This document discusses the importance of improving educational outcomes and reducing failure rates. It notes that in many countries, over half of low-qualified unemployed young adults are long-term unemployed, and job prospects are deteriorating for the less qualified. The document examines policies that the best-performing education systems employ to limit failure and the impact of social backgrounds on student outcomes. These include increasing expectations, providing targeted support, and focusing on school autonomy and accountability.

1. Against the odds Overcoming school failureParis, 11 February 2010 Andreas SchleicherEducation Policy Advisor of the OECD Secretary-General

2. In the current economic environment… … Labour-market entry becomes more difficult as young graduates compete with experienced workers … Job prospects for less qualified deteriorate … Young people with lower qualifications who become unemployed are likely to spend long time out of work In most countries over half of low-qualified unemployed 25-34-year-olds are long-term unemployed … Higher risks for systems with significant work-based training … Gaps in educational attainment between younger and older cohorts likely to widen .

3. Against the odds 1.There is nowhere to hide The yardstick for educational success is no longer improvement by national standards but the best performing systems internationally The impact of pooreducationalperformanceisgrowingrapidly 2.Where we are – and where we can be Where countries stand in terms of limiting failure and moderating the impact of social background What the best performing countries show can be achieved 3.How we can get there Some policy levers that emerge from international comparisons

5. 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 % 1 13 1 27 1. Excluding ISCED 3C short programmes 2. Year of reference 2004 3. Including some ISCED 3C short programmes 3. Year of reference 2003.

6. Latin America then…

7. Latin America then and now…

8. Latin America then and now… Why quality is the key Hanushek 2009

9. OECD’s PISA assessment of the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds Coverage of world economy 83% 77% 81% 85% 86% 87%

10. High science performance Average performanceof 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply But caution: Some systems with high average performance still have high proportion of poor performers … 18 countries perform below this line Low science performance

13. Explain phenomena scientifically

15. Knowledge about scienceAttitudes -Interest in science -Support for scientific enquiry -Responsibility Students demonstrate ability to compare and differentiate among competing explanations by examining supporting evidence. They can formulate arguments by synthesising evidence from multiple sources. Students can point to an obvious feature in a simple table in support of a given statement. They are able to recognise if a set of given characteristics apply to the function of everyday artifacts.

16. Top and bottom performers in science These students can consistently identify, explain and apply scientific knowledge, link different information sources and explanations and use evidence from these to justify decisions, demonstrate advanced scientific thinking in unfamiliar situations… These students often confuse key features of a scientific investigation, apply incorrect information, mix personal beliefs with facts in support of a position… Large prop. of poor perf. Large proportion of top performers 20

17. Poland raised its reading performance by 28 PISA points, equivalent to ¾ of a school year In 2003, performance variation among schools had fallen from 51% to 16% of the variation of student performance But did this lead to genuine improvements of school performance? Between 2000 and 2003 showed the second-largest increase in reading (17 points) and a further 11 point increase since 2003 Most of that increase resulted from smaller proportions at the bottom level (23% in 2000, and three-quarters in vocational tracks, 17%in 2003) Did this harm the better performers? 20 OECD (2007), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2006, Table 6.1a

18. Sources of performance varianceFailure an issue of school or student performance? 20 OECD (2007), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2006, Table 4.1a

19. Sources of performance varianceFailure an issue of school or student performance? Variation of performance within schools Variation of performance between schools OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 4.1a

20. High science performance Average performanceof 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply High average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance High social equity Strong socio-economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity Low science performance

21. High science performance Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik High average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance High social equity Strong socio-economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity Low science performance

22. Student performance PISA Index of socio-economic background Advantage Disadvantage School performance and socio-economic background Mexico Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools School performance and schools’ socio-economic background Schools proportional to size

23. Student performance PISA Index of socio-economic background Advantage Disadvantage School performance and socio-economic background Germany Student performance and students’ socio-economic background withinschools School performance and schools’ socio-economic background Schools proportional to size

