Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
2010 B Paris (School Failure)   Schleicher Short
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

2010 B Paris (School Failure) Schleicher Short

914

Published on

What can PISA tell us about successful school systems?

What can PISA tell us about successful school systems?

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
914
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
33
Comments
0
Likes
0
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
  • And policy makers do this because in this world where all work that can be digitised, automated or outsourced can now be done anywhere in the world by those who are best prepared, the yardstick for success is no longer improvement by national standards, but the best performing education systems internationally. I will begin my presentation this evening by showing how the global talent pool has changed, in response to the forces of globalisation and technological changeThen examine what international comparisons can tell us about this. I will show you where we see the United States and try to contrast this with the best performing education systems, that give you a sense of what is possible in education, terms of the quality of educational outcomes and equity in the distribution of educational opportunities. And I will conclude with tying the results to some of the policy levers that emerge from international comparisons.
  • 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.
  • Let us go back to the 1960s. The chart shows you the wealth of world regions and the average years of schooling in these regions, which is the most traditional measure of human capital. Have a look at Latin America, it ranked third in wealth and third in years of schooling, so in the 1960s the world seemed pretty much in order.
  • But when you look at economic growth between 1960 and 2000, you see that something went wrong. Despite the fact that Latin America did well in terms of years of schooling, only Sub-Saharan Africa did worse in terms of economic growth. So in 2000, Latin America had fallen back considerably in terms of GDP per capita.You can draw two conclusions from this: Either education is not as important for economic growth as we thought, or we have for a long time been measuring the wrong thing.
  • Now let me add one additional element, and that is a measure of the quality of education, in the form of the score of the different world regions on international tests like PISA or TIMSS. And you see now that the world looks in order again, there seems a close relationship between test scores and economic growth. You can see that even more clearly when you put this into graphical form. This is one of the charts produced by Professor Hanushek. And, as Professor Hanushek will explain, the relationship holds even when you account for other factors, it even holds when you compare growth in economies with growth in learning outcomes, which is the closest we can come to examining causality.So what this tells you is that it is not simply years of schooling or the number of graduates we produce, but indeed the quality of learning outcomes that counts.
  • At the OECD, we are measuring skills, with a focus on those non-routing cognitive skills, regularly through our PISA programme, now the most comprehensive international assessment of the quality of education. Every three years, we test roughly half a million of children in OECD countries in key competencies, and that’s not simply about checking whether students have learned what they were recently taught, but we examine to what extent students can extrapolate from what they have learned and apply their knowledge and skills in novel settings. Here you see the countries which we can compare, and how the set of countries being compared has expanded.
  • Observed differences in how motivated are resilient students and disadvantaged low achievers
  • How do we know that we know?I want to distinguish here between the impact knowledge and skills such as those assessed by PISA have for the success of individuals, on the one hand, and economies, on the other.
  • 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.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Against the odds<br />Overcoming school failureParis, 11 February 2010<br />Andreas SchleicherEducation Policy Advisor of the OECD Secretary-General<br />
    • 2. In the current economic environment…<br />… Labour-market entry becomes more difficult<br />as young graduates compete with experienced workers<br />… Job prospects for less qualified deteriorate<br />… Young people with lower qualifications who become unemployed are likely to spend long time out of work<br />In most countries over half of low-qualified unemployed 25-34-year-olds are long-term unemployed <br />… Higher risks for systems with significant work-based training<br />… Gaps in educational attainment between younger and older cohorts likely to widen .<br />
    • 3. Against the odds<br />1.There is nowhere to hide<br />The yardstick for educational success is no longer improvement by national standards but the best performing systems internationally<br />The impact of pooreducationalperformanceisgrowingrapidly<br />2.Where we are – and where we can be <br />Where countries stand in terms of limiting failure and moderating the impact of social background<br />What the best performing countries show can be achieved<br />3.How we can get there<br />Some policy levers that emerge from international comparisons <br />
    • 4.
