Performance of Japans education system
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Performance of Japans education system

on

  • 2,271 views

Also available in Japanese

Also available in Japanese

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,271
Views on SlideShare
2,271
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

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
  • I am delighted to share our analysis of the latest PISA findings with you this afternoon, and I am particularly pleased to do this in Japan, a country which has not only maintained its high levels of student performance, but which has also seen important improvements in student engagement and the attitudes of students to learning since 2000.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 results.
  • 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, 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 (in some countries), 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 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 significant investments.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.
  • Students in Japan do well at the very highest levels of reading proficiency (Levels 5 and 6). Some 13% are top performers in reading (OECD average is 8%), 21% are top performers in mathematics (OECD average is 13%) and 17% are top performers in science (OECD average is 9%) (Tables I.2.1 , I.3.1 and I.3.4). The proportion of top performers in reading has increased from nearly 10% to above 13% in Japan since 2000 (Table V.2.2). However, there was a gender gap in this increase, too: the percentage of top performers increased by almost 4.8 percentage points (statistically significant) among girls, while the percentage of top performers increased by 2.6 percentage points (not statistically significant) among boys. Effectively, the gender gap in top performers widened.Students proficient at Level 6 on the PISA reading scale are capable of conducting fine-grained analysis of texts, which requires detailed comprehension of both explicit information and unstated implications, and are capable of reflecting on and evaluating what they read at a more general level. They can overcome preconceptions in the face of new information, even when that information is contrary to expectations. They are capable of recognising what is provided in a text, both conspicuously and more subtly, while at the same time being able to apply a critical perspective to it, drawing on sophisticated understandings from beyond the text. This combination of a capacity to absorb the new and to evaluate it is greatly valued in knowledge economies, which depend on innovation and nuanced decision-making that draw on all the available evidence. At 1.9%, Japan has a significantly higher share of the highest-performing readers than the average (0.8%). However, in Australia, New Zealand, the partner economy Shanghai-China and the partner country Singapore, the corresponding percentages are even higher – over 2.0%.
  • In Japan, 14% of 15-year-olds do not reach the PISA baseline Level 2 of reading proficiency, less than the OECD average of 19%. This proportion, which has remained unchanged since 2000 (Tables I.2.1 and V.2.2), is larger than that in Korea, Finland, Canada and the partner economies Shanghai-China and Hong Kong-China, where 10% of students or less are lowest performers (Table I.2.1). Level 2 on the PISA reading scale can be considered a baseline level of proficiency, at which students begin to demonstrate the reading competencies that will enable them to participate effectively and productively in life. Students proficient at Level 2 are capable of very basic tasks, such as locating information that meets several conditions, making comparisons or contrasts around a single feature, working out what a well-defined part of a text means even when the information is not prominent, and making connections between the text and personal experience. Some tasks at this level require students to locate one or more pieces of information, which may need to be inferred and may need to meet several conditions. Others require recognising the main idea in a text, understanding relationships, or construing meaning within a limited part of the text when the information is not prominent and the reader must make low-level inferences. Tasks at this level may involve comparisons or contrasts based on a single feature in the text. Typical reflective tasks at this level require students to make a comparison or several connections between the text and outside knowledge by drawing on personal experience and attitudes.
  • 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 of my presentation.
  • An area in which further improvements can be sought in Japan is performance variation among schools. It is correct that Japanese 15-year-olds are in their first year of senior high school, which contributes to a relatively larger share of between-school variation, but it does not explain the fairly large performance variation overall. It also does not explain why the difference between high and low performing schools grew substantially since 2000, it is now 1.5 times as large as it was in 2000.
  • You can plot the social background of schools against the performance of schools and then mark every school in this space, the large circles representing the larger schools and the smaller circles representing smaller schools, the white schools representing public schools and the green schools representing private schools, and so on.What you see from this is that school performance varies considerably. Importantly, that is not just a question of the social background of schools, but among schools with a similar social background, you do see quite large performance differences.
  • In general, the accuracy with which socio-economic background predicts student performance varies considerably across countries. Most of the students who perform poorly in PISA come from challenging socio-economic backgrounds, and yet some of their disadvantaged peers excel in PISA and beat the odds against them. These students show that overcoming socio-economic barriers to achievement is possible. Japan has a particularly large share of students who succeed despite social disadvantage, we call them resilient students. More specifically, in Japan, 11% of students can be considered resilient, in that they are among the 25% most socio-economically disadvantaged students in the country yet perform much better than what would be predicted based on their background (Table II.3.3).
  • Let me reflect on the performance differences in greater detail. 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.
  • I want to conclude this review with another aspect that PISA attributes great importance to, this is the engagement of students with learning. A generation ago, teachers could expect that what they taught would last for a lifetime of their students. Today, schools need to prepare students for more rapid economic and social change than ever before, for jobs that have not yet been created, to use technologies that have not yet been invented, and to solve problems that we don’t yet know will arise.To become effective learners, students need to be able to figure out what they need to learn and how to achieve their learning goals. They also need to master a wide repertoire of cognitive and meta-cognitive information-processing strategies to be able to develop efficient ways of learning. This is an area where Japan still lags behind many other OECD countries, but has seen very significant improvements.
  • PISA shows that students who enjoy reading the most perform significantly better than students who enjoy reading the least (Table III.1.1). So let us look at how much students enjoy reading.More Japanese students reported that they do not read for enjoyment at all compared to many other OECD countries, but about the average proportion of students spend one to two hours per day on reading for enjoyment.Across OECD countries, we have seen a decline in percentage of students reading for enjoyment, you see that in the blue bars, but in Japan we have seen a significant increase, represented in the red bars. That is one of the most important messages coming out of PISA for Japan.
