Australia's education system in the mirror of other OECD systems

1,821 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,821
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
16
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
58
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

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.
  • The pace of change is most clearly visible in higher education, and I want to bring two more dimensions into the picture here. Each dot on this chart represents one country. The horizontal axis shows you the college graduation rate, the proportion of an age group that comes out of the system with a college degree. The vertical axis shows you how much it costs to educate a graduate per year.
  • *Lets now add where the money comes from into the picture, the larger the dot, the larger the share of private spending on college education, such as tuition.The chart shows the US as the country with the highest college graduation rate, and the highest level of spending per student. The US is also among the countries with the largest share of resources generated through the private sector. That allows the US to spend roughly twice as much per student as Europe. US, FinlandThe only thing I have not highlighted so far is that this was the situation in 1995. And now watch this closely as you see how this changed between 1995 and 2005.
  • You see that in 2000, five years, later, the picture looked very different. While in 1995 the US was well ahead of any other country – you see that marked by the dotted circle, in 2000 several other countries had reached out to this frontier. Look at Australia, in pink.
  • Thatwasallveryquick, letusgothroughthisdevelopmentonceagain
  • This is where China, the European Union, India and the US stood in terms of the number of high school graduates in 2003. This is how the picture is likely to look in 2010, and this is what we project for 2015.China more smart kids than Europe has kids.
  • Levy and Murnane show how the composition of the US work force has changed and I want to show one slides because it provides such a great introduction to our work on PISA. What they show is that, between 1970 and 2000, work involving routine manual input, the jobs of the typical factory worker, was down significantly. Non-routine manual work, things we do with our hands, but in ways that are not so easily put into formal algorithms, was down too, albeit with much less change over recent years – and that is easy to understand because you cannot easily computerise the bus driver or outsource your hairdresser. All that is not surprising, but here is where the interesting story begins: Among the skill categories represented here, routine cognitive input, that is cognitive work that you can easily put into the form of algorithms and scripts saw the sharpest decline in demand over the last couple of decades, with a decline by almost 8% in the share of jobs. So those middle class white collar jobs that involve the application of routine knowledge, are most at threat today. And that is where schools still put a lot of their focus and what we value in multiple choice accountability systems.The point that Levy and Murnane make is, that the skills that are easiest to teach and test are also the skills that are easiest to digitise, automatise and offshore. If that is all what we do in school, we are putting our youngsters right up for competition with computers, because those are the things computers can do better than humans, and our kids are going to loose out before they even started. Where are the winners in this process? These are those who engage in expert thinking – the new literacy of the 21st century, up 8% - and complex communication, up almost 14%.We have tried to use these message that emerge from the analysis of skill demands as an important starting point for conceptualising our assessments.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • In one way, our international benchmarks make depressing reading for the US, because this is the country with the greatest potential and the country that has led education and research for decades. But the comparisons also indicate a way forward. They demonstrate what can be done with a combination of the right strategy and courageous, sustained leadership. Singapore’s story over 40 years is truly inspirational. So, in an entirely different culture, is Finland’s over 30 years. Poland made remarkable progress in the last decade by raising the average performance of 15-year-olds by almost a school year in the last six years alone. The reforms in Alberta and Ontario, just across your northern border, are working too.
  • What you see, however, that countries spend their money quite differently.Average spending – some of the most successful education systems know how to invest their money where the challenges are greatest, and how to attract the brightest teachers into the most difficult classrooms.