    • 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<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 />
    • 6. Latin America then…<br />
    • 7. Latin America then and now…<br />
    • 8. Latin America then and now…<br />Why quality is the key<br />Hanushek 2009<br />
    • 9. OECD’s PISA assessment of the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds<br />Coverage of world economy<br />83%<br />77%<br />81%<br />85%<br />86%<br />87%<br />
    • 10. High science performance<br />Average performanceof 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply<br />But caution: Some systems with high average performance still have high proportion of poor performers<br />… 18 countries perform below this line<br />Low science performance<br />
    • 11. OECD Level 2<br />OECD Level 6<br />Identifying<br />Recognising issues that can be investigated scientifically<br />Identifying keywords in a scientific investigation<br />Recognising the key features of a scientific investigation<br />Explaining<br />Applying knowledge of science in a situation<br />Describing or interpreting phenomena scientifically or predicting change<br />Using evidence<br />Interpreting scientific evidence and drawing conclusions<br />Identifying the assumptions, evidence and reasoning behind conclusions<br />Students can determine if<br />scientific measurement can be applied to a given variable in an investigation. Students can appreciate the relationship between a simple model and the phenomenon it is modelling. <br />Students can demonstrate ability to understand and articulate the complex modelling inherent in the design of an investigation.<br />Context<br />- Personal<br /><ul><li> Social/public
    • 12. Global</li></ul> Competencies<br /><ul><li>Identify scientific issues
    • 13. Explain phenomena scientifically
    • 14. Use scientific evidence</li></ul>Students can recall an<br />appropriate, tangible, scientific fact applicable in a simple and straightforward context and can use it to explain or predict an outcome.<br />Students can draw on<br />a range of abstract scientific knowledge and concepts and<br />the relationships between these in developing explanations of<br />processes<br />Knowledge<br /><ul><li>Knowledge of science
    • 15. Knowledge about science</li></ul>Attitudes<br />-Interest in science<br />-Support for scientific enquiry<br />-Responsibility<br />Students demonstrate<br />ability to compare and differentiate among competing explanations by<br />examining supporting evidence. They can formulate arguments by synthesising evidence from multiple<br />sources.<br />Students can point to an obvious feature in a simple table in support of a given statement. They are able to recognise if a set of given characteristics apply to the function of everyday<br />artifacts.<br />
    • 16. Top and bottom performers in science<br />These students can consistently identify, explain and apply scientific knowledge, link different information sources and explanations and use evidence from these to justify decisions, demonstrate advanced scientific thinking in unfamiliar situations…<br />These students often confuse key features of a scientific investigation, apply incorrect information, mix personal beliefs with facts in support of a position… <br />Large prop. of poor perf.<br />Large proportion of top performers<br />20<br />
    • 17. Poland raised its reading performance by 28 PISA points, equivalent to ¾ of a school year<br />In 2003, performance variation among schools had fallen from 51% to 16% of the variation of student performance<br />But did this lead to genuine improvements of school performance?<br />Between 2000 and 2003 showed the second-largest increase in reading (17 points) and a further 11 point increase since 2003<br />Most of that increase resulted from smaller proportions at the bottom level (23% in 2000, and three-quarters in vocational tracks, 17%in 2003)<br />Did this harm the better performers?<br />20<br />OECD (2007), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2006, Table 6.1a <br />
    • 18. Sources of performance varianceFailure an issue of school or student performance?<br />20<br />OECD (2007), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2006, Table 4.1a <br />
    • 19. Sources of performance varianceFailure an issue of school or student performance?<br />Variation of performance within schools<br />Variation of performance between schools<br />OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 4.1a<br />
    • 20. High science performance<br />Average performanceof 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply<br />High average performance<br />Large socio-economic disparities<br />High average performance<br />High social equity<br />Strong socio-economic impact on student performance<br />Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities<br />Low average performance<br />Large socio-economic disparities<br />Low average performance<br />High social equity<br />Low science performance<br />
