trends in learning outcomes - world...
TRANSCRIPT
Trends in Learning OutcomesAndreas Schleicher, Jakarta, March 2017
PISA in brief - 2015
In 2015, over half a million students…- representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 72 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- Total of 390 minutes of assessment material
… and responded to questions on…- their personal background, their schools, their well-being and their motivation
Parents, principals, teachers and system leaders provided data on:- school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences- 89,000 parents, 93,000 teachers and 17,500 principals responded
PISA 2015
OECD
Partners
Trends in science performance (PISA)
2006 2009 2012 2015
OECD
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
OECD average
Stu
de
nt
pe
rfo
rma
nc
e
Trends in science performance (PISA)
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
2006 2009 2012 2015
OECD average
SingaporeJapan
EstoniaChinese Tapei FinlandMacao (China)
CanadaViet Nam
Hong Kong (China)B-S-J-G (China) KoreaNew ZealandSlovenia
AustraliaUnited KingdomGermany
Netherlands
SwitzerlandIreland
Belgium DenmarkPolandPortugal NorwayUnited StatesAustriaFranceSweden
Czech Rep.Spain Latvia
RussiaLuxembourg Italy
Hungary LithuaniaCroatia IcelandIsraelMalta
Slovak Rep.
GreeceChile
Bulgaria
United Arab EmiratesUruguay
Romania
Moldova Turkey
Trinidad and Tobago ThailandCosta Rica QatarColombia MexicoMontenegroJordan
Indonesia BrazilPeru
Lebanon
Tunisia
FYROMKosovo
Algeria
Dominican Rep. (332)
350
400
450
500
550
Me
an
sc
ien
ce
pe
rfo
rma
nc
e
Hig
he
r p
erf
om
an
ce
Science performance and equity in PISA (2015)
Some countries
combine excellence
with equity
High performance
High equity
Low performance
Low equity
Low performance
High equity
High performance
Low equity
More equity
200
300
400
500
600
700
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
PISA index of economic, social and cultural status
Public schools
Private schools
Bel
ow
1
bLe
vel
1b
Leve
l 1
aLe
vel
2Le
vel
3Le
vel
4Le
vel
5Le
v 6
Relationship between school performance and schools’ socio-economic profile:
Indonesia
Sco
re p
oin
ts
200
300
400
500
600
700
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
PISA index of economic, social and cultural status
Public schools
Private schools
Bel
ow
1
bLe
vel
1b
Leve
l 1
aLe
vel
2Le
vel
3Le
vel
4Le
vel
5Le
v 6
Sco
re p
oin
ts
Viet Nam: School performance and schools’ socio-economic profile
200
300
400
500
600
700
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
PISA index of economic, social and cultural status
Public schools
Private schools
Bel
ow
1
bLe
vel
1b
Leve
l 1
aLe
vel
2Le
vel
3Le
vel
4Le
vel
5Le
v 6
Relationship between school performance and schools’ socio-economic profile:
Indonesia
Sco
re p
oin
ts
Poverty is not destiny - Science performanceby international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)
280
330
380
430
480
530
580
630D
om
inic
an R
ep
ub
lic 4
0A
lge
ria 5
2K
oso
vo
10
Qa
tar
3F
YR
OM
13
Tu
nis
ia 3
9M
on
ten
eg
ro 1
1Jord
an 2
1U
nite
d A
rab
Em
ira
tes 3
Ge
org
ia 1
9L
eb
an
on
27
Indo
nesia
74
Me
xic
o 5
3P
eru
50
Co
sta
Ric
a 3
8B
razil
43
Tu
rke
y 5
9M
old
ova 2
8T
haila
nd
55
Co
lom
bia
43
Ice
lan
d 1
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
14
Ro
ma
nia
20
Isra
el 6
Bu
lga
ria
13
Gre
ece