  • This chart shows you the proportion of teachers who participated in various types of professional development over the last 18 months, with the bars showing the average across countries and the red dot showing the Mexican figures. So you see that just over 60% of Mexican teachers have engaged in some form of individual and collaborative research, just over 30% in qualification programmes, almost every teacher in informal dialogue to improve teaching, 70% in reading professional literature, and so on.These are impressive numbers. But do governments offer, and do teachers take up the kind of professional development that is actually most effective? The yellow bar shows you the proportion of teachers who think that the various types of professional development have a moderate to large impact on their development as a teacher. So you see that, while individual and collaborative research seems to have the largest impact (the yellow bar is long), participation rates here, shown by the blue bar, are comparatively low. The same is true for sustained qualification programs, these seem to make a genuine impact but few teachers pursue such courses. In contrast, lots of teachers participate in one-off seminars and workshops which much fewer teachers perceive to be of value.TALIS thus shows that we need to do better in matching the costs and benefit as well as supply and demand for professional development. Courses and workshopsProfessional development networkMentoring and peer observationObservation visits to other schoolsEducation conferences and seminars
  • This chart shows you the proportion of teachers who participated in various types of professional development over the last 18 months, with the bars showing the average across countries and the red dot showing the Mexican figures. So you see that just over 60% of Mexican teachers have engaged in some form of individual and collaborative research, just over 30% in qualification programmes, almost every teacher in informal dialogue to improve teaching, 70% in reading professional literature, and so on.These are impressive numbers. But do governments offer, and do teachers take up the kind of professional development that is actually most effective? The yellow bar shows you the proportion of teachers who think that the various types of professional development have a moderate to large impact on their development as a teacher. So you see that, while individual and collaborative research seems to have the largest impact (the yellow bar is long), participation rates here, shown by the blue bar, are comparatively low. The same is true for sustained qualification programs, these seem to make a genuine impact but few teachers pursue such courses. In contrast, lots of teachers participate in one-off seminars and workshops which much fewer teachers perceive to be of value.TALIS thus shows that we need to do better in matching the costs and benefit as well as supply and demand for professional development. Courses and workshopsProfessional development networkMentoring and peer observationObservation visits to other schoolsEducation conferences and seminars
  • But the balance between national prescription and schools leading reform is not an all-or-nothing. In fact, most school systems have started out with highly prescriptive education systems. But gradually the have moved towards building capacity and enabling schools to assume greater responsibility.
  • With an OECD Skills Strategy , we would seek to assist countries to improve economic and social outcomes through better skills and their effective utilisation. More specifically, we would seek to improve: (1) responsiveness (ensuring that education/training providers can adapt efficiently to changing demand); (2) quality and efficiency in learning provision (ensuring that the right skills are acquired at the right time, right place and in the most effective mode); (3) flexibility in provision (allowing people to study/train what they want, when they want and how they want); (4) transferability of skills (such that skills gained are documented in a commonly accepted and understandable form); (5) ease of access (e.g. by reducing barriers to entry such as institutional rigidities, up-front fees and age restrictions, existence of a variety of entry and re-entry pathways); and (6) low costs of early exit (e.g. credit is granted for components of learning, modular provision, credit accumulation and credit transfer systems exist). The work would take a lifecycle perspective in designing policy responses to the challenges of building, maintaining and improving skills in the different transitions over the life course.
  • We have structured the work under four pillars: The first pillar deals with the question: How do we identify and assess essential skills for strong, sustainable and balanced growth and what are the factors driving the evolution of skill demand? Pillar 2: Is the right mix of skills being taught and learned and can employers find workers with the skills they need? Pillar 3: Are skills developed in effective, equitable, efficient and sustainable ways? Pillar 4: How can governments build strong coalitions with the business sector and social investors and find sustainable approaches to who should pay for what, when, where and how much?Let me briefly lead you through these pillars.
  • One of the reasons why skill shortages often do not translate efficiently into learning provision is the lack of a common language through which skills are identified, articulated, recognised and communicated from those who use them to those who produce them. This pillar would seek to assist countries with identifying, defining and assessing essential skills, giving adequate recognition to generic skills as well as domain-specific and firm-specific skills. Our analysis would examine both changing skill demands within existing jobs – often driven by technology – as well as changing aggregate skill demands resulting from shifts in occupational composition. Another important objective of this first pillar would be the development of better evidence on the economic and social outcomes of skills at both individual and aggregate levels.