    • 21. High science performance<br />Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik<br />High average performance<br />Large socio-economic disparities<br />High average performance<br />High social equity<br />Strong socio-economic impact on student performance<br />Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities<br />Low average performance<br />Large socio-economic disparities<br />Low average performance<br />High social equity<br />Low science performance<br />
    • 22. Student performance<br />PISA Index of socio-economic background<br />Advantage<br />Disadvantage<br />School performance and socio-economic background Mexico<br />Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools<br />School performance and schools’ socio-economic background<br />Schools proportional to size<br />
    • 23. Student performance<br />PISA Index of socio-economic background<br />Advantage<br />Disadvantage<br />School performance and socio-economic background Germany<br />Student performance and students’ socio-economic background withinschools<br />School performance and schools’ socio-economic background<br />Schools proportional to size<br />
    • 24. Student performance<br />PISA Index of socio-economic background<br />Advantage<br />Disadvantage<br />School performance and socio-economic background Germany<br />Student performance and students’ socio-economic background withinschools<br />School performance and schools’ socio-economic background<br />Schools proportional to size<br />Universal policies<br /><ul><li>Increasing educational performance of all children through reforms applied equally across the school system, e.g.
    • 25. Altering content or pace of curriculum
    • 26. Improving instructional techniques
    • 27. Changing the learning environment in schools and classrooms
    • 28. Standards and accountability
    • 29. Teacher professional development</li></li></ul><li>Student performance<br />PISA Index of socio-economic background<br />Advantage<br />Disadvantage<br />School performance and socio-economic background Germany<br />Student performance and students’ socio-economic background withinschools<br />School performance and schools’ socio-economic background<br />Compensatory policies<br /><ul><li>Providing additional economic resources to students from disadvantaged backgrounds
    • 30. Different to socio-economically targeted policies, efforts are directed to ameliorating economic circumstances, rather than providing specialised curriculum or additional educational resources</li></ul>Schools proportional to size<br />
    • 31. Student performance<br />PISA Index of socio-economic background<br />Advantage<br />Disadvantage<br />School performance and socio-economic background Germany<br />Student performance and students’ socio-economic background withinschools<br />School performance and schools’ socio-economic background<br />Socio-economically targeted policies<br /><ul><li>Providing a specialised curriculum or additional educational resources to students from disadvantaged backgrounds
    • 32. Students are often also identified through other risk factors, e.g. immigration, ethnicity, low-income community</li></ul>Schools proportional to size<br />
    • 33. Student performance<br />PISA Index of socio-economic background<br />Advantage<br />Disadvantage<br />School performance and socio-economic background Germany<br />Student performance and students’ socio-economic background withinschools<br />School performance and schools’ socio-economic background<br />Performance targeted policies<br /><ul><li>Providing additional economic resources to students based on their academic performance
    • 34. Early intervention programmes
    • 35. Remedial and recovery programmes
    • 36. Performance-based tracking or streaming</li></ul>Schools proportional to size<br />
    • 37. Student performance<br />PISA Index of socio-economic background<br />Advantage<br />Disadvantage<br />School performance and socio-economic background United Kingdom<br />Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools<br />School performance and schools’ socio-economic background<br />Student performance and students’ socio-economic background<br />Schools proportional to size<br />
    • 38. Student performance<br />PISA Index of socio-economic background<br />Advantage<br />Disadvantage<br />School performance and socio-economic background United States<br />Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools<br />School performance and schools’ socio-economic background<br />Schools proportional to size<br />
    • 39. Student performance<br />PISA Index of socio-economic background<br />Advantage<br />Disadvantage<br />School performance and socio-economic background Norway<br />Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools<br />School performance and schools’ socio-economic background<br />Schools proportional to size<br />
    • 40. Student performance<br />PISA Index of socio-economic background<br />Advantage<br />Disadvantage<br />School performance and socio-economic background Finland<br />Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools<br />School performance and schools’ socio-economic background<br />Schools proportional to size<br />