13
Russia
5U
rug
ua
y 3
9C
hile
27
Latv
ia 2
5L
ith
uan
ia 1
2S
lova
k R
ep
ub
lic 8
Italy
15
No
rwa
y 1
Sp
ain
31
Hun
ga
ry 1
6C
roa
tia
10
De
nm
ark
3O
EC
D a
vera
ge
12
Sw
ed
en
3M
alta 1
3U
nite
d S
tate
s 1
1M
acao
(C
hin
a)
22
Ire
lan
d 5
Au
str
ia 5
Po
rtug
al 2
8L
uxe
mb
ourg
14
Hon
g K
on
g (
Ch
ina
) 2
6C
zech
Rep
ublic
9P
ola
nd
16
Au
str
alia
4U
nite
d K
ing
do
m 5
Can
ad
a 2
Fra
nce 9
Ko
rea
6N
ew
Zea
land
5S
witze
rlan
d 8
Neth
erl
an
ds 4
Slo
ve
nia
5B
elg
ium
7F
inla
nd
2E
sto
nia
5V
iet
Na
m 7
6G
erm
an
y 7
Jap
an 8
Chin
ese
Ta
ipe
i 1
2B
-S-J
-G (
Chin
a)
52
Sin
ga
pore
11
Score
poin
ts
Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile
Figure I.6.7
% of students
in the bottom
international
deciles of
ESCS
OECD median student
The global pool of top performers: A PISA perspectiveFigure I.2.18
United States (8.5%); 300k
B-S-J-G (China) (13.6%); 181k
Japan (15.3%); 174k
Germany (10.6%); 79k
Viet Nam (8.3%); 72k
United Kingdom (10.9%); 68k
Korea (10.6%); 60k
France (8.0%); 59k
Russia (3.7%); 42k
Canada (12.4%); 41k
Chinese Taipei (15.4%); 39k
Australia (11.2%);
Poland (7.3%);
Netherlands (11.1%)
Italy (4.1%)
Spain (5.0%)Brazil (0.7%)
Singapore (24.2%)
Belgium (9.0%)
Finland (14.3%)
Switzerland (9.8%)
Sweden (8.5%)
Portugal (7.4%)
New Zealand (12.8%)
Israel (5.9%)
Others
Share of top performers among 15-year-old students:
Less than 1%1 to 2.5%2.5 to 5% 5% to 7.5% 7.5% to 10%10% to 12.5% 12.5% to 15%More than 15%
Students expecting a career in scienceFigure I.3.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Do
min
ican
Rep
. 1
2C
osta
Ric
a 1
1Jord
an
6U
nite
d A
rab E
m.
11
Me
xic
o
6C
olo
mbia
8Le
ban
on
15
Bra
zil
19
Peru
7Q
ata
r 19
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
13
Ch
ile 1
8T
un
isia
1
9C
anad
a 2
1S
loven
ia 1
6T
urk
ey 6
Austr
alia
1
5U
nite
d K
ing
dom
1
7M
ala
ysia
4
Kazakhsta
n
14
Spain
1
1N
orw
ay
21
Uru
guay 1
7S
ing
apo
re 1
4T
rin
ida
d a
nd T
. 13
Isra
el 2
5C
AB
A (
Arg
.)
19
Port
ug
al 18
Bulg
aria
2
5Ir
ela
nd
1
3K
osovo
7A
lge
ria
12
Ma
lta
1
1G
reece
12
Ne
w Z
eala
nd 2
4A
lba
nia
2
9E
sto
nia
1
5O
EC
D a
vera
ge 1
9B
elg
ium
1
6C
roa
tia
1
7F
YR
OM
2
0Lithu
ania
2
1Ic
ela
nd
2
2R
ussia
1
9H
KG
(C
hin
a)
2
0R
om
an
ia
20
Ita
ly 1
7A
ustr
ia
23
Mo
ldova
7La
tvia
1
9M
onte
neg
ro 1
8F
rance
21
Lu
xe
mbo
urg
1
8P
ola
nd
13
Ma
ca
o (
Ch
ina
) 10
Ch
ine
se
Taip
ei 2
1S
wede
n 2
1T
ha
iland
2
7V
iet
Nam
1
3S
witzerl
and
2
2K
ore
a
7
Hu
nga
ry 2
2S
lovak R
epub
lic
24
Japa
n 1
8F
inla
nd
24
Geo
rgia
2
7C
zech R
epu
blic
2
2B
-S-J
-G (
Chin
a)
31
Ne
therl
and
s
19
Germ
any 3
3In
don
esia
1
9D
enm
ark
4
8
%Percentage of students who expect to work in science-related professional and technical occupations when they are 30
Science-related technicians and associate professionals
Information and communication technology professionals
Health professionals
Science and engineering professionals
% o
f st
ud
ents
wit
hva
gu
e o
r m
issi
ng
exp
ecta
tio
ns
SingaporeCanadaSloveniaAustralia
United KingdomIreland
Portugal
Chinese TaipeiHong Kong (China)
New ZealandDenmark
JapanEstoniaFinland
Macao (China)Viet Nam
B-S-J-G (China)Korea
GermanyNetherlandsSwitzerland
BelgiumPoland
SwedenLithuaniaCroatiaIcelandGeorgiaMalta
United StatesSpainIsrael
United Arab Emirates
BrazilBulgaria
ChileColombiaCosta Rica
Dominican RepublicJordanKosovo
LebanonMexico