  • A better understanding of the drivers of changes in skill demand within firms, occupations and countries will be crucial for countries to shift the focus of learning provision from supplying skills for today’s labour market to shaping future jobs. Labour markets are becoming increasingly complex and dynamic, are characterised by growing convergence of occupational sectors and rising job and occupational mobility. These forces combined with depreciation of domain-specific knowledge require individuals to upgrade their skills more regularly leading to changing patterns of work and learning. Skill mismatches occur at both the individual level – when a worker would be more productive in another position – as well as at the aggregate level – when there is a general surplus or shortage of specific skills. It is important in this context that policy makers are seeking to meet skills shortages, and not just labour shortages created by unattractive and low quality employment. There are also ‘age training gaps’ and ‘gender training gaps’ with older workers and women often being less involved in training that their younger and male counterparts, respectively. Why do these gaps exist and how can be best addressed? What are the key institutional factors that can promote participation in training of older workers (e.g. wage-setting mechanisms; retirement policies)? What policy and institutions could reduce the gender training gap (e.g. family-friendly policies that encourage more continuity in working careers for women)? Finally, how to manage the global search for talent while also dealing with brain drain and brain gains issues? How to strengthen education outcomes of children of immigrants in receiving countries? How to promote return migration and better use of competencies in the home country?
  • Third, with a rapidly rising demand for skills, countries can no longer simply rely on education and training systems that efficiently sort individuals, but need to improve their skill base throughout the population and to capitalise on the full potential of all individuals. This requires countries to ensure that skills are developed in effective, efficient and fair ways through lifelong and lifewide learning, and to ensure responsiveness, quality and flexibility in provision. The OECD could play a pathfinder role for countries to: (1) identify effective strategies for new ways of learning and skill provision; (2) improve the knowledge base about skill development; and (3) support systems of continuous innovation and feedback to develop knowledge of what policies work in which circumstances. This would also involve identifying the policy levers, incentive systems and support structures that lead to enhancing skills through the formal educational system, in the work-place or through incentives addressed at the general population. It would also include sustaining workplace training and meeting the increased demand for full-time vocational education and training.There is also significant potential for peer-learning among countries with regard to how individuals learn differently, and differently at different stages of their lives, and what effective policies are to meet those individual needs of people, wherever they learn, to look into new ways to take learning to the learner, examine new forms of educational provision and new relationships between learners, providers, funders and social innovators. Similarly, peer-learning offers important policy insights for establishing the appropriate mix of academic and vocational programmes in ways that reflect student preferences and employers’ needs, with vocational training providing immediate employability, but also basic transferable skills to support occupational mobility.
  • Fourth, governments need to build new relationships, networks and coalitions between learners, providers, governments, businesses, social investors and innovators that bring together the legitimacy, innovation, and resources that are needed to make lifelong learning a reality for all. Much of this networking and engagement takes place at the level of local labour markets, and it is therefore at this level that relevant stakeholders interact and collaborate to gear education and training to local labour market needs, attract and retain talent, and ensure that disadvantaged groups are integrated into learning systems. The rising demand for skills also implies that all stakeholders must be prepared to mobilise more time and money for learning. At the same time, there is an urgent need to improve the efficiency of educational provision. Investment in learning needs to be cost and tax-efficient for individuals and their employers. For those out of work, funding needs to be accessible to support and incentivize learning. Governments need to use regulation and taxation to encourage financial institutions to develop new financial instruments that allow learners to access opportunities when they need them most, including through lowering cost, reducing risk and smoothing repayments. For learning beyond universal education, education and training systems need to find ways to share the costs among government, employers and students based on the respective benefits obtained.