  • Let me show you that in greater detail:Some 67% of Japanese students reported that they enjoy going to a bookstore or a library (the OECD average is 42%); 44% reported that they like talking about books with other people (the OECD average is 38%); and 42% reported that reading is one of their favorite hobbies (the OECD average is 33%). In contrast, 15% of students reported that reading is a waste of time for them (the OECD average is 24%); 21% reported that they cannot sit still and read for more than a few minutes (the OECD average is 25%); 24% reported that they read only to get information that they need (the OECD average is 46%) and 28% reported that they find it hard to finish books (the OECD average of 33%) (Table III.2.11). And you can see from this chart the increase in enjoyment of reading in Japan is reflected in many of the students answers to our PISA questionnaire. Compared with students’ reports in 2000, less students find it hard to finish books (improved by 12 percentage points); more students like talking about books with other people (improved by 7 percentage points); less students cannot sit still and read for more than a few minutes (improved by 7 percentage points); less student read only to get information that they need (improved by 7 percentage points); more students reported that reading is one of their favorite hobbies (improved by 6 percentage points) and less students find reading is a waste of time for them (improved by 5 percentage points)
  • 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. PISA shows that an awareness of effective reading 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.
  • 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.
  • So who reads what?
  • There has been considerable debate as to what types of reading may be most effective in fostering reading skills and improving reading performance. What PISA shows is that, across OECD countries, students who read fiction regularly because they want to – at least several times a month – tend to perform better in reading in almost all OECD countries. In Japan, students who read fiction tend to perform better in reading to a great extent, while student who read non-fiction books or newspapers regularly tend to perform better in reading, but to a lesser extent. And if you look at how reading practices have evolved in Japan, you can see that the reading habits of Japanese students have improved the most in those areas that matter most.Although students who read fiction are more likely to achieve high scores, it is students who read a wide variety of materials who perform particularly well in reading. In Japan, students who read fiction tend to perform better; but if they also read non-fiction books and/or newspapers, their scores are even higher (Table III.1.24). Japanese students seems to read a greater variety of materials than students in many other countries, since Japan has one of the highest scores among OECD countries in the index of diversity of reading materials, afterFinland (Table II.1.10).
  • Lets look beyond engagement with reading towards the engagement of students with school.
  • 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. 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 also in Japan. For example, the quarter of students in Japan reporting the poorest student-teacher relations are twice as 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.
  • But while Japan lags behind on these measures, it has seen significant improvements over the last decade. Look at the increase in the percentage of students who said that most of their teachers really listen to what they have to say.
  • Or look at the increase in the percentage of students who say that their teachers treat them fairly.
  • 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.
  • So what does all of this mean for improving education systems?
  • 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 Japan, but also in Finland, 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. That is particularly true for all the East Asian countries with their strong examination systems.As discussed in the 2009 edition of OECD’s Education at a Glance¸ over the past decade, assessments of student performance have become common in many OECD countries – and the results are often widely reported and used in both public and more specialised debate. However, the rationale for assessments and the nature of the instruments used vary greatly within and across countries. Methods employed in OECD countries include different forms of external assessment, external evaluation or inspection, and schools’ own quality assurance and self-evaluation efforts. One aspect relating to accountability systems concerns the existence of standards-based external examinations, like the Japanese high school entry examination. These are examinations that focus on a specific school subject and assess a major portion of what students who are studying this subject are expected to know or be able to do (Bishop, 1998, 2001). Essentially, they define performance relative to an external standard, not relative to other students in the classroom or school. These examinations usually have a direct impact on students’ education – and even on their futures – and may thus motivate students to work harder. Other standardised tests, which may be voluntary and implemented by schools, often have only indirect consequences for students. For teachers, standardised assessments can provide information on students’ learning needs and can be used to tailor their instruction accordingly. In some countries, such as Brazil, Hungary, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, Poland and the Slovak Republic, such tests are also used to determine teachers’ salaries or to guide professional development (for data, see the 2009 edition of Education at a Glance ). At the school level, information from standardised tests can be used to determine the allocation of additional resources, and what interventions are required to establish performance targets and monitor progress.Across OECD countries, students in school systems that require standards-based external examinations perform, on average, over 16 points higher than those in school systems that do not use such examinations (Figure IV.2.6a). Among OECD countries, there are standards-based external examinations for secondary school students in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Turkey and the United Kingdom. In Australia, these examinations cover 81% of secondary students, in Canada 51% and in Germany 35%. In Austria, Belgium, Chile, Greece, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland, such examinations do not exist or only in some parts of the system (Table IV.3.11).In PISA 2009, school principals were asked to report on the types and frequency of assessment used: standardised tests, teacher-developed tests, teachers’ judgemental ratings, student portfolios or student assignments. Some 76% of students in OECD countries are enrolled in schools that use standardised tests. Standardised tests are relatively uncommon in Slovenia, Belgium, Spain, Austria and Germany, where less than half the 15-year-olds attend schools that assess students through standardised tests. In contrast, the use of standardised tests is practically universal in Luxembourg, Finland, Korea, the United States, Poland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, where over 95% of students attend schools that use this assessment at least once a year (Table IV.3.10). In Japan, 65% of students are in schools that use standardised tests.
  • 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.To determine the extent to which teacher behaviour influences student learning, school principals in PISA were asked to report the extent to which they perceived learning in their schools to be hindered by such factors as teachers’ low expectations of students, poor student-teacher relations, absenteeism among teachers, staff resistance to change, teachers not meeting individual students’ needs, teachers being too strict with students, and students not being encouraged to achieve their full potential. Japan is slightly below the OECD average on these measures, and the reports from school principals highlight a number of challenges: 39% of students in Japan are enrolled in schools whose principals reported that learning is hindered to some extent or a lot because students are not being encouraged to achieve their full potential (OECD average is 23%), 37% are enrolled in schools whose principals reported that this is the case because staff resist change (the OECD average is 28%), 29% are in schools where, according to principals, teachers do not meet individual students needs (the OECD average is 28%) and 24% are in schools where teachers’ low expectations of students hinders learning (in contrast, in Finland that proportion is just 6% and the OECD average is 22%) (Figure IV.4.5). But only 3% of school principals see teachers’ absenteeism as a problem (the OECD average is 17%).
