Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

20130705SchleicherSydney

2,514 views

Published on

Professor Andreas Schleicher is Deputy Director for Education and Skills, and Special Advisor on Education Policy to the OECD’s Secretary-General. In July 2013 he provided insight into how Australia could lift its education performance to rank among the top 5 internationally by 2025.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

20130705SchleicherSydney

  1. 1. 11ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Strong performers and successful reformers in education Policy lessons from top-performers ANZSOG 2013 Andreas Schleicher Special advisor to the Secretary-General on Education Policy Deputy Director for Education Programme for International Student Assessment
  2. 2. 66ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Across the world more people obtain better qualifications but the pace of change varies hugely across countries
  3. 3. 77ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1995 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate (%) Costperstudent Graduate supply
  4. 4. 88ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1995 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate (%) Costperstudent Graduate supply United States
  5. 5. 99ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2000 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate United Kingdom
  6. 6. 1010ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2001 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate Australia
  7. 7. 1111ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2002 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate
  8. 8. 1212ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2003 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate
  9. 9. 1313ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2004 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate
  10. 10. 1414ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2005 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate
  11. 11. 1515ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2006 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate
  12. 12. 1616ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2007 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate
  13. 13. 1717ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2008 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate
  14. 14. 1818ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2009 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate
  15. 15. 1919ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2010 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate Iceland Poland UK Australia
  16. 16. 2020ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher A world of change – higher education 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2010 Expenditureperstudentattertiarylevel(USD) Tertiary-type A graduation rate US
  17. 17. 2626ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher The net public return on investment for a man in tertiary education is over USD 100 000. Net private and public returns associated with a man attaining tertiary education (2009) 0 50 000 100 000 150 000 200 000 250 000 300 000 350 000 400 000 United States Ireland Czech Republic Poland Slovenia Slovak Republic Hungary Austria United Kingdom Canada Finland EU21 average France Portugal OECD average Korea Italy Australia Israel Netherlands Japan Estonia Germany Spain Belgium Norway Sweden Denmark Greece New Zealand Turkey Equivalent USD Private net returns Public net returns Chart A7.1
  18. 18. 4040ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Benchmarking progress
  19. 19. 4141ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 1998PISA countries in 20002001200320062009 77%81%83%85%86%Coverage of world economy 87% PISA 2009 in brief  Over half a million students…  representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 74* countries/economies … took an internationally agreed 2-hour test…  Goes beyond testing whether students can reproduce what they were taught… … to assess students’ capacity to extrapolate from what they know and creatively apply their knowledge in novel situations … and responded to questions on…  their personal background, their schools and their engagement with learning and school  Parents, principals and system leaders provided data on…  school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences . * Data for Costa Rica, Georgia, India, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Venezuela and Vietnam will be published in December 2011
  20. 20. 4242 PISA OECDProgrammefor InternationalStudentAssessment Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 13October2011 How the demand for skills has changed Economy-wide measures of routine and non-routine task input (US) 40 45 50 55 60 65 1960 1970 1980 1990 2002 Routine manual Nonroutine manual Routine cognitive Nonroutine analytic Nonroutine interactive (Levy and Murnane) Meantaskinputaspercentilesofthe1960taskdistribution The dilemma for education and training: The skills that are easiest to teach and test are also the ones that are easiest to digitise, automate and outsource
  21. 21. 4444ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Shanghai-China Canada Korea Japan Poland HongKong-China Australia Israel Singapore Portugal CzechRepublic Spain NewZealand Hungary ChineseTaipei Germany RussianFederation Italy Greece Ireland Dubai(UAE) Denmark UnitedKingdom UnitedStates Belgium Slovenia Turkey Mexico Austria Qatar Chile Colombia Argentina Kazakhstan Brazil Indonesia Student performance, country average (PISA reading) Student performance in large cities Countries and cities
  22. 22. 4545ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher What 15-year-olds can do
  23. 23. 4646ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Average performance of 15-year-olds in reading – extrapolate and apply High reading performance Low reading performance … 17 countries perform below this line Shanghai-China Korea Finland Hong Kong-China Singapore Canada New Zealand Japan Australia NetherlandsBelgium Norway , EstoniaSwitzerlandPoland, IcelandUnited States LiechtensteinSwedenGermany, IrelandFrance, Chinese Taipei DenmarkUnited KingdomHungary, Portugal Macao-China Italy Latvia Slovenia Greece Spain Czech RepublicSlovak Republic, Croatia IsraelLuxembourg, Austria Lithuania Turkey Dubai (UAE) Russian Federation Chile Serbia440.000 460.000 480.000 500.000 520.000 540.000 25354555