  • Australia's education system in the mirror of other OECD systems

    1. 1. Seeing your education system in the mirror of OECD systems<br />Canberra, 13-14 May 2010<br />
    2. 2. Is the sky the limit?<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 />2.Where we are – and where we can be <br />Where Australia and other countries stand <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 />
    3. 3. Domain 1<br />Individual learner<br />LevelA<br />LevelB<br />Instructional settings<br />LevelC<br />Schools, other institutions<br />Country or system<br />LevelD<br />Dimensions for international benchmarking<br />Domain 3<br />Domain 2<br />Antecedentscontextualise or constrain ed policy<br />Policy Leversshape educational outcomes<br />Outputs and Outcomesimpact of learning<br />Quality and distribution of knowledge & skills<br />Individ attitudes, engagement and behaviour<br />Socio-economic background of learners<br />Student learning, teacher working conditions<br />Quality of instructional delivery<br />Teaching, learning practices and classroom climate<br />The learning environment at school<br />Community and school characteristics<br />Output and performance of institutions<br />National educ, social and economic context<br />Social & economic outcomes of education<br />Structures, resource alloc and policies<br />
    4. 4. There is nowhere to hide<br />The yardstick for success is no longer improvement by national standards but the best practice internationally<br />
    5. 5. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Cost per student<br />Graduate supply<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    6. 6. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />United States<br />Cost per student<br />Finland<br />Japan<br />Graduate supply<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    7. 7. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Australia<br />Finland<br />United Kingdom<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    8. 8. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    9. 9. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    10. 10. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    11. 11. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    12. 12. A world of change – highereducation<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    13. 13. A world of change – highereducation<br />What about international students?<br />Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)<br />United States<br />Australia<br />A<br />A<br />United Kingdom<br />Finland<br />A<br />Tertiary-type A graduation rate <br />
    14. 14. Moving targetsFuture supply of college graduates<br />
    15. 15. Components of the private net present value for a male with higher education<br />27K$<br />56K$<br />170K$<br />105K$<br />35K$<br />26K$<br />367K$<br />Net present value in USD equivalent<br />
    16. 16. Public cost and benefits for a male obtaining <br />post-secondary education<br />Public costs<br />Public benefits<br />Net present value, USD equivalent<br />(numbers in orange shownegative values)<br />USD equivalent<br />
    17. 17. How the demand for skills has changedEconomy-wide measures of routine and non-routine task input (US)<br />Mean task input as percentiles of the 1960 task distribution<br />The dilemma of schools:<br />The skills that are easiest to teach and test are also the ones that are easiest to digitise, automate and outsource<br /> (Levy and Murnane)<br />
    18. 18. 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 />
    19. 19. Strengths and weaknesses in math<br />The real world<br />The mathematical World<br />Making the problem amenable to mathematical treatment<br />A mathematical model<br /> A model of reality<br />Understanding, structuring and simplifying the situation<br />Using relevant mathematical content to solve the problem<br />A real situation<br />Validating the results<br />Mathematical results<br />Real results<br />Interpreting the mathematical results<br />
    20. 20. High science performance<br />Average performanceof 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply<br />… 18 countries perform below this line<br />Low science performance<br />
    21. 21. Modelling the 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 as new technologies are developed and implemented, making use of the new higher skills<br />Estimate the total gains over the lifetime of the generation born this year .<br />
    22. 22. Relationship between test performance and economic outcomesAnnual improved GDP from raising performance by 25 PISA points<br />Percent addition to GDP<br />
    23. 23. Increase average performance by 25 PISA points (Total 115 trillion $)<br />bn$<br />
    24. 24. Catching up with Finland (total 260 trillion $)<br />bn$<br />
    25. 25. Catching up with Finland(in percent of GDP)<br />% currrent GDP<br />
    26. 26. Increased likelihood of postsec. particip. at age 19/21 associated with PISA reading proficiency at age 15 (Canada)after accounting for school engagement, gender, mother tongue, place of residence, parental, education and family income (reference group PISA Level 1)<br />Odds ratioCollege entry<br />School marks at age 15<br />PISA performance at age 15<br />
    27. 27. Interest science<br />Indicate curiosity in science and science-related issues and endeavours<br />Demonstrate willingness to acquire additional scientific knowledge and skills, using variety of resources and methods<br />Demonstrate willingness to seek information and have an interest in science, including consideration of science-related careers <br />Support for science<br />Acknowledge the importance of considering different scientific perspectives and arguments<br />Support the use of factual information and rational explanation<br />Logical and careful processes in drawing conclusions <br />Knowledge of science<br />Physical systems (structure of matter, properties of matter, chemical changes of matter, motions and forces, energy and its transformations, energy and matter)<br />Living systems (cells, humans, populations, ecosystems, biosphere)<br />Earth and space (structures of the earth system, energy in the earth system, change in the earth system, earth’s history, space)<br />Technology systems (Concepts and principles, science and technology)<br />Knowledge about science<br />Scientific enquiry (purpose, experiments, data, measurement, characteristics of results)<br />Scientific explanations (types, rules, outcomes)<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 />Context<br />- Personal<br /><ul><li>Social/public
    28. 28. Global</li></ul>Competencies<br /><ul><li>Identify scientific issues
    29. 29. Explain phenomena scientifically
    30. 30. Use scientific evidence</li></ul>Knowledge<br /><ul><li>Knowledge of science
    31. 31. Knowledge about science</li></ul>Attitudes<br />-Interest in science<br />-Support for scientific enquiry<br />-Responsibility<br />
    32. 32. Strengths and weaknesses of countries in science relative to their overall performanceFrance<br />Science competencies<br />Science knowledge<br />OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Figure 2.13<br />
    33. 33. Strengths and weaknesses of countries in science relative to their overall performanceCzech Republic<br />Scientific competencies<br />Scientific knowledge<br />OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Figure 2.13<br />
    34. 34. Strengths and weaknesses of countries in science relative to their overall performanceAustralia<br />Scientific competencies<br />Scientific knowledge<br />OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Figure 2.13<br />
    35. 35. 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 />
    36. 36. 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 />
    37. 37. 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 />
    38. 38. 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.