  • 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. Forstudentsthisaffects: How gateways affect the strength, direction, clarity and nature of the incentives operating on students at each stage of their education; as well as the degree to which students have incentives to take tough courses and study hard and the opportunity costs for staying in school and performing well.It also means providing incentives for teachers to make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation, improve their own performance and the performance of their colleagues, and to pursue professional development opportunities that lead to stronger pedagogical practices.High performing systems tend to provide a balance between vertical and lateral accountability and have effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread innovation – and that means both communication within the system and with stakeholders around it.
  • 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. I think this experience is relevant for Japan too for moderating the large performance variability between schools.Research usually shows a weak relationship between educational resources and student performance, with more variation explained by the quality of human resources (i.e. teachers and school principals) than by material and financial resources, particularly among industrialised nations. The generally weak relationship between resources and performance observed in past research is also seen in PISA. At the level of the education system, and net of the level of national income, the only type of resource that PISA shows to be correlated with student performance is the level of teachers’ salaries relative to national income (Figure IV.2.8). Teachers’ salaries are related to class size in that if spending levels are similar, school systems often make trade-offs between smaller classes and higher salaries for teachers. The findings from PISA suggest that systems prioritising higher teachers’ salaries over smaller classes, such as those in Japan and Korea, tend to perform better. The lack of correlation between the level of resources and performance among school systems does not mean that resource levels do not affect performance at all. Rather, it implies that, given the variation in resources observed in PISA, they are unrelated to performance or equity. A school system that lacks teachers, infrastructure and textbooks will almost certainly perform at lower levels; but given that most school systems in PISA appear to satisfy the minimum resource requirements for teaching and learning, the lack of a relationship between many of the resource aspects and both equity and performance may result simply from a lack of sufficient variation among OECD countries.
  • 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. In Japan, we have also noted a rapidly rising increase in international evidence and data.
  • 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.
  • Finally, improvement does not just start with schooling. 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. 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.
  • I want to conclude the analysis 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.
  • Student performanceHigh and stable performance across key school subjectsImprovements in higher-order open-ended tasksRising share of top performers in reading, but not paralleled by improvements at the low end leading widening performance gapLarge and growing performance differences among schoolsStudent engagement and learning strategiesStill modest levels of student motivation and engagement with learning, but significant improvementsStrengthening of awareness of effective learning strategies can help closing performance gapsLearning environmentExcellent and improving disciplinary climatePositive teacher attitudes but weak student-teacher relationshipsOrganisation of schoolingSchool autonomy over curriculum and instruction but less over resourcesLimited competition among schoolsA broad mix of accountability arrangementsEffective resource allocation prioritising the quality of teachers over class sizeEquitable distribution of resources across schools

Performance of Japans education system Presentation Transcript

  • 1. PISAから見る、できる国・頑張 る国: 日本の子どもたちは? アンドレア・シュライヒャー OECD事務総長教育政策特別顧問 講 演 会平成23年2月28日(月)於:文部科学省3階講堂主催:国立教育政策研究所、文部科学省
  • 2. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers Andreas Schleicher OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 28 February 2011 2 2 2011年2月28日 東京 アンドレア・シュライヒャー Programme for International Student Assessment できる国・頑張る国 PISAから見る、OECD事務総長教育政策特別顧問 ―PISA2009年調査国際結果―