    • 41. Student performance<br />PISA Index of socio-economic background<br />Advantage<br />Disadvantage<br />School performance and socio-economic background Japan<br />Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools<br />School performance and schools’ socio-economic background<br />Student performance and students’ socio-economic background<br />Schools proportional to size<br />
    • 42. Student performance<br />PISA Index of socio-economic background<br />Advantage<br />Disadvantage<br />School performance and socio-economic background Canada<br />Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools<br />School performance and schools’ socio-economic background<br />Student performance and students’ socio-economic background<br />Schools proportional to size<br />
    • 43. Student performance<br />PISA Index of socio-economic background<br />Advantage<br />Disadvantage<br />School performance and socio-economic background Belgium<br />Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools<br />School performance and schools’ socio-economic background<br />Student performance and students’ socio-economic background<br />Schools proportional to size<br />
    • 44. High expectationsand universal standards<br />Rigor, focus and coherence<br />Great systems attract great teachers and provide access to best practice and quality professional development<br />
    • 45. Challenge and support<br />Strong support<br />Poor performance<br />Improvements idiosyncratic<br />Strong performance<br />Systemic improvement<br />Lowchallenge<br />Highchallenge<br />Poor performance<br />Stagnation<br />Conflict<br />Demoralisation<br />Weak support<br />
    • 46. International Best Practice<br />The past<br /><ul><li>Principals who are trained, empowered, accountable and provide instructional leadership
    • 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 communities</li></ul>Human capital<br />
    • 52. International Best Practice<br />The past<br /><ul><li>Expectations of teachers are clear; consistent quality, strong professional ethic and excellent professional development focused on classroom practice
    • 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 place</li></ul>Human capital (cont…)<br />
    • 56. High ambitions<br />Devolved responsibility,the school as the centre of action<br />Accountability and intervention in inverse proportion to success<br />Access to best practice and quality professional development<br />
    • 57. School autonomy, standards-based examinations and science performanceSchool autonomy in selecting teachers for hire<br />PISA score in science <br />
    • 58. Pooled international dataset, effects of selected school/system factors on science performance after accounting for all other factors in the model<br />School principal’s positive evaluation of quality of educational materials(gross only)<br />Schools with more competing schools(gross only)<br />Schools with greater autonomy (resources)(gross and net)<br />School activities to promote science learning(gross and net)<br />One additional hour of self-study or homework (gross and net)<br />One additional hour of science learning at school (gross and net)<br />School results posted publicly (gross and net)<br />Academically selective schools (gross and net) but no system-wide effect<br />Schools practicing ability grouping (gross and net)<br />One additional hour of out-of-school lessons (gross and net)<br />20<br />Each additional 10% of public funding(gross only)<br />School principal’s perception that lack of qualified teachers hinders instruction(gross only)<br />Effect after accounting for the socio-economic background of students, schools and countries<br />Measured effect<br />OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies from Tomorrow’s World, Table 6.1a <br />
    • 59. Strong ambitions<br />Devolvedresponsibility,the school as the centre of action<br />Integrated educational opportunities <br />From prescribed forms of teaching and assessment towards personalised learning<br />Accountability<br />Access to best practice and quality professional development<br />
    • 60. High science performance<br />Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik<br />High average performance<br />Large socio-economic disparities<br />High average performance<br />High social equity<br />Strong socio-economic impact on student performance<br />Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities<br />Early selection and institutional differentiation<br /> High degree of stratification<br /> Low degree of stratification<br />Low average performance<br />Large socio-economic disparities<br />Low average performance<br />High social equity<br />Low science performance<br />
    • 61. Resilience to social disadvantage<br /><ul><li>Resilience: the ability of some individuals to show positive adaptation despite encountering significant adversity.