PeruQatar
Trinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkey
Uruguay
Above-average science performance
Stronger than average beliefs in science
Above-average percentage of students expecting to work in a science-related occupation
Norway
Multip
le o
utc
om
es
0
10
20
30
40
50
300 400 500 600 700
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
stu
de
nts
ex
pe
cti
ng
a
ca
ree
r in
sc
ien
ce
Score points in science
Low enjoyment of science
High enjoyment of science
Students expecting a career in scienceby performance and enjoyment of learning
Figure I.3.17
Lessons f
rom
PIS
A
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Lessons f
rom
PIS
A
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, instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentive structures and accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
Lessons f
rom
PIS
A
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, instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentive structures and accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
A commitment to education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve
Universal educational standards and personalization as the approach to engage with diversity…
… 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
-0.60
-0.50
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Bulg
aria
Qata
rC
anad
aT
urk
ey
Peru
Mo
nte
neg
roU
nite
d K
ing
dom
Port
ug
al
Geo
rgia
Me
xic
oU
nite
d S
tate
sLithu
ania
Icela
nd
No
rwa
yC
hin
ese
Taip
ei
Tha
iland
Bra
zil
Le
ban
on
Pola
nd
Ita
lyT
rin
ida
d a
nd T
obag
oS
ing
apo
reC
zech R
epu
blic
Cro
atia
Mo
ldova
De
nm
ark
Slo
ven
iaA
ustr
alia
Irela
nd
Sw
ede
nU
rug
uay
Isra
el
OE
CD
avera
ge
Alb
ania
Ru
ssia
La
tvia
B-S
-J-G
(C
hin
a)
Germ
any
Kore
aLu
xe
mbo
urg
Ne
w Z
eala
nd
Ma
ca
o (
Ch
ina
)E
sto
nia
Gre
ece
Fin
land
Cypru
sC
olo
mbia
Hu
nga
ryF
YR
OM
Slo
vak R
epub
licH
ong K
on
g (
Chin
a)
Tu
nis
iaN
eth
erl
and
sM
alta
Ch
ileB
elg
ium
Co
sta
Ric
aF
rance
Spain
Alg
eria
Sw
itzerl
and
Austr
iaR
om
an
iaV
iet
Nam
Kosovo
Japa
nIn
don
esia
Ind
ex p
oin
ts s
elf-e
ffic
acy
Average students
Students’ self-efficacy in science and
science performance
Score-point difference associated with one-unit increase in the index of self-efficacy
CABA (Argentina)
Costa Rica
Sweden
Bulgaria Romania
VietNam
Uruguay
United States
Norway
Chile
Hungary
B-S-J-G(China)
Turkey
Mexico
Portugal
Iceland
Korea
Albania
Japan
Trinidad and Tobago
UAEAlgeria Ireland
Indonesia
NewZealand
Colombia
Peru
Macao (China) Spain
Switzerland
Lebanon
Netherlands
SlovakRepublic
UK
Slovenia
Brazil
Kosovo
Finland
Thailand
LatviaR² = 0.20
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Soci
o-e
con
om
ic in
clu
sio
n a
cro
ss s
cho
ols
Academic inclusion across schools (%)
OECD average
OEC
D
aver
age
Academic and social inclusion across schoolsFigure II.5.12
First age at selection in the education system and
index of teacher support in science lessons
Figure II.3.11
10
Austria
Belgium
84
Czech Republic
Demark
Estonia
12
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
5
Ireland
Israel
ItalyJapan
Korea Latvia
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
9
Norwy
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey11
3
Albania
Brazil
B-S-G-J (China)
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Dominican Rep.