  • 3. 3 3 PISA2009年調査の概要Strong performers and successful reformers PISA調査参加国 2009年 2006年 2003年 2001年 2000年 1998年  世界経済の 87% 81% 86% 83% 77% 85% 50万人以上の生徒を対象に… をカバー  74か国・地域*、2800万人の15歳児の代表として … 国際的に合意された2時間のテストで…Andreas Schleicher28 February 2011  生徒が、習ったことを再現できるかどうかだけでなく… … 知っていることから推定し、今までにない状況の中で知識を創造 65 的に応用することができるかをテスト 職能需要の変化 単純手作業 … 生徒に対する質問紙調査で… 60PISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for  個人的背景、学校の状況、学習への取り組みや学校との関わり 非単純手作業 55  親、学校長、行政担当者からのデータを収集… 単純知的作業  学校の管理・運営、教育実践、財源、成績の違いを生み出す制度 50 的要因 などのデータ 非単純分析的作業 45 * 非単純相互的作業 Data for Costa Rica, Georgia, India, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Venezuela and Vietnam will be published in December 2011 40 1960 1970 1980 1990 2002
  • 4. 5 5 PISA2009年調査の概要 PISA 2003 2000 2009 2006 2001 1998Strong performers and successful reformers  基本方針  87% 「クラウドソーシング」と協力 – PISA調査は、参加国内でその分野の第一人者である専門家や機関を動 員して、テスト問題や質問紙、及び方法論を開発し…Andreas Schleicher …共通する政策的関心を基に、政府によって方向づけられる28 February 2011  国を超えた適切な政策的経験とその移転可能性 – 文化、言語、制度を超えた妥当性の重視 – 評価分野や状況要因に対する十分に構造化された概念的理解に基づい た調査の枠組みの構築PISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for  異なる関係者の見方の関連分析 – 生徒、親、学校長、行政担当者からの洞察を体系的に統合  異なる規模の調査対象に合わせた進んだ調査方法 – 異なる意思決定のニーズに役立てるため、異なる規模の調査対象に合わせ た内容を測定する – 様々な段階での改善を可能にするための適切なレベルの生産的フィードバ ック
  • 5. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers Andreas Schleicher OECD Programme forInternational Student Assessment 28 February 2011 6 6 15歳児にできること
  • 6. 上海 読解力の得点が高い 7 7 15歳児の平均得点Strong performers and successful reformers 日本の大都市 540.000 韓国 読解力 日本の生徒が比較的得意な分野、 不得意な分野 フィンランド ―推定し応用する力― 香港 シンガポール  情報へのアクセス・取り出し カナダ ニュージーランド 520.000  統合・解釈 日本 オーストラリアAndreas Schleicher28 February 2011  熟考・評価(2006年より改善) ベルギー オランダ ノルウェー エストニア ポーランド スイス アメリカ アイスランド 500.000 ドイツ スウェーデン リヒテンシュタイン フランス アイルランド 台湾 ハンガリー イギリス デンマーク ポルトガル マカオ イタリア ラトビアPISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for スロベニア ギリシャ 480.000 スペイン スロバキア チェコ クロアチア ルクセンブルグ イスラエル オーストリア リトアニア トルコ ドバイ 460.000 ロシア チリ セルビア 440.000 55 45 35 25 … 17 か国がこのライン以下 読解力の得点が低い
  • 7. 上海 読解力の得点が高い 8 8Strong performers and successful reformers 平均得点が高い 540.000 韓国 15 平均得点が高い フィンランド 社会経済的格差が大きい 香港 ― 社会的平等性が高い ― シンガポール カナダ ニュージーランド 520.000 日本 オーストラリアAndreas Schleicher28 February 2011 ベルギー オランダ ノルウェー エストニア ポーランド スイス アメリカ アイスランド 500.000 ドイツ スウェーデン リヒテンシュタイン フランス アイルランド 台湾 生徒の成績への社会 ハンガリー イギリス デンマーク 学ぶ機会の社会的に 経済的影響が強い ポルトガル 公平な分配 マカオ イタリア ラトビアPISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for スロベニア ギリシャ 480.000 スペイン スロバキア チェコ クロアチア ルクセンブルグ イスラエル オーストリア リトアニア トルコ ドバイ 460.000 ロシア チリ 平均得点が低い 平均得点が低い セルビア 440.000 社会経済的格差が大きい 社会的平等性が高い 55 45 35 25 読解力の得点が低い
  • 8. オーストラリア 560.000 読解力の得点が高い 9 9 ベルギー 2009 PISA2009 上海 DurchschnittlicheStrong performers and successful reformers カナダ 平均得点が高い 平均得点が高い チリ チェコ 540.000 Schülerleistungen im 社会経済的格差が大きい 社会的平等性が高い Bereich Mathematik 韓国 デンマーク フィンランド フィンランド 香港 ドイツ シンガポール ギリシャ カナダ ニュージーランド 日本 520.000Andreas Schleicher ハンガリー28 February 2011 アイスランド オースト ア ラリ アイルランド オランダ ベルギー イスラエル ポーランド スイス ノルウェー イタリア アメリ カ 500.000 エストニア アイスランド 生徒の成績への社会 ドイツ スウェーデン リヒテンシュタイン 学ぶ機会の社会的に 台湾 日本 経済的影響が強い ハンガリ アイルランド フランス ー イギリ 公平な分配 韓国 ス デンマーク ポルトガルPISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for ルクセンブルグ イタリア ラトビア メキシコ スロベニア ギリシャ スペイン 480.000 チェコ オランダ スロバキア クロアチア イスラエル ニュージーランド ルクセンブルグ オースト ア リ リ アニア ト ノルウェー ポーランド トルコ ドバイ 460.000 ロシア ポルトガル スペイン 平均得点が低い 平均得点が低い スウェーデン チリ スイス 社会経済的格差が大きい 社会的平等性が高い セルビア イギリス 440.000 55 45 35 25 15 55 45 35 25 アメリカ 読解力の得点が低い
  • 9. オーストラリア 560.000 10 10 ベルギー PISA2009 上海 DurchschnittlicheStrong performers and successful reformers カナダ チリ チェコ 540.000 Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik 韓国 デンマーク フィンランド フィンランド 香港 ドイツ シンガポール ギリシャ カナダ ニュージーランド 日本 520.000Andreas Schleicher ハンガリー28 February 2011 アイスランド オースト ア ラリ アイルランド オランダ ベルギー イスラエル ポーランド スイス ノルウェー イタリア アメリ カ 500.000 エストニア アイスランド ドイツ スウェーデン リヒテンシュタイン 日本 アイルランド 台湾 フランス ハンガリ ー イギリ 韓国 ス デンマーク ポルト ガルPISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for ルクセンブルグ イタリア ラト ビア メキシコ スロベニア ギリシャ スペイン 480.000 オランダ チェコ スロバキア クロアチア イスラエル ニュージーランド ルクセンブルグ オースト ア リ リ アニア ト ノルウェー ポーランド トルコ ポルトガル ドバイ 460.000 ロシア スペイン スウェーデン チリ スイス イギリス セルビア 440.000 アメリカ 55 45 35 25
  • 10. オーストラリア 560.000 11 11 ベルギー PISA2000 上海 DurchschnittlicheStrong performers and successful reformers カナダ チリ チェコ 540.000 Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik 韓国 デンマーク フィンランド フィンランド 香港 ドイツ シンガポール ギリシャ カナダ ニュージーランド 日本 520.000Andreas Schleicher ハンガリー28 February 2011 アイスランド オースト ア ラリ アイルランド オランダ ベルギー イスラエル ポーランド スイス ノルウェー イタリア アメリ カ 500.000 エストニア アイスランド ドイツ スウェーデン リヒテンシュタイン 日本 アイルランド 台湾 フランス ハンガリ ー イギリ 韓国 ス デンマーク ポルト ガルPISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for ルクセンブルグ イタリア ラト ビア メキシコ スロベニア ギリシャ スペイン 480.000 オランダ チェコ スロバキア クロアチア イスラエル ニュージーランド ルクセンブルグ オースト ア リ リ アニア ト ノルウェー ポーランド トルコ ポルトガル ドバイ 460.000 ロシア スペイン スウェーデン チリ スイス イギリス セルビア 440.000 アメリカ 55 45 35 25
