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.

Andreas Schleicher - Equity and Quality in Education: Presentation at the Global Cities Education Network


Published on

Published in: Education, Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Andreas Schleicher - Equity and Quality in Education: Presentation at the Global Cities Education Network

  1. 1. Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and SchoolsInvesting in equity in education pays off Hong Kong, May 10th 2012
  2. 2. High education performers combine quality with equity Strength of the relationship between performance and socio-economic background above the OECD average impact Strength of the relationship between performance and socio-economic background not statistically significantly different from the OECD average impactMean Strength of the relationship between performance and socio-economic background below the OECD average impactscore 560 Above-average reading performance Above-average reading performance Above-average impact of socio-economic Shanghai-China Below-average impact of socio-economic 540 background Korea background Switzerland Finland Singapore Sweden Canada Hong Kong-China 520 New Zealand Australia Japan Denmark Netherlands Norway Belgium Poland Estonia United States Ireland 500 Hungary Iceland Germany France Chinese Taipei Portugal Greece United Kingdom OECD average Italy 480 Slovenia Macao-China Slovak Republic Spain Czech Republic Luxembourg Israel Turkey Austria 460 Russian Federation Chile 440 Mexico 420 Below-average reading performance Below-average reading performance average OECD Above-average impact of socio-economic Brazil Below-average impact of socio-economic background background 400 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Percentage of variance in performance explained by the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (r-squared x 100)
  3. 3. % 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Shanghai-China Hong Kong-China Korea Macao-China Singapore Finland Japan Turkey Canada Portugal Chinese Taipei Poland New Zealand Spain Liechtenstein Estonia Netherlands among disadvantaged students More than 30% resilient students Italy Switzerland Latvia Australia OECD average France Belgium Ireland Iceland Mexico United States Greece Thailand Croatia Tunisia Norway social background) Hungary Sweden Slovenia Indonesia Denmark Chile United Kingdom Israel disadvantaged students Colombia Resilient student: Comes from the bottom quarter of the Germany top quarter of students internationally (after accounting for Brazil socially most disadvantaged students but performs among the Czech Republic Slovak Republic Luxembourg Between 15%-30% of resilient students among Lithuania Austria Russian Federation among disadvantaged studentsTrinidad and Tobago Percentage of resilient students Uruguay Serbia Jordan Albania Argentina Dubai (UAE) Romania Bulgaria Panama Montenegro Kazakhstan Peru students among Azerbaijan Less than 15% resilient Qatar disadvantaged students Kyrgyzstan
  4. 4. 400 550 600 350 500 450 300 Shanghai-China Korea Hong Kong-China Singapore Canada New Zealand Japan Australia Belgium Poland United States Germany Ireland Chinese Taipei Denmark United Kingdom Hungary Student performance in large cities Portugal Student performance (PISA reading) Italy Slovenia Greece Spain Czech Republic Israel Austria Turkey Dubai (UAE)Russian Federation Chile Mexico Colombia Brazil The world looks very different… Indonesia Argentina Student performance in large cities after accounting for social background Kazakhstan Qatar
  5. 5. 400 550 600 350 500 450 300 Shanghai-China Canada Korea Japan Poland Hong Kong-China Australia Israel Singapore Portugal Czech Republic Spain New Zealand Hungary Chinese Taipei GermanyRussian Federation Student performance in large cities Italy Greece Ireland Dubai (UAE) Denmark United Kingdom United States Belgium Slovenia Turkey Mexico Austria Qatar Chile Colombia The world looks very different… Argentina Kazakhstan Student performance in large cities after accounting for social background Brazil Indonesia
  6. 6. Reducing school failure pays off It limits capacity ofEducation economies to grow andfailure innovateimposeshigh coststo individuals Damages social cohesion andand to mobility and is expensive: Higher public health expendituressociety Higher welfare, increased criminality .. and the current crisis has brought equity to the forefront
  7. 7. Increased likelihood of postsecondary participation 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)Odds ratiohigher 20education entry 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Age 19 0 Age 21 Level 5 Age 21 Level 4 Level 3 Level 2