FYROM
Georgia
Hong Kong
Indonesia
1
Lithuania
Macao (China)
7
Montenegro
2
6
Romania
Russia
Singapore
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Viet Nam
R² = 0.36
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Ind
ex o
f te
ach
er
su
pp
ort
in
scie
nce l
esso
ns
First age at selection in the education system
1. Jordan
2. Peru
3. United States
4. Chile
5. Iceland
6. Qatar
7. Malta
8. Canada
9. New Zealand
10. Australia
11. United Kingdom
12. Finland
In education systems with early tracking students are less likely to report that their science teachers support students
in their learning
Grade repetition
Favour additional support to struggling students over grade repetition
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Co
lom
bia
Bra
zil
Uru
guay
Tun
isia
Belg
ium
Ma
ca
o (
Ch
ina
)T
rin
ida
d a
nd T
obag
oC
osta
Ric
aS
pain
Port
ug
al
Lu
xe
mbo
urg
Peru
Ch
ileF
rance
Ne
therl
and
sS
witzerl
and
Germ
any
Qata
rH
ong K
on
g (
Chin
a)
Indon
esia
Me
xic
oA
ustr
iaIt
aly
Un
ite
d A
rab E
mira
tes
OE
CD
avera
ge
Un
ite
d S
tate
sT
urk
ey
Hu
nga
ryIs
rael
Jord
an
Irela
nd
Austr
alia
Ma
lta
Slo
vak R
epub
licT
ha
iland
Ro
man
iaC
anad
aS
ing
apo
reP
ola
nd
La
tvia
Gre
ece
Ne
w Z
eala
nd
Bulg
aria
Czech R
epu
blic
Sw
ede
nE
sto
nia
De
nm
ark
Mo
ldova
Fin
land
Un
ite
d K
ing
dom
Alb
ania
Lithu
ania
Slo
ven
iaM
onte
neg
roC
roa
tia
Ru
ssia
Geo
rgia
Icela
nd
Ch
ine
se
Taip
ei
% PISA 2015 PISA 2009
Change between 2009 and 2015 in grade repetition rates
Figure II.5.5
Increased likelihood of grade repetitionby students’ socio-economic status
Figure I.6.15
0123456789
101112131415
Spain
Slo
vak R
epub
licV
iet
Nam
CA
BA
(A
rgentina
)U
rug
uay
Port
ug
al
Alg
eria
Tun
isia
Co
sta
Ric
aU
nite
d S
tate
sC
anad
aM
aca
o (
Ch
ina
)B
elg
ium
Gre
ece
Ru
ssia
Fra
nce
B-S
-J-G
(C
hin
a)
Ita
lyIs
rael
La
tvia
Pola
nd
Indon
esia
Slo
ven
iaC
zech R
epu
blic
Cro
atia
OE
CD
avera
ge
Hu
nga
ryLe
ban
on
Ro
man
iaIr
ela
nd
Lu
xe
mbo
urg
Ho
ng K
on
g (
Chin
a)
Esto
nia
Do
min
ican
Rep
ublic
De
nm
ark
Me
xic
oU
nite
d A
rab E
mira
tes
Bulg
aria
Peru
Trin
ida
d a
nd T
obag
oLithu
ania
Geo
rgia
Qata
rS
wede
nN
eth
erl
and
sS
witzerl
and
Bra
zil
Germ
any
Austr
iaT
urk
ey
Un
ite
d K
ing
dom
Fin
land
Ne
w Z
eala
nd
Austr
alia
Jord
an
Ch
ileM
onte
neg
roIc
ela
nd
Mo
ldova
Kosovo
Co
lom
bia
Tha
iland
Ch
ine
se
Taip
ei
Kore
aF
YR
OM
Ma
lta
Sin
gapo
reU
nite
d K
ing
dom
La
tvia
Odds ratio After accounting for performance in science and reading
Before accounting for performance in science and reading
Disadvantaged students are more likel
y to have repeated a grade than advan
taged students
Disadvantaged students are less
likely to have repeated a grade
Fir
st a
ge
at
se
lection
in
the
ed
ucatio
n s
yste
m
Recom
me
nd
ation
of
fee
der
sch
ools
alw
ays
co
nsid
ere
d f
or
scho
ol
adm
issio
ns
Stu
de
nt’s r
eco
rd o
f a
ca
de
mic
pe
rfo
rma
nce
alw
ays c
on
sid
ere
d fo
r sch
oo
l a
dm
issio
n
Perc
en
tag
e o
f stu
den
tsin
voca
tio
na
l or
pre
-vo
catio
nal p
rogra
mm
es
Me
an s
co
re in s
cie
nce
Nu
mber
of
scho
ol ty
pe
so
r ed
ucatio
na
lp
rogra
mm
es
Abili
ty g
rou
pin
gb
etw
ee
n c
lasses f
or
all
su
bje
cts
Vari
atio
n in s
cie
nce
perf
orm
an
ce
Gra
de
re
pe
titio
n (
at
least
once
)
-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.10.00.10.20.30.40.5
Sta
nd
ard
ise
d r
egre
ssio
n c
oe
ffic
ien
tsFactors associated with equity in science performance
Figure II.5.13
More equity in science performance
Less equity in science performance
Lessons f
rom
PIS
A
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, instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentive structures and accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
Investing resources where they can make mostof 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
Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and
science performance
Figure II.6.2
Luxembourg
SwitzerlandNorwayAustria
Singapore
United States
United Kingdom
Malta
Sweden
Belgium
Iceland
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
JapanSlovenia
Australia
Germany
IrelandFranceItaly
Portugal
New Zealand
Korea Spain
PolandIsrael
Estonia
Czech Rep.