  • 11. オーストラリア 560.000 12 12 ベルギー PISA2000 上海 DurchschnittlicheStrong performers and successful reformers カナダ チリ チェコ 540.000 Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik 韓国 デンマーク フィンランド フィンランド 香港 ドイツ シンガポール ギリシャ カナダ ニュージーランド 日本 520.000Andreas Schleicher ハンガリー28 February 2011 アイスランド オースト ア ラリ アイルランド オランダ ベルギー イスラエル ポーランド スイス ノルウェー イタリア アメリ カ 500.000 エストニア アイスランド ドイツ スウェーデン リヒテンシュタイン 日本 アイルランド 台湾 フランス ハンガリ ー イギリ 韓国 ス デンマーク ポルト ガルPISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for ルクセンブルグ イタリア ラト ビア メキシコ スロベニア ギリシャ スペイン 480.000 オランダ チェコ スロバキア クロアチア イスラエル ニュージーランド ルクセンブルグ オースト ア リ リ アニア ト ノルウェー ポーランド トルコ ポルトガル ドバイ 460.000 ロシア スペイン スウェーデン チリ スイス イギリス セルビア 440.000 アメリカ 55 45 35 25
  • 12. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas Schleicher International Student Assessment 28 February 2011 13 13 % 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 ニュージーランド - フィンランド - 日本 + 韓国 + PISA2000 オーストラリア - カナダ - PISA2009 香港 + ベルギー o アメリカ o フランス o スウェーデン - アイスランド o ノルウェー - PISA2009 スイス o ドイツ o イスラエル + ポーランド o アイルランド - ハンガリー o イタリア o ギリシャ o チェコ - ポルトガル o デンマーク - リヒテンシュタイン o スペイン o ロシア o PISA2000とPISA2009における ラトビア o PISA2000 ブルガリア o 読解力の習熟度レベル5以上の割合 ブラジル + チリ + アルゼンチン o ルーマニア - ペルー o- PISA2000の方が高い+ PISA2009の方が高い メキシコ oo 統計的な有意差がない タイ o アルバニア o インドネシア o
  • 13. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas Schleicher International Student Assessment 28 February 2011 14 14 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 % 韓国 o フィンランド o 香港 o o - + PISA2000 カナダ o 日本 o オーストラリア oニュージーランド o ノルウェー o ポーランド - PISA2000の方が高い PISA2009の方が高い PISA2009 デンマーク - 統計的な有意差がないヒテンシュタイン - スイス - アイスランド + アイルランド + スウェーデン + PISA2009 ハンガリー - ラトビア - アメリカ o ポルトガル - ベルギー oOECD平均-26か国 - ドイツ - スペイン + フランス + イタリア o ギリシャ o チェコ + イスラエル o PISA2000とPISA2009における ロシア o PISA2000 チリ - 読解力の習熟度レベル2未満の割合 メキシコ - ルーマニア o ブルガリア o タイ + ブラジル - アルゼンチン o インドネシア - アルバニア - ペルー -
  • 14. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas Schleicher International Student Assessment 28 February 2011 15 15 10 0 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 正答率の変化 0.8多肢選択 1.7 OECD平均 日本 1.7 (PISA2006と比べて)自由記述 6.5 出題形式別にみた日本の成績の変化
  • 15. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas SchleicherInternational Student Assessment 28 February 2011 16 16 学校間での違い
  • 16. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas Schleicher International Student Assessment 28 February 2011 17 17 学校ごとの平均得点 200 493 700 得点 不利 -1.5 -0.5 学校内での生徒の得点と生徒の社会経済的背景 学校ごとの平均得点と学校ごとの社会経済的背景 日本の場合「社会経済的背景」指標 0.5 公立 私立 学校ごとの平均得点と社会経済的背景 1.5 有利
  • 17. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas Schleicher 19 100 80 60 20 20 40 60 80 100 40 0 International Student Assessment 28 February 2011 19 アルゼンチントリニダード・トバゴ イタリア カタール らつき トルコ ブルガリア イスラエル パナマ ドイツ ペルー ハンガリー ドバイ オーストリア 学校間の得点の違い ベルギー ルクセンブルグ オランダ 日本 学校内での生徒の得点のば チリ ウルグアイ ギリシャ ブラジル チェコ スロベニア ルーマニア クロアチア セルビア くなっている。 アメリカ メキシコ シンガポール ヨルダン キルギス コロンビア モンテネグロ 香港 日本の学校間の得点のばらつき アルバニア は、PISA2000に比べて1.5倍大き チュニジア スロバキア リヒテンシュタイン カザフスタン マカオ アイルランド イギリス 台湾 韓国 スイス オーストラリア ニュージーランド 生徒の得点のばらつき ポルトガル 上海 学校間と学校内における アゼルバイジャン ロシア カナダ スウェーデン リトアニア インドネシア スペイン ポーランド エストニア ラトビア アイスランド タイ デンマーク ノルウェー フィンランド
  • 18. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas SchleicherInternational Student Assessment 28 February 2011 20 20 生徒の読書への取り組み
  • 19. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas Schleicher International Student Assessment 28 February 2011 21 21 10 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 0 100 % 69PISA2000 45 OECD平均 日本 64 楽しみで本を読む生徒の割合PISA2009 56
  • 20. 22 22 楽しみで本を読む日本の生徒が増えているStrong performers and successful reformers 読書をするのは、 必要な情報を得るためだけだAndreas Schleicher28 February 2011 読書は時間のムダだ 本をプレゼントされると、うれしいPISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for 本の内容について人と話すのが好きだ 読書は、大好きな趣味の一つだ どうしても読まなければならない時しか、 本は読まない PISA2000から -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 PISA2009 の変化(%)
  • 21. 23 23 読解力の得点とStrong performers and successful reformers 効果的な学習方略 600 リヒテンシュタイン 上海 550Andreas Schleicher ポーランド 韓国28 February 2011 香港 イギリス フィンランド ニュージーランド 日本 カナダ シンガポール オランダ オーストラリア ベルギー ノルウェー スウェーデン ドイツ アイスランド スイス 読 500 台湾 アメリカ スロベニア ギリシャ ハンガリー エストニアフランス ポルトガル デンマーク イタリア 解 マカオ ラトビア クロアチア スペイン チェコ 力 トルコ リトアニア イスラエル オーストリア ルクセンブルグ の 450 ロシア ドバイ アイルランドPISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for チリ 平 セルビア スロバキア ルーマニア 均 ブルガリア ウルグアイ メキシコ タイ 得 モンテネグロ ブラジル トリニダード・トバゴ 点 400 ヨルダン インドネシア チュニジアコロンビア カザフスタン アルゼンチン アルバニア パナマ カタール ペルー アゼルバイジャン 350 キルギスタン 300 -1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 「要約」指標
  • 22. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas SchleicherInternational Student Assessment 28 February 2011 26 26 誰が何を読む?