    • 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:
    • 67. Students whose socio-economic background is within the country’s bottom tertile</li></li></ul><li>Natives are not overrepresented among resilient students everywhere<br />% of native students among…<br />
    • 68. Resilient students are more interested in science…<br />
    • 69. … and are more likely to attend compulsory general science courses<br />
    • 70. Instrumental motivation to learn science<br />Observed differences in how motivated are resilient students and disadvantaged low achievers<br />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.<br />
    • 71. Instrumental motivation and resilience<br />Increased likelihood of being resilient associated with one unit on the PISA index of instrumental motivation to learn science <br />
    • 72. Instrumental motivation is associated with higher performance across all students…<br />
    • 73. … equally <br />
    • 74. Participation in science courses<br />Disadvantaged students participate less than their more advantaged peers in science courses<br />
    • 75. Participation in science courses<br />
    • 76. Attending a compulsory course is associated with higher performance across all students…<br />
    • 77. … and more so for disadvantaged students<br />
    • 78. Some conclusions on resilience<br />No gender gap in resilience<br />Language and immigrant background are associated with resilience only marginally and only in few countries<br />Resilient students are more motivated, more engaged and more self-confident than their disadvantaged low-achieving peers<br />Holding student demographics, school characteristics and other approaches to learning constant, the more confident students are, the greater are their odds of being resilient<br />Motivation is also associated with student resilience in many countries, even if the relationship is weaker .<br />
    • 79. Some conclusions on resilience<br />Learning time is one of the strongest predictors of resilience<br />even after accounting for student demographics, school characteristics and other factors that are considered to be closely related with performance<br />Schools can play an important role in promoting resilience by <br />developing activities, classroom practices and modes of instruction that foster disadvantaged students’ motivation and confidence in their abilities…<br />… and even more so by providing opportunities for disadvantaged students to spend more time learning science at school .<br />
    • 80. Does it matter?<br />To what extent knowledge and skills matter for the success of individuals and economies<br />
    • 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)<br />Increased chance of successful tertiary participation<br />School marks at age 15<br />PISA performance at age 15<br />
    • 82. Economic impact<br />Programmes to improve cognitive skills through schools take time to implement and to have their impact on students.<br />Assume that it will take 20 years to implement reform<br />The impact of improved skills will not be realised until the students with greater skills move into the labour force<br />Assume that improved PISA performance will result in improved skill-based of 2.5% of the labour-force each year<br />The economy will respond over time, making use of the new higher skills to the same extent as observed today in better performing systems<br />Estimate the total gains over the lifetime of the generation born this year .<br />
    • 83. Relationship between test performance and economic outcomesAnnual improved GDP from raising performance by 25 PISA points<br />Percent addition to GDP<br />
    • 84. Increase average performance by 25 PISA points (Total 115 trillion $)<br />bn$<br />
    • 85. Catching up with Finland (total 260 trillion $)<br />bn$<br />
    • 86. Catching up with Finland(in percent of GDP)<br />% currrent GDP<br />
    • 87. México (410)<br />High science performance<br />Average performanceof 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply<br />Low science performance<br />
    • 88. Raise everyone to minimum of 400 PISA points(aggregate gain across OECD countries $200 trillion)<br />bn$<br />
    • 89. Raise everyone to minimum of 400 PISA points(aggregate gain across OECD countries $200 trillion)<br />% currrent GDP<br />
    • 90. Some conclusions<br />The higher economic outcomes that improved student performance entails dwarf the dimensions of economic cycles<br />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. <br />
    • 91. Money matters - but other things do too<br />One caution:<br />Although better education results in more money, <br />More money does not automatically result in better education .<br />
    • 92. Spending choices on secondary schoolsContribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher compensation costsper student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004)<br />Percentage points<br />
    • 93. www.oecd.org; www.pisa.oecd.org<br />All national and international publications<br />The complete micro-level database<br />email: pisa@oecd.org<br />Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org<br />… and remember:<br /> Without data, you are just another person with an opinion<br />Thank you !<br />

    ×