LatviaSlovak Rep.
Russia
CroatiaLithuania
HungaryCosta Rica
Chinese Taipei
Chile
Brazil
Turkey
UruguayBulgaria
Mexico
Thailand MontenegroColombia
Dominican Republic
Peru
Georgia
11.7, 411
R² = 0.01
R² = 0.41
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Scie
nce p
erf
orm
an
ce (
sco
re p
oin
ts)
Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)
Differences in educational resourcesbetween advantaged and disadvantaged schools
Figure I.6.14
-3
-2
-2
-1
-1
0
1
1
CA
BA
(A
rgentina
)M
exic
oP
eru
Ma
ca
o (
Ch
ina
)U
nite
d A
rab E
mira
tes
Le
ban
on
Jord
an
Co
lom
bia
Bra
zil
Indon
esia
Turk
ey
Spain
Do
min
ican
Rep
ublic
Geo
rgia
Uru
guay
Tha
iland
B-S
-J-G
(C
hin
a)
Austr
alia
Japa
nC
hile
Lu
xe
mbo
urg
Ru
ssia
Port
ug
al
Ma
lta
Ita
lyN
ew
Zeala
nd
Cro
atia
Ire
land
Alg
eria
No
rwa
yIs
rael
De
nm
ark
Sw
ede
nU
nite
d S
tate
sM
old
ova
Belg
ium
Slo
ven
iaO
EC
D a
vera
ge
Hu
nga
ryC
hin
ese
Taip
ei
Vie
t N
am
Czech R
epu
blic
Sin
gapo
reT
un
isia
Gre
ece
Trin
ida
d a
nd T
obag
oC
anad
aR
om
an
iaQ
ata
rM
onte
neg
roK
osovo
Ne
therl
and
sK
ore
aF
inla
nd
Sw
itzerl
and
Germ
any
Ho
ng K
on
g (
Chin
a)
Austr
iaF
YR
OM
Pola
nd
Alb
ania
Bulg
aria
Slo
vak R
epub
licLithu
ania
Esto
nia
Icela
nd
Co
sta
Ric
aU
nite
d K
ing
dom
La
tvia
Me
an
in
de
x d
iffe
ren
ce
betw
een
ad
va
nta
ge
d
and
dis
adva
nta
ge
d s
ch
oo
ls
Index of shortage of educational material Index of shortage of educational staff
Disadvantaged schools have more
resources than advantaged schools
Disadvantaged schools have fewer
resources than advantaged schools
Starting strong
0
1
2
3
4
5
Swed
en
Esto
nia
Ru
ssia
Latv
ia
Bu
lgar
ia
Icel
and
No
rway
Hu
nga
ry
Den
mar
k
Fin
lan
d
Sin
gap
ore
Isra
el
Bel
giu
m
Ho
ng
Ko
ng
(Ch
ina)
Spai
n
Slo
vak
Rep
ub
lic
Uru
guay
Fran
ce
Mac
ao (
Ch
ina)
Bra
zil
B-S
-J-G
(C
hin
a)
Jap
an
Ger
man
y
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Lith
uan
ia
Slo
ven
ia
Thai
lan
d
Au
stri
a
Cro
atia
Ital
y
Ch
ines
e Ta
ipei
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Po
lan
d
Pe
ru
Ko
rea
Mex
ico
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Gre
ece
Mo
nte
neg
ro
Do
min
ican
Rep
ub
lic
New
Zea
lan
d
Un
ite
d K
ingd
om
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Swit
zerl
and
Co
sta
Ric
a
Qat
ar
Un
ite
d A
rab
Em
irat
es
Co
lom
bia
Au
stra
lia
Can
ada
Ch
ile
Irel
and
Tun
isia
Po
rtu
gal
Turk
ey
Year
s
Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools
Number of years in pre-primary education among students attending socio-economically …
Attendance at pre-primary school by schools’ socio-economic profile
Table II.6.51
OECD average
Lessons f
rom
PIS
A
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, instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentive structures and accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
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 …
The ‘productivity’ puzzle