  • 23. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas Schleicher International Student Assessment 28 February 2011 27 27 0 100 10 20 30 60 70 80 90 40 50 %PISA2000 日本PISA2009 読む本の種類 雑誌 新聞 など) コミック (マンガ) フィクション ノンフィクション (小説、物語など) (伝記、ルポルタージュ
  • 24. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas SchleicherInternational Student Assessment 28 February 2011 28 28 生徒の学校への関わり
  • 25. 29 29 生徒から見た教師との関係Strong performers and successful reformers 次のことが「どちらかといえばあてはまる」「とてもよくあてはまる」割合 OECD 平均 日本Andreas Schleicher 私はたいていの先生とうまくやっている28 February 2011 多くの先生は、私が満足しているかについ 次のことが て関心がある 「どちらかといえばPISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for あてはまる」 たいていの先生は、こちらが言うべきこと 「とてもよくあてはま をちゃんと聞いている る」 割合 助けが必要なときは、先生が助けてくれる 0 50 100 生徒の割合
  • 26. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas Schleicher International Student Assessment 28 February 2011 30 30 10 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 0 100 % 65PISA2000 50 OECD平均 日本 生徒と教師の関係 68PISA2009 63 たいていの先生は、こちらが言うべきことをちゃんと聞いている 「どちらかといえばあてはまる」「とてもよくあてはまる」の割合
  • 27. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas Schleicher International Student Assessment 28 February 2011 31 31 10 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 0 100 % 69PISA2000 74 OECD平均 日本 生徒と教師の関係 74 たいていの先生は、私を公平に扱ってくれるPISA2009 79 「どちらかといえばあてはまる」「とてもよくあてはまる」の割合
  • 28. 32 32 生徒から見た授業の雰囲気Strong performers and successful reformers 次のことが「ほとんどない」「たまにある」割合 日本 OECD平均 生徒は、授業が始まってもなかなか勉強 にとりかからないAndreas Schleicher28 February 2011 生徒は、勉強があまりよくできない 次のことが 「ほとんどない」 先生は、生徒が静まるまで長い時間待た 「たまにある」PISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for なければならない 割合 授業中は騒がしくて、荒れている 生徒は、先生の言うことを聞いていない 0 25 50 75 100 %
  • 29. PISA What students know and can do OECD Programme for Andreas Schleicher International Student Assessment 7 December 2010 33 33 政策と実践 退学 留年 規律 授業の雰囲気 基準 / 説明責任 (全科目) 選別と分化 教師の行動 不均一性の取り扱い全国統一試験 親からの圧力 政策 能力別の班分け 教師と生徒の関係 R    制度 R        学校 E     公平性
  • 30. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas SchleicherInternational Student Assessment 28 February 2011 34 34 何が重要か?
  • 31. 35 35 カナダにおける15歳時での読解力の習熟度に関連した、19歳Strong performers and successful reformers 、21歳時での中等教育後の教育参加の可能性 (学校との関わり、性別、母語、居住地、親の学歴、世帯収入の影響を相殺、 準拠集団は習熟度レベル1) オッズ比 (高等教育に入学)Andreas Schleicher 2028 February 2011 18 16 14 12 10PISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for 8 6 4 2 0 19歳 21歳 レベル5 21歳 レベル4 レベル3 レベル2
  • 32. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas SchleicherInternational Student Assessment 28 February 2011 36 36 それはいったい何なんだろう?