    39. 39. Altering content or pace of curriculum
    40. 40. Improving instructional techniques
    41. 41. Changing the learning environment in schools and classrooms
    42. 42. Standards and accountability
    43. 43. 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
    44. 44. 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 />
    45. 45. 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
    46. 46. Students are often also identified through other risk factors, e.g. immigration, ethnicity, low-income community</li></ul>Schools proportional to size<br />
    47. 47. 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
    48. 48. Early intervention programmes
    49. 49. Remedial and recovery programmes
    50. 50. Performance-based tracking or streaming</li></ul>Schools proportional to size<br />
    51. 51. 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 />
    52. 52. 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 />
    53. 53. How to get there<br />Some policy levers that emerge from international comparisons<br />
    54. 54. Money matters - but other things do too<br />
    55. 55. 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 />
    56. 56. High ambitionsand universal standards<br />Rigor, focus and coherence<br />Great systemsattractgreatteachers and provideaccesstobestpractice and quality professional development<br />
    57. 57. 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 />
    58. 58. International Best Practice<br />The past<br /><ul><li>Principals who are trained, empowered, accountable and provide instructional leadership
    59. 59. Principals who manage ‘a building’, who have little training and preparation and are accountable but not empowered
    60. 60. Attracting, recruiting and providing excellent training for prospective teachers from the top third of the graduate distribution
    61. 61. Attracting and recruiting teachers from the bottom third of the graduate distribution and offering training which does not relate to real classrooms
    62. 62. Incentives, rules and funding encourage a fair distribution of teaching talent
    63. 63. The best teachers are in the most advantaged communities</li></ul>Human capital<br />
    64. 64. 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
    65. 65. Seniority and tenure matter more than performance; patchy professional development; wide variation in quality
    66. 66. Teachers and the system expect every child to succeed and intervene preventatively to ensure this
    67. 67. Wide achievement gaps, just beginning to narrow but systemic and professional barriers to transformation remain in place</li></ul>Human capital (cont…)<br />
    68. 68. Some teachers lose much more time than othersPercentiles of time on spent on task<br />Figure 4.10<br />Source: OECD, TALIS Database.<br />
    69. 69. 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<br />Figure 3.15<br />
    70. 70. 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<br />Figure 3.15<br />
    71. 71. The teachers who paid most also did most professional development<br />Figure 3.10<br />
    72. 72. High ambitions<br />Devolvedresponsibility,theschoolasthecentreofaction<br />Accountabilityandintervention in inverse proportiontosuccess<br />Access to best practice and quality professional development<br />
    73. 73. Local responsibility and national prescription<br />Towards system-wide sustainable reform<br />National prescription<br />Schools today<br />The industrial model, detailed prescription of what schools do<br />Schools tomorrow?<br />Building capacity<br />Finland today<br />Every school an effective school<br />Schools leading reform<br />
    74. 74. 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 />
    75. 75. Does appraisal and feedback make a difference for the job?<br />Figure 5.5<br />
    76. 76. 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 />
    77. 77. 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 />6<br />Low science performance<br />
    78. 78. Assist countries in improving economic and social outcomes through better skills and their effective utilisation<br />Responsiveness <br />Ensuring that education/training providers can adapt efficiently to changing demand<br />Quality and efficiency in learning provision <br />Ensuring that the right skills are acquired at the right time, right place and in the most effective mode<br />Flexibility in provision <br />Allowing people to study/train what they want, when they want and how they want<br />Transferability of skills <br />Such that skills gained are documented in a commonly accepted and understandable form<br />Ease of access <br />Reducing barriers to entry such as institutional rigidities, up-front fees and age restrictions, existence of a variety of entry and re-entry pathways<br />Low costs of early exit <br />Recognition for components of learning, modular provision, credit accumulation and credit transfer systems exist .<br />