Making learning time productive so that students can build their academic, social and emotional
skills in a balanced way
Learning time and science performanceFigure II.6.23
Finland
Germany Switzerland
Japan Estonia
Sweden
NetherlandsNew Zealand
Macao(China)
Iceland
Hong Kong(China) Chinese Taipei
Uruguay
Singapore
PolandUnited States
Israel
Bulgaria
Korea
Russia Italy
Greece
B-S-J-G (China)
Colombia
Chile
Mexico
Brazil
CostaRica
Turkey
MontenegroPeru
QatarThailand
UnitedArab
Emirates
Tunisia
Dominican Republic
R² = 0.21
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
35 40 45 50 55 60
PIS
A s
cie
nce s
co
re
Total learning time in and outside of school
OECD average
OECD average
OE
CD
ave
rage
Learning time and science performanceFigure II.6.23
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Fin
land
Germ
any
Sw
itzerl
and
Japa
nE
sto
nia
Sw
ede
nN
eth
erl
and
sN
ew
Zeala
nd
Austr
alia
Czech R
epu
blic
Ma
ca
o (
Ch
ina
)U
nite
d K
ing
dom
Ca
nad
aB
elg
ium
Fra
nce
No
rwa
yS
loven
iaIc
ela
nd
Lu
xe
mbo
urg
Irela
nd
La
tvia
Ho
ng K
on
g (
Chin
a)
OE
CD
avera
ge
Ch
ine
se
Taip
ei
Austr
iaP
ort
ug
al
Uru
guay
Lithu
ania
Sin
gapo
reD
enm
ark
Hu
nga
ryP
ola
nd
Slo
vak R
epub
licS
pain
Cro
atia
Un
ite
d S
tate
sIs
rael
Bulg
aria
Kore
aR
ussia
Ita
lyG
reece
B-S
-J-G
(C
hin
a)
Co
lom
bia
Ch
ileM
exic
oB
razil
Co
sta
Ric
aT
urk
ey
Mo
nte
neg
roP
eru
Qata
rT
ha
iland
Un
ite
d A
rab E
mira
tes
Tun
isia
Do
min
ican
Rep
ublic
Score
poin
ts in s
cie
nce p
er
hour
of to
tal le
arn
ing t
ime
Hours Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time
Developing Teaching
as a profession
Recruit top candidates into the profession
Support teachers in continued
development of practice
Retain and recognise effective teachers –path for growth
Improve the
societal view of
teaching as a
profession
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after acc
ounting for socio-economic status3
5
Implementing highly effective teacher policy and practice
Mean mathematics performance, by school location,
after accounting for socio-economic status36
Teachers' perceptions of the value of teaching in society
Percentage of lower secondary education teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that teaching is a
valued profession in society
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mala
ysia
Sin
gapore
Kore
a
Abu D
habi (U
nited A
rab…
Finla
nd
Mexi
co
Alb
erta (Canada)
Flanders
(Belg
ium
)
Neth
erlands
Aust
ralia
Engla
nd (U
nited K
ingdom
)
Rom
ania
Isra
el
United S
tate
s
Chile
Ave
rage
Norw
ay
Japan
Latv
ia
Serb
ia
Bulg
aria
Denm
ark
Pola
nd
Icela
nd
Est
onia
Bra
zil
Italy
Cze
ch R
epublic
Portugal
Cro
atia
Spain
Sw
eden
France
Slo
vak R
epublic
Perc
enta
ge o
f te
ach
ers
Items are ranked in descending order, based on the percentage of teachers who strongly agree or agree that teaching is a valued profession in society.