  • 33. 37 37  教育の重視、そして能力は学習されうるのでStrong performers and successful reformers あり、それゆえにあらゆる子どもは達成でき るという信念  多様な生徒集団への対応としての普遍的な教育基準 と個性化 … 生徒は期待の違いに応じて異なる進路に進むといAndreas Schleicher28 February 2011 う信念で、多様な生徒集団に対応するのとは反対に 。  成功した教育制度 誰が誰に対して生徒の成功を保証するのかの明確化 に関するPISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for PISA調査からの教訓
  • 34. 560.000 読解力の得点が高い 38 38 2009 上海 DurchschnittlicheStrong performers and successful reformers 平均得点が高い 平均得点が高い 540.000 Schülerleistungen im 社会経済的格差が大きい 社会的平等性が高い 韓国 Bereich Mathematik フィンランド 香港 シンガポール カナダ ニュージーランド 日本 520.000Andreas Schleicher28 February 2011 オースト ア ラリ オランダ ベルギー ポーランド スイス ノルウェー アメリ カ 500.000 エストニア アイスランド 生徒の成績への社会 ドイツ スウェーデン リヒテンシュタイン 学ぶ機会の社会的に 台湾 経済的影響が強い ハンガリ アイルランド フランス ー イギリ デンマーク 公平な分配 ス ポルトガルPISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for イタリア ラトビア スロベニア ギリシャ スペイン 480.000 チェコ スロバキア クロアチア イスラエル オースト ア リ ルクセンブルグ リ アニア ト トルコ ドバイ 460.000 ロシア 平均得点が低い 平均得点が低い チリ 早期の選別と教育機関の分化 社会経済的格差が大きい 選別・分化の程度が高い 社会的平等性が高い セルビア 440.000 選別・分化の程度が低い 55 45 35 25 読解力の得点が低い
  • 35. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas SchleicherInternational Student Assessment 28 February 2011 39 39    に関する 成功した教育制度 PISA調査からの教訓 関連づけられた明確な意欲的目標 高いレベルのメタ認知的内容の授業 (意図、実施、達成)に生かす確固たる仕組み カリキュラムの目標を教授法、実践、生徒の学習 制度を通して共有され、試験や教授システムと
  • 36. 40 40Strong performers and successful reformers 教育現場の力量Andreas Schleicher 28 February 2011  質の高い教師と学校長を引き付け、育て、維持す 成功した教育制度 ることと、潜在力を引き出せる仕事の組織化 学校における教育的なリーダーシップと人材管理 に関する   教職の魅力ある専門職としての維持PISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for  PISA調査からの教訓 制度全体に渡るキャリア開発
  • 37. 41 41 学校の管理運営に関する学校長の報告Strong performers and successful reformers 学校質問紙に基づく学校長のリーダーシップ指標 (パート1) 次のことを「頻繁に行った」「かなり頻繁に行った」割合 OECD平均 日本 教師の専門性を高めるための活動が、学校の教育目標に合 致しているかどうかを確認することAndreas Schleicher28 February 2011 教師が学校の教育目標に沿った活動をしているかどうかを 確認すること 次のことを 各教師の授業を参観すること 「頻繁に行った」 生徒の成績をもとに、学校の教育目標を立てること 「かなり頻繁に行った」PISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for 割合 教師の指導力が向上するように、アドバイスすること 生徒の学習状況をモニター(観察)すること 教師が授業で問題を抱えている場合、率先してそのことに ついて話し合うこと 0 25 50 75 100 %
  • 38. 42 42 学校の管理運営に関する学校長の報告Strong performers and successful reformers 学校質問紙に基づく学校長のリーダーシップ指標 (パート2) 次のことを「頻繁に行った」「かなり頻繁に行った」割合 OECD平均 日本 教師たちに、知識・技能を向上させる機会があること を伝えることAndreas Schleicher 学校の教育目標に沿った授業が行われているかどうか28 February 2011 をチェックすること 生徒の試験結果を学習内容の改善にいかすこと 次のことを 「頻繁に行った」 学習内容を調整する責任者を明確にすること 「かなり頻繁に行った」PISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for 教師が学級の問題を相談にきた時、共に問題解決に当 割合 たること 学級内の問題行動に注意を払うこと 急に休暇を取った教師の代わりに授業を行うこと 0 25 50 75 100 %
  • 39. 43 43Strong performers and successful reformers  やる気、説明責任、知識の管理  やる気の構造 生徒にとって  入学試験が、それぞれの教育段階において、生徒のやる気の強さ、方向Andreas Schleicher 、透明性、性質にどの程度の影響を与えるか28 February 2011  難しいコースや勉強を一生懸命することに対する生徒の動機づけの程度 学校にとどまることで良い成績を上げることの機会損失 成功した教育制度  教師にとって  に関する 教授法と/または組織に革新を起こす 自らの能力と同僚の能力の向上PISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for PISA調査からの教訓   より良い教育的実践につながる専門的な研修機会の活用  垂直的説明責任と水平的説明責任とのバランス  知識と広範な革新とを管理し、共有するための効果的な手法 (組織内のコミュニケーション、利害関係者とのコミュニケ ーション)  権威と行動への正当性を伴う卓越したセンター
  • 40. 44 44 各学校はカリキュラムと評価に関してどの程度のStrong performers and successful reformers 自律性を持っているか 生徒の評価方針の決定 OECD平均 日本 自治体と/または国 の教育当局のみAndreas Schleicher28 February 2011 教科書の選定 OECD平均 日本 校長と/または教PISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for 師、自治体と/また 履修内容の決定 OECD平均 は国の教育当局の両 方 日本 履修コースの選定 校長と/または教師 OECD平均 み 日本 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
  • 41. 45 45 各学校は財源の配分に関してどの程度のStrong performers and successful reformers 自律性を持っているか 教師の採用… 日本 教師の解雇… 自治体と/または国のAndreas Schleicher 教育当局のみ28 February 2011 日本 教師の初任給の決定… 日本PISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for 教師の昇給の決定… 校長と/または教師、 自治体と/または国の 日本 教育当局の両方 学校予算の編成… 日本 校長と/または教師み 学校内の予算配分の決定… 日本 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