  8. 8. bn$ 4000 6000 8000 2000 10000 12000 14000 0 United States Mexico Turkey Germany Italy Japan France SpainUnited Kingdom Poland Canada Greece Korea Australia Portugal Belgium Netherlands Norway Sweden AustriaCzech Republic Switzerland Hungary Denmark scored a minimum of 400 PISA points IrelandSlovak Republic New Zealand Potential increase in economic output if everyone Luxembourg Finland Iceland
  9. 9. Policies to achieve more equitable education systems and reduce dropout Invest early and through upper secondary Eliminate Support low system level performing obstacles to disadvantaged equity schools
  10. 10. R R E Policies and practices Policies System School Equity Learning climate Discipline  Teacher behaviour  Parental pressure  Teacher-student relationships  Policy Dealing with heterogeneity Grade repetition    influences Prevalence of  tracking measured Expulsions    Ability grouping  through PISA (all subjects)  Standards /accountability Nat. examination  Standardised tests  Posting results  Governing schools School autonomy  (content)  Choice and  competition  Private schools  Managing resources Prioritising pay  Student-staff ratios  Length of pre-school 
  11. 11. Manage school choice Choice Opt for higher quality schools, and might foster efficiency, spur innovation and raise quality overall. Choice can result in a greater sorting andsegregation of students byability, income and ethnic background. Equity
  12. 12. Percentage of students 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 TurkeyRussian Federation Iceland New Zealand Slovenia Poland United Kingdom United States Brazil Greece Norway Czech Republic Bottom quarter Estonia Mexico Germany Finland OECD average Canada Second quarter Switzerland Italy Sweden Austria Shanghai-China Third quarter Slovak Republic Hungary Portugal Israel Denmark Top quarter Spain Luxembourg Japan Percentage of students attending privately managed schools by ESCS Australia Korea Chile Ireland Netherlands Hong Kong-China Stratification between public and private schools Macao-China
  13. 13. Policy options to manage school choiceIntroduce controlled choice programmes balancing choicewith equity• In Cambridge (United States) a choice programme ranks the preferred schools and reviews and allocates students centrally, taking diversity criteria into consideration.Ensure that disadvantaged students are attractive to highquality schools• Providing financial incentives to schools to enrol low performing and disadvantaged students.• Limiting the selection mechanisms that schools can employ (criteria for admission, time of registration, additional fees).• Providing vouchers or tax credits to make high quality schools affordable.Level the playing field for disadvantaged students• Raising awareness, improving disadvantaged families’ access to information about schools and supporting them to make better-informed choices.• Milwaukee (United States) set up an extensive programme to inform parents and help them in the choice process. As a result of all these actions, 95% of families filled in their school choice forms.
  14. 14. Make funding more responsive to needs Provide sufficient resources to improve the quality Take into of early childhood consideration that education and the instructional care and promote costs of access, in disadvantaged particular for students may be disadvantaged higher families In Ontario (Canada), low-In the United States, only 45% income families, recentof 3-to-5-year-olds from low- immigration, students withincome families are enrolled in low educated parents, andpre-school single parent groups areprogrammes, compared to taken into account in thealmost 75% from high-income distribution of funds tofamilies school boards
  15. 15. Score point difference 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 Israel Singapore Belgium Macao-China Italy France Hong Kong-China Switzerland Denmark United Kingdom Greece Shanghai-China Germany Spain New Zealand socio-economic factors Australia Slovak Republic Observed performance advantage Sweden Brazil Hungary Performance advantage after accounting for Luxembourg Mexico Canada OECD average Chinese Taipei Poland Iceland Czech Republic Japan Austria NorwayRussian Federation Portugal Chile United States Turkey Netherlands pre-primary school for more than one year and those who did not Ireland Slovenia Performance difference in PISA 2009 between students who had attended Finland Korea Estonia