Mean mathematics performance, by school location,
after accounting for socio-economic statusFig II.3.33
7
Relationship between the perceived value of the teaching
profession and the share of PISA top performers (math)
Relationship between lower secondary education teachers' views on the value of their profession in society and the
share of top mathematics performers in PISA 2012
Australia
Brazil
BulgariaChile
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia FinlandFrance
IcelandIsrael
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
RomaniaSerbia
Singapore
Slovak Republic
SpainSweden
Alberta (Canada)
England (United
Kingdom)
Flanders (Belgium)
United States
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Share
of
math
em
atics
top p
erf
orm
ers
Percentage of teachers who agree that teaching is valued in society
External forces
exerting pressure and
influence inward on
an occupation
Internal motivation and
efforts of the members
of the profession itself
38 Professionalism
Professionalism is the level of autonomy and internal regulation exercised by members of an
occupation in providing services to society
Policy levers to teacher professionalism
Knowledge base for teaching (initial education and incentives for professional development)
Autonomy: Teachers’ decision-making power over their work (teaching content, course offerings, discipline practices)
Peer networks: Opportunities for exchange and support needed to maintain high standards of teaching (participation in induction,
mentoring, networks, feedback from direct observations)
Teacher
professionalism
Teacher professionalism
Autonomy: Teachers’ decision-making power over their work (teaching content, course offerings, discipline practices)
Knowledge base for teaching (initial education and incentives for professional development)
Peer networks: Opportunities for exchange and support needed to maintain high standards of teaching (participation in induction,
mentoring, networks, feedback from direct observations)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10S
pain
Ja
pa
n
Fra
nce
Bra
zil
Fin
land
Fla
nd
ers
No
rway
Alb
ert
a (
Canada)
Au
str
alia
De
nm
ark
Isra
el
Ko
rea
United S
tate
s
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Sh
an
gh
ai (C
hin
a)
Latv
ia
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Po
lan
d
En
gla
nd
Ne
w Z
ea
land
Sin
ga
po
re
Esto
nia
Networks Autonomy Knowledge
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.34141 TALIS Teacher professionalism index
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Discu
ss indiv
idual
students
Share
reso
urc
es
Team
confe
rence
s
Colla
bora
te for
com
mon
standard
s
Team
teach
ing
Colla
bora
tive
PD
Join
t act
ivitie
s
Cla
ssro
om
obse
rvations
Perc
enta
ge o
f te
ach
ers
Shanghai Estonia
Professional collaboration
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report doing the following activities at least once per month
Teacher co-operation
Exchange and co-ordination
Teachers Self-Efficacy and Professional Collaboration
11.40
11.60
11.80
12.00
12.20
12.40
12.60
12.80
13.00
13.20
13.40
Never
Once
a y
ear
or
less
2-4
tim
es
a y
ear
5-1
0 t
imes
a y
ear
1-3
tim
es
a m
onth
Once
a w
eek o
r m
ore
Teach
er
self-e
ffic
acy
(le
vel)
Teach jointly as a team in the same class
Observe other teachers’ classes and provide feedback
Engage in joint activities across different classes
Take part in collaborative professional learning
Less frequently
Morefrequently
Student-teacher ratios and class sizeFigure II.6.14
CABA (Argentina)
Jordan
Viet Nam
Poland
United States
Chile
Denmark
Hungary
B-S-G-J(China)
Turkey
Georgia
ChineseTaipei
Mexico
Russia
Albania
Hong Kong(China)
Japan
Belgium
Algeria
Colombia
Peru
Macao(China)
Switzerland
Malta
Dominican Republic
Netherlands
Singapore
Brazil
Kosovo
Finland
Thailand
R² = 0.25
5
10
15
20
25
30
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Stu
den
t-te
ach
er
rati
o
Class size in language of instruction
High student-teacher ratios
and small class sizes
Low student-teacher ratios
and large class sizes
OECD
average
OE
CD
ave
rage
Lessons f
rom
PIS
A
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, instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentive structures and accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
Governance, 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
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Ma
ca
o (
Ch
ina
)C
zech R
epu
blic
Un
ite
d K
ing
dom
Lithu
ania
Ne
therl
and
sT
ha
iland
Slo
vak R
epub
licE
sto
nia
Sw
ede
nN
ew
Zeala
nd
La
tvia
Ho
ng K
on
g (
Chin
a)
De
nm
ark
Indon
esia
Icela
nd
Ru
ssia
Bulg
aria
Un
ite
d S
tate
sC
hile
Pola
nd
Slo
ven
iaG
eo
rgia
Austr
alia
Isra
el
Irela
nd
Fin
land
Ch
ine
se
Taip
ei
Sin
gapo
reJapa
nLe
ban
on
No
rwa
yF
YR
OM
OE
CD
avera
ge
Mo
ldova
Sw
itzerl
and
Belg
ium
Ro
man
iaLu
xe
mbo
urg
Co
lom
bia
Kore
aC
anad
aP
eru
Cro
atia
Qata
rH
unga
ryC
AB
A (
Arg
entina
)G
erm
any
Port
ug
al
Trin
ida
d a
nd T
obag
oU
nite
d A
rab E
mira
tes
Fra
nce
Austr
iaM
onte
neg
roS
pain
Ita
lyM
alta
