Trust in educational governance and pedagogy jerusalem, 24 may 2012

517 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
517
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Trust in educational governance and pedagogy jerusalem, 24 may 2012

  1. 1. TRUST IN EDUCATIONALGOVERNANCE AND PEDAGOGY Prof. Dr. Dirk Van Damme Head of the Innovation and Measuring Progress Division and the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation – OECD/EDU
  2. 2. Intro• TRUST is becoming a critically important human need, a social value, an economic measure and a political imperative – Social movements reacting against the dire consequences of hyper-competition and greed – Huge problems of democratic deficit, mistrust in modern social and political institutions and lack of social cohesion in modern societies – Turn to post-materialistic social values and search for authentic human interaction 2
  3. 3. Outline Community Trust in educational governanceInterpersonal Trust Stakeholders Social Capital Trust in schools and teachers Families EDUCATION Trust in the Trust as an learnable pedagogical skill and attitude Learners relationship 3
  4. 4. Background• From state-centred regulation... – Input-steering• ...to decentralised institutional autonomy... – De-concentration of decision-making • Allocation of resources • Curriculum and assessment – Market mechanisms, parental choice, competition – Participatory governance• ...accompanied by accountability 4
  5. 5. Background• Governance challenges in increasingly complex education systems: – Multilevel governance – Multiplication of actors and stakeholders – Increasing emphasis on performance and efficiency, while these increasingly depend on more and more factors• Policy challenges – Ministers feel increasingly powerless to foster social and political objectives – Performance and efficiency need new answers 5
  6. 6. Background• Not only governments jeopardise trust: – Increase of legal disputes on education matters • Students • Parents – Employers • Turning to direct skills assessment instead of having confidence in qualifications • Retraining graduates perceived not to possess the right skills sets 6
  7. 7. 1.IS EDUCATIONTRUSTWORTHY ? 7
  8. 8. Public confidence in schools US 8
  9. 9. “Anything of value is weak”• Qualifications and skills produced by education systems still have a high added value – In terms of income – In terms of employment (and unemployment risk) – In terms of social outcomes (health, civic participation, social capital, …)• But then society needs to trust qualifications as valid representations of competences• How much quality variation is the system able to tolerate before it looses trust? 9
  10. 10. School performance and socio-economic background Belgium School performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools Student performance and schools’ socio-economic background Private school Public school in rural area Score Public school in urban area Student performance -2 -1 0 1 2 PISA Index of socio-economic background
  11. 11. 150 200 250 300 350 Skill score Not completed school Upper secondary University Not completed school Upper secondary University Not completed school Upper secondary University The skills value of qualifications Interquartile range in skill distribution by educational qualification11
  12. 12. 2.CAN ACCOUNTABILITY HELPTO GENERATE TRUST ? 12
  13. 13. AccountabilityVertical Horizontal Regulatory Professionalaccountability accountability School Multiple performance stakeholderaccountability accountability 13
  14. 14. Accountability• Move to school performance accountability – Output-oriented (standardised student testing, national examinations, international benchmarking, ...) – Meeting quality standards (quality assurance, inspection) – Public reporting, rewards and sanctions• Autonomy AND accountability work together – Autonomy alone does not work – Accountability alone does not work 14
  15. 15. Accountability• Move to school performance accountability – Output-oriented (standardised student testing, national examinations, international benchmarking, ...) – Meeting quality standards (quality assurance, inspection) – Public reporting, rewards and sanctions• Risks of high-stakes assessments: – ‘Teaching to the test’ – Narrowing the curriculum – Negative impact on low-performing schools 15
  16. 16. But social trust and school autonomy are unrelated 2PISA school responsibility for curriculum 1 Netherlands and assessment index 2009 Czech Rep Great Britain 1 Italy Sweden Hungary Denmark 0 Ireland Slovak Rep Belgium Finland Germany -1 Spain Austria Switzerland Norway Luxembourg -1 Portugal -2 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Interpersonal trust 16
  17. 17. Trust and educational governance• 2 ways to promote governance arrangements in education which generate trust – Move to professional accountability: trusting teachers – Move to multiple stakeholder accountability: generating trust in the community 17