  24. 24. 4848ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Average performance of 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance
  25. 25. 4949ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance Australia Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US 2009 1525354555 2009
  26. 26. 5050ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance Australia Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US 2009
  27. 27. 5151ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher -10 -5 0 5 10 15 Portugal Spain Switzerland Belgium Korea Luxembourg Germany Greece Japan Australia UnitedKingdom NewZealand France Netherlands Denmark Italy Austria CzechRepublic Hungary Norway Iceland Ireland Mexico Finland Sweden UnitedStates Poland Salary as % of GDP/capita Instruction time 1/teaching time 1/class size -10 -5 0 5 10 15 Portugal Spain Switzerland Belgium Korea Luxembourg Germany Greece Japan Australia UnitedKingdom NewZealand France Netherlands Denmark Italy Austria CzechRepublic Hungary Norway Iceland Ireland Mexico Finland Sweden UnitedStates Poland Difference with OECD average High performing systems often prioritize the quality of teachers over the size of classes Contribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher compensation costs per student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004) Percentage points
  28. 28. 5252 London,10.September2012 AndreasSchleicher EducationataGlance2012 Contribution of various factors to the change in the salary cost of teacher per student at the lower secondary level (2000, 2010) -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Austria Denmark Finland Australia Italy Spain Japan Portugal UnitedStates Ireland France Iceland Korea Hungary CzechRepublic Mexico Contribution of teachers' salary Contribution of instruction time Contribution of teaching time Contribution of estimated class size Change in salary cost between 2000 and 2010 In equivalent USD using PPPs
  29. 29. 5656ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher In only 6 countries were relative salaries for teachers higher than those of comparably educated workers Ratio of teachers' salary to earnings for full-time, full-year workers with tertiary education aged 25-64 (2011 or latest available year) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Spain Korea Luxembourg Portugal NewZealand Canada Germany Finland Israel England Australia Denmark Belgium(Fl.) OECDaverage EU21average Netherlands Belgium(Fr.) Ireland Sweden Slovenia France Scotland Poland Chile Norway UnitedStates Estonia Austria Italy Hungary CzechRepublic Iceland SlovakRepublic Ratio Chart D3.1-2 But teacher salaries in the EU rose by 20% between 2000 and 2011 (in contrast in the US they remained stable) EU/U S
  30. 30. 5858ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance Australia Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US 2009
  31. 31. 5959ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance Australia Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US 2000
  32. 32. 6060ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance Australia Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US 2000
  33. 33. 6262ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Changes in performance by type of taskIncrease percentage correct 0.8 1.71.7 6.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Multiple-choice - reproducing Open-ended - constructing OECD Japan OECD OECDJapan Japan
  34. 34. 6363ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 -1 0 1 2 Score School performance and socio-economic background AustraliaStudentperformance AdvantagePISA Index of socio-economic backgroundDisadvantage School performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools Student performance and schools’ socio-economic background Private school Public school in rural area Public school in urban area
  35. 35. 6969ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Catching up with the top-performers
  36. 36. 70707070ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Policies and practices Learning climate Discipline Teacher behaviour Parental pressure Teacher-student relationships Dealing with heterogeneity Grade repetition Prevalence of tracking Expulsions Ability grouping (all subjects) Standards /accountability Nat. examination Policy System     R School        R Equity     E
  37. 37. 7676ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Catching up with the top-performers Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins
  38. 38. 7777ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence
  39. 39. 7878ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  A commitment to education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve  Universal educational standards and personalisation as the approach to heterogeneity in the student body… … as opposed to a belief that students have different destinations to be met with different expectations, and selection/stratification as the approach to heterogeneity  Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom
  40. 40. 7979ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance 2009 Early selection and institutional differentiation High degree of stratification Low degree of stratification
  41. 41. 8080ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the system and aligned with high stakes gateways and instructional systems  Well established delivery chain through which curricular goals translate into instructional systems, instructional practices and student learning (intended, implemented and achieved)  High level of metacognitive content of instruction
  42. 42. 8181ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  Capacity at the point of delivery  Attracting, developing and retaining high quality teachers and school leaders and a work organisation in which they can use their potential  Instructional leadership and human resource management in schools  Keeping teaching an attractive profession  System-wide career development