Co
sta
Ric
aB
-S-J
-G (
Chin
a)
Bra
zil
Do
min
ican
Rep
ublic
Vie
t N
am
Me
xic
oK
osovo
Alg
eria
Uru
guay
Jord
an
Tun
isia
Turk
ey
Gre
ece
Pe
rcen
tage
-po
int d
iffe
ren
ce
%Percentage-point difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schools
Index of school autonomy (%)
Index of school autonomyby schools’ socio-economic status
Figure II.4.7
Disadvantaged schools have more school auton
omy
Advantaged schools have more sc
hool autonomy
Public and private schools
Across OECD countries, 84% of students attend public schools, 12% government-dependent private schools and 4% independent private schools
PISA generally observes no systematic net performance differences
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
Turk
ey
Sin
gapo
reV
iet
Nam
Japa
nT
un
isia
Ita
lyC
hin
ese
Ta
ipei
Th
aila
nd
Gre
ece
Sw
itzerl
and
Czech R
epu
blic
Un
ite
d S
tate
sE
sto
nia
Uru
guay
Fra
nce
Austr
iaC
AB
A (
Arg
entina
)K
osovo
Me
xic
oH
ong K
on
g (
Chin
a)
Indon
esia
Lu
xe
mbo
urg
Sw
ede
nH
unga
ryM
alta
Do
min
ican
Rep
ublic
La
tvia
OE
CD
avera
ge
B-S
-J-G
(C
hin
a)
Port
ug
al
Slo
ven
iaS
pain
Un
ite
d K
ing
dom
Slo
vak R
epub
licN
orw
ay
Austr
alia
Cro
atia
De
nm
ark
Peru
Jord
an
Co
sta
Ric
aC
olo
mbia
Ch
ileN
eth
erl
and
sK
ore
aN
ew
Ze
ala
nd
Ca
nad
aLithu
ania
Irela
nd
Geo
rgia
Trin
ida
d a
nd T
obag
oF
YR
OM
Germ
any
Fin
land
Le
ban
on
Belg
ium
Pola
nd
Bra
zil
Un
ite
d A
rab E
mira
tes
Qata
r
Sco
re-p
oin
t d
iffe
ren
ce
After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status
Science performance in public and private schoolsFigure II.4.14
Students in private schools perform better
Students in public schools perform better
Lessons f
rom
PIS
A
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, instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentive structures and accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
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
The kind of things that are easy to teach are
now easy to automate, digitize or outsource
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 2009
Routine manual
Nonroutine manual
Routine cognitive
Nonroutine analytic
Nonroutine interpersonal
Mean task input in percentiles of 1960 task
Effective teaching
A well-structured, clear and informative lesson on a topic including teachers’ explanations, classroom debates and students’ questions pays
off, as does adaptive instruction
Inquiry-based science instruction (e.g. experimentation and hands-on activities) tends to relate negatively to performance but positively to
student engagement and career expectations
Teaching and learning strategies inmathematics around the world
53Source: Figure 1.2
R² = 0.10
More teacher-directed
instructionTeaching
More memorisation
Le
ar
nin
g
OECD average
More elaboration
More student-oriented
instruction
Are East Asian education systems really so
traditional?
Chinese Taipei
Vietnam
Macao-China Korea
Hong-Kong China
SingaporeJapan
Shanghai- China
Ireland
Hungary
France
Croatia
United Kingdom
AustraliaNew Zealand
Uruguay
Israel
Memorisation most frequently used compared to elaboration strategies
Teacher-directed instruction most
frequently used compared to student-oriented
instruction
R² = 0.24
0.80
1.00
1.20
300 400 500 600 700 800
Teacher-directed strategies are related withhigher solution rates (OECD average)
Source: Figure 1.4Difficulty on the PISA scale 54
Greater success
Less success
Easy problem
Difficult problem
Odds ratio
Memorisation is less useful as problems become more difficult (OECD average)
R² = 0.81
0.70
1.00
300 400 500 600 700 800
Difficulty of mathematics item on the PISA scale
Source: Figure 4.355
Difficult problem
Easy problem
Greater success
Less success
Odds ratio
Control strategies are always helpful but less so as problems become more difficult (OECD average)
R² = 0.31
0.95
1.20
300 400 500 600 700 800
Difficulty of mathematics item on the PISA scale
Source: Figure 5.256
Difficult problem
Greater success
Less success
Easy problem
Odds ratio
Elaboration strategies are more useful as problems become more difficult (OECD average)
R² = 0.82
0.80
1.50
300 400 500 600 700 800
Difficulty of mathematics item on the PISA scaleSource: Figure 6.2
57
Difficultproblem
Greater success
Less success
Easy problem
Odds ratio
Lessons f
rom
PIS
A
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, instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentive structures and accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
Schooling today Schooling tomorrow
Some students learn at high levels
All students learnat high levels
Uniformity Embracing diversity
Curriculum-centred Learner-centred
Learning a place Learning an activity
Prescription Informed profession
Delivered wisdom User-generated wisdom
Provision Outcomes
60
60 Thank you
Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/edu– All publications
– The complete micro-level database
Discover PISA 2015 results by country www.compareyourcountry.org/pisa
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: SchleicherOECDand remember: