dubai (UAE), Hong Kong-China, Montenegro, Shanghai-China, Thailand<br />Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, Romania, Chinese Taipei<br />Luxembourg, Macao-China, Panama<br />Medium horizontaldifferentiation at thesystemlevel<br />Mexico, Portugal<br />Number of programmes: 4.3<br />First age of selection: 11.2<br />Selective schools: 61%<br />Highhorizontaldifferentiation at thesystemlevel<br />Austria, <br />Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovak Republic, Croatia, Liechtenstein, Singapore<br />Turkey, Bulgaria, Serbia<br />Belgium, Germany, Trinidad and Tobago<br />Netherlands, Switzerland<br />
    • 53. High reading performance<br />2009<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 reading performance<br />
    • 54. <ul><li>Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the system and aligned with high stakes gateways and instructional systems
    • 55. Well established delivery chain through which curricular goals translate into instructional systems, instructional practices and student learning (intended, implemented and achieved)
    • 56. High level of metacognitive content of instruction </li></ul>Lessons from PISA on successful education systems<br />
    • 57. <ul><li>Capacity at the point of delivery
    • 58. Attracting, developing and retaining high quality teachers and school leaders and a work organisation in which they can use their potential
    • 59. Instructional leadership and human resource management in schools
    • 60. Keeping teaching an attractive profession
    • 61. System-wide career development</li></ul>Lessons from PISA on successful education systems<br />
    • 62. <ul><li>Incentives, accountability, knowledge management
    • 63. Aligned incentive structures</li></ul>Forstudents<br /><ul><li>How gateways affect the strength, direction, clarity and nature of the incentives operating on students at each stage of their education
    • 64. Degree to which students have incentives to take tough courses and study hard
    • 65. Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing well</li></ul>For teachers<br /><ul><li>Make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation
    • 66. Improve their own performance and the performance of their colleagues
    • 67. Pursue professional development opportunities that lead to stronger pedagogical practices
    • 68. A balance between vertical and lateral accountability
    • 69. Effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread innovation – communication within the system and with stakeholders around it
    • 70. A capable centre with authority and legitimacy to act </li></ul>Lessons from PISA on successful education systems<br />
    • 71. How school systems are governed<br />Schools competing with other schools: 73%<br />Private schools: 8%<br />Schools competing with other schools: 89%<br />Private schools: 52%<br />Less school choice<br />More school choice<br />Less school autonomy in curriculum and assessment <br />Establishing student assessment policies: 61%<br />Choosing which textbooks are used: 55%<br />Determining course content: 14%<br />Greece, Mexico, Portugal, Turkey, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kazakhstan, Jordan, Montenegro, Qatar, Serbia, Tunisia, Uruguay<br />_<br />More school autonomy in curriculum and assessment <br />Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, Panama, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Peru, Romania, Russian Federation, Shanghai-China, Singapore, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago<br />Australia, Belgium, Chile, Ireland, Korea, Netherlands, Dubai (UAE), Hong Kong-China, Indonesia, Macao-China, Chinese Taipei<br />Establishing student assessment policies: 92%<br />Choosing which textbooks are used: 97%<br />Determining course content: 85%<br />
    • 72. How school systems use student assessments<br />Schools competing with other schools: 73%<br />Private schools: 8%<br />Schools competing with other schools: 89%<br />Private schools: 52%<br />Infrequent use of achievement data for benchmarking and information purposes identified below<br />Frequent use of achievement data for benchmarking and information purposes identified below<br />Establishing student assessment policies: 61%<br />Choosing which textbooks are used: 55%<br />Determining course content: 14%<br />Deciding which courses are offered: 18%<br />Infrequent use of achievement data for decision making<br />Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, Belgium, Germany<br />Hungary, Norway, Turkey, Montenegro, Tunisia, Slovenia<br />Denmark, Italy, Japan, Argentina, Macao-China, Chinese Taipei, Spain, Uruguay<br />Australia, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Estonia, Iceland, Israel, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, Albania, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, Croatia, Dubai (UAE), Hong Kong-China, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Panama, Peru, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Shanghai-China, Singapore, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Serbia <br />Frequent use of achievement data for decision making<br />Establishing student assessment policies: 92%<br />Choosing which textbooks are used: 97%<br />Determining course content: 85%<br />Deciding which courses are offered: 87%<br />
    • 73. How much autonomy individual schools have over resource allocation<br />
    • 74. Local responsibility and system-level prescription<br />Trend in OECD countries<br />System-level prescription<br />‘Tayloristic’ work organisation<br />The past<br />The industrial model, detailed prescription of what schools do<br />The future<br />Every school an effective school<br />Current trend<br />Building capacity<br />Schools leading reform<br />Teachers as ‘knowledge workers’<br />
    • 75. School autonomy, accountability and student performanceImpact of school autonomy on performance in systems with and without accountability arrangements<br />PISA score in reading<br />
    • 76. Public and private schools<br />%<br />Score point difference<br />Private schoolsperform better<br />Public schoolsperform better<br />
    • 77. Lessons from PISA on successful education systems<br /><ul><li>Investing resources where they can make most of a difference
    • 78. Alignment of resources with key challenges (e.g. attracting the most talented teachers to the most challenging classrooms)
    • 79. Effective spending choices that prioritise high quality teachers over smaller classes</li></li></ul><li><ul><li>A learning system
    • 80. An outward orientation of the system to keep the system learning, international benchmarks as the ‘eyes’ and ‘ears’ of the system
    • 81. Recognising challenges and potential future threats to current success, learning from them, designing responses and implementing these</li></ul>Lessons from PISA on successful education systems<br />
    • 82. <ul><li>Coherence of policies and practices
    • 83. Alignment of policies across all aspects of the system
    • 84. Coherence of policies over sustained periods of time
    • 85. Consistency of implementation
    • 86. Fidelity of implementation (without excessive control)</li></ul>Lessons from PISA on successful education systems<br />
    • 87. Reform trajectories<br />The past bureaucratic system<br />The future enabling system<br />Student inclusion<br />Some students learn at high levels<br />All students need to learn at high levels<br />Curriculum, instruction and assessment<br />Routine cognitive skills, rote learning<br />Learning to learn, complex ways of thinking, ways of working<br />Teacher quality<br />Few years more than secondary<br />High-level professional knowledge workers<br />Work organisation<br />‘Tayloristic’, hierarchical<br />Flat, collegial<br />Accountability<br />Primarily to authorities<br />Primarily to peers and stakeholders<br />
    • 88. Beyond schooling<br />
    • 89. Parental support at the beginning of primary school <br />Score point difference between students whose parents often do (weekly or daily) and those who do not: <br />"talk about what they had done"<br />
    • 90. Performance difference between students who had attended pre-primary school for more than one year and those who did not<br />Score point difference<br />Observed performance advantage<br />Performance advantage after accounting for socio-economic factors<br />
    • 91. Find out more about PISA at…<br />OECD www.pisa.oecd.org<br />All national and international publications<br />The complete micro-level database<br />U.S. White House www.data.gov<br />Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org<br />… and remember:<br />Without data, you are just another person with an opinion<br />Thank you !<br />

    ×