  18. 18. Accountability and beyond?• Move to professional accountability – Fostering teacher professionalism – Developing professional standards – Promoting collaboration and professional learning communities – Updating pedagogical knowledge of teachers• Defining teachers as high-quality ‘knowledge workers’ with high degree of professional standards, professional accountability 18
  19. 19. Accountability and beyond?• Trusting teachers also implies developing trust in the unique nature of the pedagogical relationship in which teachers and learners engage – School performance accountability tends to define the pedagogical relationship as a ‘contractual relationship’ – Pedagogy is the distinctive professional quality teachers add, hence pedagogical knowledge and skills need to be very high for ‘professional capital’ of teachers to be trustworthy 19
  20. 20. Accountability and beyond?• Move to multiple stakeholder accountability – Schools accountable to learners, parents, stakeholders and the community at large • Establishing a relationship • Obtaining support • Capacity building – Processes of collective learning and feedback generate trust in the community • Recognition of different interests and needs among stakeholders • Allowing enough time to develop a trusting relationship • Clarity of roles and purposes such that all actors feel responsible 20
  21. 21. 3.IS EDUCATION PRODUCINGTRUST ? 21
  22. 22. Levels of interpersonal trust (Europe) 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0-0.2-0.4-0.6-0.8 -1 22
  23. 23. Proportion of adults expressing interpersonal trust, by level of educational attainment (2008) Percentage Below upper secondary education Upper secondary education Tertiary education 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Hungary Denmark Israel Turkey Estonia Netherlands Greece Finland Ireland1 Spain Poland Portugal Norway Austria1 Slovak Republic Italy2 France Slovenia Sweden Belgium OECD average Czech Republic United Kingdom Switzerland 1. Year of reference 2006. 2. Year of reference 2004. Countries are ranked in descending order of the proportion of adults expressing interpersonal trust among those who have attained upper secondary education. Source: www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010 23
  24. 24. 24
  25. 25. Incremental differences in interpersonal trust associated with an increase in the level of educational attainment (2008) From below upper secondary to upper From upper secondary to secondary tertiary Group 1 Slovenia Sweden Estonia Poland France Spain Norway Belgium Ireland11. Year of reference 2006. Switzerland2. Year of reference 2004.Countries are grouped by those in Netherlandswhich the incremental differences Hungaryin interpersonal trust are higher ata higher level of education (Group Portugal1) and others (Group 2). Countries Turkeyare ranked in descending order ofthe incremental differences ininterpersonal trust associated witha shift from upper secondary totertiary education attainment. Group 2 Denmark United Kingdom Israel Finland Italy2 Austria1 Czech Republic Greece Slovak Republic % 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 % 25
  26. 26. Education and interpersonal trust• Level of interpersonal trust is strongly linked to educational attainment• Extra year of schooling accounts for an increase in the level of interpersonal trust of 3 to 4%.• Individual’s education explains 8% of cross- country differences in levels of interpersonal trust• What are the (cognitive and non-cognitive) skills that specifically contribute to interpersonal trust and how can education develop them more effectively? 26
  27. 27. 4.SOME CONCLUSIONS 27
  28. 28. Teacher accountability EducationalSocial trust outcomes Stakeholder accountability 28
  29. 29. Mixed systems• High level of public trust in education is not a given, will be challenged – Is education delivering on its promises?• Performance and efficiency will put more stress on the system• Regulation and school performance accountability are here to stay and risks are real that they get even more emphasis• Challenge is to intensify and strengthen autonomy and new forms of accountability 29
  30. 30. Mixed systems• Two strategies to diversify and strengthen accountability systems – Teacher accountability: generating trust in highly professional teachers and in the specific nature of the pedagogical relationship – Multiple stakeholder accountability: generating trust in the community 30
  31. 31. 5.TO FINISH: TWO OPTIMISTICGRAPHS 31
  32. 32. Social trust and teacher self-efficacy 0.6 NorwayTALIS 2008 Teacher efficacy index Italy Ireland Denmark Austria Belgium Fl 0.0 Portugal Slovak Rep Hungary Spain -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Interpersonal trust 32
  33. 33. Social trust and learning outcomes 540 Finland 530 Trusting teachers 520PISA reading score 2009 Trusting communities 510 Netherlands Belgium Norway 500 Switzerland Germany Ireland Sweden Hungary Great Britain Denmark 490 Portugal Italy Greece 480 Spain Slovak Rep Czech Rep Luxembourg 470 Austria 460 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Interpersonal trust 33
  34. 34. Thank you !dirk.vandamme@oecd.org www.oecd.org/edu/ceritwitter @VanDammeEDU

×