    79. 79. OECD Skills Strategy<br />How do we identify and assess essential skills for strong, sustainable and balanced growth and what are the factors driving the evolution of skill demand? <br />Is the right mix of skills being taught and learned and can employers find workers with the skills they need? <br />Pillar 2(ELS)<br />Pillar 1 (EDU and ELS)<br />How can governments build strong coalitions with the business sector and social investors and find sustainable approaches to who should pay for what, when, where and how much?<br />Pillar 3(EDU)<br />Pillar 4(EDU and LEED)<br />Are skills developed in effective, equitable, efficient and sustainable ways?<br />
    80. 80. Pillar 1: Drivers for skill demand<br />A work programme with four pillars<br /><ul><li>Issues
    81. 81. Changing skill demands within jobs – often driven by technology
    82. 82. Increased demand for certain occupations affecting the composition of aggregate skills demand
    83. 83. New types of jobs, driven by innovation – in products and in services
    84. 84. Greater need for transferable skills, in part driven by greater labour mobility .
    85. 85. Work proposals
    86. 86. Balancing occupation-specific and generic skills [ELS]
    87. 87. Skill demands in technology-rich environments [PIAAC]
    88. 88. Skill demands of innovative firms [CERI]
    89. 89. Skill demands in health and green jobs [ELS]
    90. 90. Economic and social outcomes of skills [PIAAC, CERI] .</li></ul>How do we identify and assess essential skills for strong, sustainable and balanced growth and what are the factors driving the evolution of skill demand? <br />Is the right mix of skills being taught and learned and can employers find workers with the skills they need? <br />Pillar 2(ELS)<br />Pillar 1 (EDU and ELS)<br />How can governments build strong coalitions with the business sector and social investors and find sustainable approaches to who should pay for what, when, where and how much?<br />Pillar 3(EDU)<br />Pillar 4(EDU and LEED)<br />Are skills developed in effective, equitable, efficient and sustainable ways?<br />
    91. 91. Pillar 2: Right mix of skills learned and taught?<br />A work programme with four pillars<br /><ul><li>Issues
    92. 92. Increasingly complex and dynamic labour-markets combined with depreciation of domain-specific knowledge require individuals to upgrade their skills more regularly leading to changing patterns of work and learning
    93. 93. Individual and aggregate skill mismatches can be associated with ineffective signalling of labour market demands to education providers and individuals but can also be the consequence of a lack of responsiveness on the part of education and training providers
    94. 94. Age training gaps, gender gaps
    95. 95. Work proposals
    96. 96. Prevalence and consequences of skills mismatch [EDU/ELS]
    97. 97. Improving the utilisation of human capital [ELS]
    98. 98. Preventing skill obsolesence among displaced workers [ELS]
    99. 99. Understanding the impact of age on skills [ELS] .</li></ul>How do we identify and assess essential skills for strong, sustainable and balanced growth and what are the factors driving the evolution of skill demand? <br />Is the right mix of skills being taught and learned and can employers find workers with the skills they need? <br />Pillar 2(ELS)<br />Pillar 1 (EDU and ELS)<br />How can governments build strong coalitions with the business sector and social investors and find sustainable approaches to who should pay for what, when, where and how much?<br />Pillar 3(EDU)<br />Pillar 4(EDU and LEED)<br />Are skills developed in effective, equitable, efficient and sustainable ways?<br />
    100. 100. Pillar 3: Are skills developed in effective, equitable and sustainable ways<br />A work programme with four pillars<br /><ul><li>Issues
    101. 101. Establishing efficient and fair ways of lifelong and lifewide learning, and ensuring responsiveness, quality and flexibility in provision
    102. 102. Incentive systems and support structures to enhancing skills through the formal educational system, in the work-place or through incentives addressed at the general population and training
    103. 103. Establishing an appropriate mix of academic and vocational learning in ways that reflect student preferences and employers’ needs, with vocational training providing immediate employability, but also basic transferable skills to support occupational mobility