25. Altering content or pace of curriculum

26. Improving instructional techniques

27. Changing the learning environment in schools and classrooms

28. Standards and accountability

30. Different to socio-economically targeted policies, efforts are directed to ameliorating economic circumstances, rather than providing specialised curriculum or additional educational resourcesSchools proportional to size

32. Students are often also identified through other risk factors, e.g. immigration, ethnicity, low-income communitySchools proportional to size

34. Early intervention programmes

35. Remedial and recovery programmes

36. Performance-based tracking or streamingSchools proportional to size

37. Student performance PISA Index of socio-economic background Advantage Disadvantage School performance and socio-economic background United Kingdom Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools School performance and schools’ socio-economic background Student performance and students’ socio-economic background Schools proportional to size

38. Student performance PISA Index of socio-economic background Advantage Disadvantage School performance and socio-economic background United States Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools School performance and schools’ socio-economic background Schools proportional to size

39. Student performance PISA Index of socio-economic background Advantage Disadvantage School performance and socio-economic background Norway Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools School performance and schools’ socio-economic background Schools proportional to size

40. Student performance PISA Index of socio-economic background Advantage Disadvantage School performance and socio-economic background Finland Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools School performance and schools’ socio-economic background Schools proportional to size

41. Student performance PISA Index of socio-economic background Advantage Disadvantage School performance and socio-economic background Japan Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools School performance and schools’ socio-economic background Student performance and students’ socio-economic background Schools proportional to size

42. Student performance PISA Index of socio-economic background Advantage Disadvantage School performance and socio-economic background Canada Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools School performance and schools’ socio-economic background Student performance and students’ socio-economic background Schools proportional to size

43. Student performance PISA Index of socio-economic background Advantage Disadvantage School performance and socio-economic background Belgium Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools School performance and schools’ socio-economic background Student performance and students’ socio-economic background Schools proportional to size

44. High expectationsand universal standards Rigor, focus and coherence Great systems attract great teachers and provide access to best practice and quality professional development

45. Challenge and support Strong support Poor performance Improvements idiosyncratic Strong performance Systemic improvement Lowchallenge Highchallenge Poor performance Stagnation Conflict Demoralisation Weak support

47. Principals who manage ‘a building’, who have little training and preparation and are accountable but not empowered

48. Attracting, recruiting and providing excellent training for prospective teachers from the top third of the graduate distribution

49. Attracting and recruiting teachers from the bottom third of the graduate distribution and offering training which does not relate to real classrooms

50. Incentives, rules and funding encourage a fair distribution of teaching talent

51. The best teachers are in the most advantaged communitiesHuman capital

53. Seniority and tenure matter more than performance; patchy professional development; wide variation in quality

54. Teachers and the system expect every child to succeed and intervene preventatively to ensure this

55. Wide achievement gaps, just beginning to narrow but systemic and professional barriers to transformation remain in placeHuman capital (cont…)

56. High ambitions Devolved responsibility,the school as the centre of action Accountability and intervention in inverse proportion to success Access to best practice and quality professional development

57. School autonomy, standards-based examinations and science performanceSchool autonomy in selecting teachers for hire PISA score in science

58. Pooled international dataset, effects of selected school/system factors on science performance after accounting for all other factors in the model School principal’s positive evaluation of quality of educational materials(gross only) Schools with more competing schools(gross only) Schools with greater autonomy (resources)(gross and net) School activities to promote science learning(gross and net) One additional hour of self-study or homework (gross and net) One additional hour of science learning at school (gross and net) School results posted publicly (gross and net) Academically selective schools (gross and net) but no system-wide effect Schools practicing ability grouping (gross and net) One additional hour of out-of-school lessons (gross and net) 20 Each additional 10% of public funding(gross only) School principal’s perception that lack of qualified teachers hinders instruction(gross only) Effect after accounting for the socio-economic background of students, schools and countries Measured effect OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies from Tomorrow’s World, Table 6.1a

59. Strong ambitions Devolvedresponsibility,the school as the centre of action Integrated educational opportunities From prescribed forms of teaching and assessment towards personalised learning Accountability Access to best practice and quality professional development

60. High science performance Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik High average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance High social equity Strong socio-economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Early selection and institutional differentiation High degree of stratification Low degree of stratification Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity Low science performance

62. Positive Adaptation: academic success

63. Adversity: socio-economic disadvantage

64. Resilient students:

65. Students who score on a country’s top tertile in science and whose socio-economic background is within the country’s bottom tertile

66. Disadvantaged students:

68. Resilient students are more interested in science…

69. … and are more likely to attend compulsory general science courses

70. Instrumental motivation to learn science Observed differences in how motivated are resilient students and disadvantaged low achievers In France, more than 55% of resilient students report having high or medium interest in chemistry or biology, but less than 30% of disadvantaged low achievers do so.

71. Instrumental motivation and resilience Increased likelihood of being resilient associated with one unit on the PISA index of instrumental motivation to learn science

72. Instrumental motivation is associated with higher performance across all students…

73. … equally

74. Participation in science courses Disadvantaged students participate less than their more advantaged peers in science courses

75. Participation in science courses

76. Attending a compulsory course is associated with higher performance across all students…

77. … and more so for disadvantaged students

78. Some conclusions on resilience No gender gap in resilience Language and immigrant background are associated with resilience only marginally and only in few countries Resilient students are more motivated, more engaged and more self-confident than their disadvantaged low-achieving peers Holding student demographics, school characteristics and other approaches to learning constant, the more confident students are, the greater are their odds of being resilient Motivation is also associated with student resilience in many countries, even if the relationship is weaker .

79. Some conclusions on resilience Learning time is one of the strongest predictors of resilience even after accounting for student demographics, school characteristics and other factors that are considered to be closely related with performance Schools can play an important role in promoting resilience by developing activities, classroom practices and modes of instruction that foster disadvantaged students’ motivation and confidence in their abilities… … and even more so by providing opportunities for disadvantaged students to spend more time learning science at school .

80. Does it matter? To what extent knowledge and skills matter for the success of individuals and economies

81. Increased likelihood of tertiary 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) Increased chance of successful tertiary participation School marks at age 15 PISA performance at age 15

82. Economic impact Programmes to improve cognitive skills through schools take time to implement and to have their impact on students. Assume that it will take 20 years to implement reform The impact of improved skills will not be realised until the students with greater skills move into the labour force Assume that improved PISA performance will result in improved skill-based of 2.5% of the labour-force each year The economy will respond over time, making use of the new higher skills to the same extent as observed today in better performing systems Estimate the total gains over the lifetime of the generation born this year .

83. Relationship between test performance and economic outcomesAnnual improved GDP from raising performance by 25 PISA points Percent addition to GDP

84. Increase average performance by 25 PISA points (Total 115 trillion $) bn$

85. Catching up with Finland (total 260 trillion $) bn$

86. Catching up with Finland(in percent of GDP) % currrent GDP

87. México (410) High science performance Average performanceof 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply Low science performance

88. Raise everyone to minimum of 400 PISA points(aggregate gain across OECD countries $200 trillion) bn$

89. Raise everyone to minimum of 400 PISA points(aggregate gain across OECD countries $200 trillion) % currrent GDP

90. Some conclusions The higher economic outcomes that improved student performance entails dwarf the dimensions of economic cycles Even if the estimated impacts of skills were twice as large as the true underlying causal impact on growth, the resulting present value of successful school reform still far exceeds any conceivable costs of improvement.

91. Money matters - but other things do too One caution: Although better education results in more money, More money does not automatically result in better education .

92. Spending choices on secondary schoolsContribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher compensation costsper student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004) Percentage points

93. www.oecd.org; www.pisa.oecd.org All national and international publications The complete micro-level database email: pisa@oecd.org Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org … and remember: Without data, you are just another person with an opinion Thank you !