  16. 16. Percentage of students 0 10 20 30 50 70 80 40 60 Korea Japan Shanghai-China SingaporeRussian Federation Greece Estonia Chinese Taipei Israel Mexico Hong Kong-China Brazil Macao-China Turkey Italy Poland Portugal Spain Four hours a week or more France Norway OECD average Slovenia Czech Republic Hungary United Kingdom Chile by hours per week Denmark Luxembourg Slovak Republic Germany Less than 4 hours a week Belgium Switzerland Iceland United States Ireland Australia Canada Netherlands Austria New Zealand Percentage of students attending after-school lessons, Sweden Finland
  17. 17. Upper secondary pathways:promote more work-oriented skills More skilled and better labour-market outcomes Provide a mix of academic and technical skills for those struggling with school and more academic learning.Design highquality andrelevant VETprogrammes
  18. 18. Upper secondary pathways: promote more work-oriented skills Academic andvocational tracks Guidance and should be counselling services need toequivalent engage more to ensure fully with thetransferability and avoid dead ends VET should world of provide high level work generic skills in addition to professional ones
  19. 19. The relationship between school average socio-economic background and school resources Belgium Italy Ireland Spain Estonia Iceland Portugal Japan Netherlands Korea Russian Federation Germany Luxembourg Denmark Greece Socio-economically Norway Macao-China advantaged schools OECD average (benchmark) Sweden have more favourable student- New Zealand teacher ratios Canada Finland Czech Republic Switzerland Mexico Hong Kong-China Hungary Poland Slovak Republic Chile Austria Chinese Taipei Socio-economically Australia United Kingdomdisadvantaged schools Shanghai-China Singapore have more favourable United States Brazilstudent-teacher ratios Israel Slovenia Turkey -0.50 -0.30 -0.10 0.10 0.30 0.50 0.70
  20. 20. Support low performing disadvantaged schools • Initial school leadership training; attractive working School leadership conditions to attract and retain competent leaders • Restructure schools when needed • School plans to prioritise school climate and positive relationships, discipline alone not effective School climate • Monitoring and data for intervention • Alternative organisation of distribution of learning time • Provide specialised initial teacher education Quality teaching • Ensure incentives and working conditions, time for planning, working together, mentoring • Support culture of high expectations • Provide teacher support on how to tailorClassroom strategies instruction, assessment and curricular practices to needs of disadvantaged schools and students Parental and • Need to prioritise with select communication strategies community • Provide guidelines to parents on their role engagement • Foster closer links with communities and mentors
  21. 21. Examples of systemic support to schoolsQuébec “Act Ontario Focused Shanghai-Chinadifferently”: Intervention Program Converting “weaker• Database of effective (OFIP, 2006/07-): schools” into stronger practices for intervention • Targeted support to ones: to develop schools’ primary schools with • systematically upgrading expertise (189 schools in improvement difficulties. the infrastructure 2007/08). • Funds for PD, additional • more resources• School boards, through learning disadvantaged resources and resources, literacy and schools, including high- coordination, support the numeracy coaches, and school leadership team. teacher release time for performing teachers collaboration and training. • pairing high and low • Results 2002/03- 2010/11: performing districts and schools with fewer 1/3 low schools achievers went from 19% • commissioning “strong” to 6%. public schools to take over “weak” ones PRT CAN
  22. 22. Disadvantaged schools difficulties in attracting and retaining teachers • Teachers in schools • Rural schools with • School leaders report with higher higher proportions of that it is difficult to proportions of low- aboriginal students recruit and retain SES or minority are seen as less teachers to work in students have higher desirable, making it schools with children propensity to leave. harder to recruit and born abroad. retain teachers. United Australia Japan StatesFN • Teachers in schools • Schools with higher • Better qualified with higher levels of minority teachers are less proportions of low students harder to likely to teach in socio-economic staff and teachers schools containing status students have are significantly more minority and higher propensity to likely to leave. disadvantaged leave. children. New Norway France Zealand
  23. 23. Attract, support and retain high quality teachers Align teacher education Adequate High Mentoring financial and career quality for novice teachers teachers incentivesSIN Supportive working conditions
  24. 24. For more information For further information at OECD Education:POL Andreas Schleicher, Deputy Director: Beatriz Pont,