  43. 43. 8282ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Teacher in-service development  No matter how good the pre-service education for teachers is … it cannot prepare teachers for rapidly changing challenges throughout their careers  High-performing systems rely on ongoing professional to… … update individuals’ knowledge of a subject in light of recent advances … update skills and approaches in light of new teaching techniques, new circumstances, and new research … enable teachers to apply changes made to curricula or teaching practice … enable schools to develop and apply new strategies concerning the curriculum and teaching practice … exchange information and expertise among teachers and others … help weaker teachers become more effective .  Effective professional development is on-going… … includes training, practice and feedback, and adequate time and follow-up support FIN,
  44. 44. 8484 PISA OECDProgrammefor InternationalStudentAssessment Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 13October2011 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Impact Participation Impact Participation Impact Participation Impact Participation Impact Participation Impact Participation Impact Participation Impact Participation Impact Participation Individual and collaborative research Qualification programmes Informal dialogue to improve teaching Reading professional literature Courses and workshops Professional development network Mentoring and peer observation Observation visits to other schools Education conferences and seminars TALIS Average% Relatively few teachers participate in the kinds of professional development which they find has the largest impact on their work Comparison of teachers participating in professional development activities and teachers reporting moderate or high level impact by types of activity
  45. 45. 8585 PISA OECDProgrammefor InternationalStudentAssessment Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 13October2011 Relatively few teachers participate in the kinds of professional development which they find has the largest impact on their work Comparison of teachers participating in professional development activities and teachers reporting moderate or high level impact by types of activity SIN plc
  46. 46. 8686ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  Incentives, accountability, knowledge management  Aligned incentive structures For students  How gateways affect the strength, direction, clarity and nature of the incentives operating on students at each stage of their education  Degree to which students have incentives to take tough courses and study hard  Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing well For teachers  Make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation  Improve their own performance and the performance of their colleagues  Pursue professional development opportunities that lead to stronger pedagogical practices  A balance between vertical and lateral accountability  Effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread innovation – communication within the system and with stakeholders around it  A capable centre with authority and legitimacy to act
  47. 47. 8989ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Schools with less autonomy Schools with more autonomy 480 490 500 Systems with more accountability Systems with less accountability 495 School autonomy in resource allocation System’s accountability arrangements PISA score in reading School autonomy, accountability and student performance Impact of school autonomy on performance in systems with and without accountability arrangements
  48. 48. 9090ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Local responsibility and system-level prescription System-level prescription ‘Tayloristic’ work organisation Schools leading reform Teachers as ‘knowledge workers’ Schools today The industrial model, detailed prescription of what schools do Schools tomorrow? Building capacity Finland today Every school an effective school Trend in OECD countries
  49. 49. 9292ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  Investing resources where they can make most of a difference  Alignment of resources with key challenges (e.g. attracting the most talented teachers to the most challenging classrooms)  Effective spending choices that prioritise high quality teachers over smaller classes
  50. 50. 9393ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  A learning system  An outward orientation to keep the system learning, technology, international benchmarks as the ‘eyes’ and ‘ears’ of the system  Recognising challenges and potential future threats to current success, learning from them, designing responses and implementing these
  51. 51. 9494ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  Coherence of policies and practices  Alignment of policies across all aspects of the system  Coherence of policies over sustained periods of time  Consistency of implementation  Fidelity of implementation (without excessive control)
  52. 52. 9595ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence
  53. 53. 9696ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Average school systems High performers in PISA Some students learn at high levels  All students learn at high levels Uniformity  Embracing diversity Curriculum-centred  Learner-centred Learning a place  Learning an activity Low status of the teaching profession  Countries attract and develop high quality teachers Prescription  Informed profession
  54. 54. 9797ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Some students learn at high levels All students need to learn at high levels Student inclusion Routine cognitive skills, rote learning Learning to learn, complex ways of thinking, ways of working Curriculum, instruction and assessment Few years more than secondary High-level professional knowledge workers Teacher quality ‘Tayloristic’, hierarchical Flat, collegial Work organisation Primarily to authorities Primarily to peers and stakeholders Accountability Education reform trajectories The old bureaucratic system The modern enabling system
  55. 55. 9898ANZSOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Thank you ! Find out more about PISA at…  OECD www.pisa.oecd.org – All national and international publications – The complete micro-level database  U.S. White House www.data.gov  Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org … and remember: Without data, you are just another person with an opinion

×