    104. 104. Work proposals
    105. 105. New learning organisations [CERI]
    106. 106. Vocational education and training [EDU]
    107. 107. Equity in access and educational mobility [PIAAC, PISA]
    108. 108. Utilising the skill potential of immigrants [ELS]
    109. 109. Developing innovation oriented skills [CERI] .</li></ul>How do we identify and assess essential skills for strong, sustainable and balanced growth and what are the factors driving the evolution of skill demand? <br />Is the right mix of skills being taught and learned and can employers find workers with the skills they need? <br />Pillar 2(ELS)<br />Pillar 1 (EDU and ELS)<br />How can governments build strong coalitions with the business sector and social investors and find sustainable approaches to who should pay for what, when, where and how much?<br />Pillar 3(EDU)<br />Pillar 4(EDU and LEED)<br />Are skills developed in effective, equitable, efficient and sustainable ways?<br />
    110. 110. Pillar 4: Who should pay for what, when, where and how much?<br />A work programme with four pillars<br /><ul><li>Issues
    111. 111. Building new relationships, networks and coalitions between learners, providers, governments, businesses, social investors and innovators that bring together the legitimacy, innovation, and resources that are needed to make lifelong learning a reality for all
    112. 112. Finding ways to encourage both employers and students to participate in workplace training, and ensuring that such training is of good quality, with effective quality assurance and contractual frameworks for apprentices
    113. 113. Mobilising time and money
    114. 114. Work proposals
    115. 115. Joining up local skill strategies .</li></ul>How do we identify and assess essential skills for strong, sustainable and balanced growth and what are the factors driving the evolution of skill demand? <br />Is the right mix of skills being taught and learned and can employers find workers with the skills they need? <br />Pillar 2(ELS)<br />Pillar 1 (EDU and ELS)<br />How can governments build strong coalitions with the business sector and social investors and find sustainable approaches to who should pay for what, when, where and how much?<br />Pillar 3(EDU)<br />Pillar 4(EDU and LEED)<br />Are skills developed in effective, equitable, efficient and sustainable ways?<br />
    116. 116. PIAAC will…<br />in each country interview 5000 adults aged 16-65 in their homes and test their skills<br />collect information on the antecedents, outcomes and contexts of skill development and use<br />… in order to…<br />provide a comprehensive assessment of the human capital stock<br />For high performers, show to what extent they are able to apply their skills to solve challenging problems requiring mastery of technology <br />For those with low literacy, show to what extent their problem is with performing basic reading functions or with understanding and application<br />show to what extent skills held by individuals are actually used at work and identify the role skills play in improving labour market prospects of at-risk populations <br />improve understanding of the labour market and social returns to education and training<br />help governments better understand how education and training systems can nurture these skills .<br />
    117. 117. High potential policy impact<br />x<br /><ul><li>Description of the population with low skills, or special population groups such as immigrants, and interrelationships with labour-market outcomes.
    118. 118. What is the role of skills in explaining differences in labour-market outcomes between immigrant and native-born workers? Do skill differences depend on where human capital was acquired? Do immigrants receive different returns to these skills than observationally similar native-born workers?
    119. 119. To what extent can and do skills play a role in levelling the playing field, both in terms of providing high quality education to all and giving access to higher education to those who are able and motivated to continue their schooling, irrespective of their social background?
    120. 120. Further analysis on intergenerational mobility will also be possible with the JRA measurement of what people do in their jobs</li></ul>The competitive advantages of OECD countries in the global competition for jobs <br />Quick wins<br />Must haves<br /><ul><li>Where does initial education leave us in terms of skill supply with their different forms of organisation of the education and training system?