  • 42. 46 46 学校の自律性、説明責任と生徒の得点Strong performers and successful reformers 説明責任の規定がある、あるいはない制度における 学校の自律性が生徒の得点に与える影響 読解力の得点 500Andreas Schleicher28 February 2011 495 490PISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for 財源の配分における学校の自律性 自律性の低い学校 480 自律性の高い学校 説明責任の強い制度 説明責任の弱い制度 制度における説明責任の協定
  • 43. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas SchleicherInternational Student Assessment 28 February 2011 47 47 細な規定 産業モデル、 今日の学校 制度段階の規定 学校がすることの詳 決められた仕事組織 構築能力 明日の学校? OECD加盟国における動向 今日の 的な学校 地方の責任と制度段階の規定 フィンランド 「知的労働者」としての教師 学校主導の改革 すべての学校が効果
  • 44. 48 48 単純得点差Strong performers and successful reformers 公立学校 政府管理私立学校 生徒と学校の社会経済的背景を相殺した後の差 私立学校 得点差 0 20 40 60 80 -150 100 -100 -50 0 50 100 % オーストラリア オーストリア カナダ チリ チェコAndreas Schleicher デンマーク28 February 2011 エストニア フィンランド ドイツ ギリシャ ハンガリー アイスランド アイルランド イスラエル イタリア 日本 韓国PISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for ルクセンブルグ 私立の方が得点が高い メキシコ オランダ ニュージーランド ノルウェー 公立の方が得点が高い ポーランド ポルトガル スロバキア スロベニア スペイン スウェーデン スイス トルコ イギリス アメリカ アルゼンチン ブラジル 香港 インドネシア ヨルダン ロシア 上海 シンガポール 台湾
  • 45. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas Schleicher International Student Assessment 28 February 2011 49 49    違いを生み出すリソースの活用 に関するれた教師に最も困難なクラスを任せる) 成功した教育制度ことより、まず教師の質の高さを優先する) PISA調査からの教訓効果的な出費の選択(例えば、尐人数学級にする主要な課題へのリソースの配分(例えば、最も優
  • 46. 50 50Strong performers and successful reformersAndreas Schleicher28 February 2011  学習システム システムの恒常的学習と「目」と「耳」としての  成功した教育制度 国際比較を続けるため、システムの外部への方向 づけ に関するPISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for 現在の成功に対する課題や潜在的な将来の脅威を  PISA調査からの教訓 認識すること、そこから学び、対応策を策定し、 実行すること
  • 47. PISA Strong performers and successful reformers OECD Programme for Andreas Schleicher 51 International Student Assessment 28 February 2011     実施上の一貫性 51 政策と実践の一貫性 (過度の統制のない)実施上の忠実性 制度のあらゆる側面にわたる政策の調整 に関する 一定の継続した期間にわたる政策の一貫性 成功した教育制度 PISA調査からの教訓
  • 48. Score pointStrong performers and successful reformers PISA difference OECD Programme for Andreas Schleicher 52 0 100 120 20 40 60 80 International Student Assessment 28 February 2011 52 イスラエル シンガポール ベルギー カタール マカオ イタリア 得点の違い フランス 香港 スイス デンマーク イギリス リヒテンシュタイン ドバイ ギリシャ キルギス ウルグアイ アルゼンチン 上海 ドイツ スペイン ニュージーランド 認められた得点差 オーストラリア スロバキア スウェーデン ブラジル ハンガリー ルクセンブルグ メキシコ タイ 社会経済的要因を相殺した得点差トリニダード・トバゴ カナダ OECD平均 台湾 インドネシア ポーランド アイスランド カザフスタン パナマ ルーマニア チェコ 日本 チュニジア ペルー オーストリア そうでない生徒の得点の違い ヨルダン ブルガリア ノルウェー アルバニア アゼルバイジャン ロシア コロンビア ポルトガル チリ アメリカ リトアニア トルコ セルビア 就学前教育機関において1年より長い教育歴を持つ生徒と モンテネグロ オランダ アイルランド スロベニア クロアチア フィンランド 韓国 ラトビア エストニア
  • 49. 53 53 教育改革の軌跡Strong performers and successful reformers 古い官僚システム 生徒の範囲 近代的なシステム 限られた生徒が、 すべての生徒が、 高いレベルの学習をする 高いレベルの学習を必要とするAndreas Schleicher28 February 2011 カリキュラム、教授、評価 決りきった認知的技能、暗記学習 学習のための学習、複雑な思考法、働き方 教師の質PISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for 中等教育以上を数年 高いレベルの専門的知的労働者 職場組織 規定的、階層的 水平的、平等 説明責任 おもに行政当局 おもに同僚や利害関係者
  • 50. 58 58 日本に関する結論Strong performers and successful reformers  生徒の得点  主要な教科において継続的に高い得点  高次の自由記述問題における改善  読解力における成績優秀者の割合の増加、しかし成績が低い者の改善がとも なっていなく、得点格差が広がりつつある 学校間での大きく、広がりつつある得点差Andreas Schleicher 28 February 2011  生徒の取り組みと学習方略  生徒のやる気と学習への取り組みは並みのレベルにとどまるが、統計的に有 意に改善してきている  効果的な学習方略への意識を強化することで、得点格差を縮めることが可能  学習環境PISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for  すばらしく、改善している学級の雰囲気  肯定的な教師の態度、しかし生徒と教師の関係性は弱い  学校組織  カリキュラムと教授に関し学校の自律性があるが、リソースでは弱い  限られた学校間での競争  様々な説明責任の遂行体制  教師の質を学級規模より優先した効果的な財源割当  学校間でのリソースの公平な分配
  • 51. 59 59Strong performers and successful reformers PISA調査に関しては…  OECD www.pisa.oecd.org – すべての国の刊行物、国際的な刊行物Andreas Schleicher28 February 2011 – 完全なマクロレベルのデータベース Thank you !  U.S. White House www.data.gov Eメール: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.orgPISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for  『実証的データに基づかずにものを言う人は、 個人的な意見を持った単なる一人の人間にすぎない』