    121. 121. Has the rapid growth in educational attainment translated into better foundation skills?
    122. 122. How do the results compare to those observed in earlier schooling (PISA)? How do people gain and lose skills as they grow older?
    123. 123. How will changes in the age structure of populations and aspects such as educational attainment feed through to the future talent pool?
    124. 124. Labour force skills and the price of these skills are crucial to understand in the perspective of increasing global competition for jobs higher up in the skill hierarchy. PIAAC can tell us more about which cognitive and non-cognitive skills are important in particular.
    125. 125. PIAAC can provide systematic insights into the risks and rewards for skills in the labour market, for individuals and economies, as well as for specific subgroups such as immigrants</li></ul>Adult competencies and their as well as economic and social outcomes<br />aggregate<br />individual<br /><ul><li>What can we learn about the impact of age on skills and skill utilisation, how has this changed over recent decades and the policy levers associated with this (separating biological effects of aging from differences in the experiences of cohorts over time)?</li></ul>How well do education and training systems deliver in generating the required competencies<br /><ul><li>Is education or skills mismatch mostly confined to youth early on in their professional careers and subsequently diminishes? Is mismatch important and does it translate into large earnings penalties? Have education and training systems in OECD countries shown sufficient adaptability in the face of changing skill demands or are skills mismatches endemic? How do task-based learning (JRA) and job-related training relate to the length of the working life? (but keep in mind that labour-market outcomes and training are snapshots in time whereas the measured skills are accumulated over the lifespan)</li></ul>Improving the labour-market prospects of those at risk<br /><ul><li>How well can adults solve problems in technology-rich environments? How does this relate to the incidence and intensity of using information technology in and outside work</li></ul>Low feasibility/costly<br />High feasibility<br />Equity and intergenerational mobility<br />Ageing and skills<br />Capitalising on technology-rich environments<br />What levels of skills do individuals and countries demonstrate, and how do these relate to educational attainment?<br />Money pits<br />Low-hanging fruits<br />…<br />Reasonable potential for policy<br />(Skip examples)<br />
    126. 126. Outcomes<br />A Skills Strategy for OECD countries<br />An integrated work programme on skills across the entire organisation<br />A regularly published OECD Skills Outlook that, with a combination of comparative analysis and country studies, will: <br />Trace the development of skills, through their utilisation in labour markets, how they feed into better jobs, higher productivity, and ultimately better economic and social outcomes<br />Customise policy insights from comparative analysis and peer learning so that they are useful in national policy contexts<br />Provide a catalyst for policy discourse on national skill strategies<br />Contribute to building strategic partnerships for successful policy implementation .<br />
    127. 127. State of play<br />PIAAC is now at a critical juncture of moving from an international strategy towards national implementation<br />Where we are…<br />PIAAC strategy agreed among countries<br />International project consortium in place<br />Agreement on the scope of the initial report and a discussion on further analytic work<br />Full pilot in all countries, majority of countries now in the field (1400 respondents, 2010),<br />… and what remains ahead<br />Review of field trial results and development of main data collection instruments<br />Main data collection (2011/2012)<br />Public release of results (2013) .<br />
    128. 128. State of play<br />
    129. 129. The qualifications we acquired don’t tell us everything about the skills we have<br />Mean problem solving1,2 scores on a scale with range 0-500 points, by level of educational attainment, populations aged 16-65, 2003<br />1 – less than upper secondary<br />2 – upper secondary<br />3 – post-secondary/non-tertiary<br />4 – tertiary education<br />Source: International Adult Literacy and Life Skills Study (ALLS)<br />
    130. 130. Skill make a difference for labourmarket outcomes<br />The probabilities of unemployed adults aged 16 to 65 to exit unemployment over a 52 week period, by low (Levels 1 and 2) and medium to high (Levels 3 and 4/5) skills, document scale, 2003<br />High skills(Levels 3, 4 and 5)<br />Low skills(Levels 1 and 2)<br />Source: International Adult Literacy and Life Skills Study (ALLS)<br />
    131. 131.
    132. 132. Thankyou!<br />

    ×