universal basic skills - what countries stand to gain
TRANSCRIPT
11 The post-2015 education agenda
Universal basic skillsWhat countries stand to gain
11 May 2015, LondonAndreas Schleicher
22 Focus on quality
How well do today’s schools prepare for tomorrow’s world?
What do 15-year-olds know in math and science……and what can they do with what they know?
Singapore
Hong Kong-ChinaChinese Taipei
Korea
Macao-ChinaJapan LiechtensteinSwitzerland
NetherlandsEstonia FinlandCanada
PolandBelgiumGermany Viet Nam
Austria AustraliaIrelandSlovenia
DenmarkNew ZealandCzech Republic France
United KingdomIceland
LatviaLuxembourg NorwayPortugal ItalySpain
Russian Fed.Slovak Republic United StatesLithuaniaSwedenHungary
CroatiaIsrael
GreeceSerbiaTurkey
Romania
BulgariaU.A.E.KazakhstanThailand
ChileMalaysia
Mexico410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
Mean score
High mathematics performance
Low mathematics performance
… Shanghai-China performs above this line (613)
Average performance
of 15-year-olds in
Mathematics (PISA)Fig I.2.13
Below PISA Level 2
At this level, students can answer questions involving familiar contexts where all relevant information is
present and the questions are clearly defined. They are able to identify information and to carry out routine procedures according to direct instructions in explicit situations. They can perform actions that are a
lmost always obvious and follow immediately from the given stimuli.
Low mathematics performanceIran*
Costa Rica
UruguayMontenegro
Bahrain*
Georgia*Brazil JordanArgentina Albania
Tunisia MacedoniaSaudi Arabia* Colombia
QatarIndonesiaBotswana*
Peru Oman*
Morocco*
Honduras*
South Africa*
Ghana*
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
* Substituted from TIMSS
Countries not covered
Countries not covered
The world is no longer divided between rich and well-
educated countries, and poor and badly-educated ones
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Qata
r
Om
an
Saudi Ara
bia
Bahra
in
Mala
ysia
Kaza
khst
an
UAE
Isra
el
Gre
ece
Slo
vak R
epublic
Sw
eden
Luxe
mbourg
Hungary
Icela
nd
United S
tate
s
Portugal
Italy
Russ
ian F
edera
tion
Lith
uania
Norw
ay
Fra
nce
Spain
New
Zeala
nd
Belg
ium
United K
ingdom
Cze
ch R
epublic
Aust
ria
Denm
ark
Aust
ralia
Slo
venia
Latv
ia
Germ
any
Neth
erlands
Irela
nd
Sw
itze
rland
Canada
Pola
nd
Chin
ese
Taip
ei
Fin
land
Japan
Sin
gapore
Kore
a
Est
onia
Hong-K
ong C
hin
a
High income does not protect against poor education
Share of 15-year-olds below PISA Level 2in high-income countries (>25K$)
(reading, math and science)
Regular but moderate physical exercise is good for our health
What happens when muscles are exercised? Circle “Yes” or “No” for each statement.
Does this happen when muscles are exercised? Yes or No?
Muscles get an increased flow of blood. Yes / No
Fats are formed in the muscles. Yes / No
Answering this question correctly corresponds to a difficulty of 386 score points on the PISA science scale. Across countries, 82% of students answered correctly. This question assesses students’ competency of explaining phenomena scientifically.
% students by country who answered correctly
Finland 93
Hungary 91
Russian Federation 90
Slovenia 89
Latvia 88
Czech Republic 88
Iceland 88
Greece 87
Portugal 87
Croatia 86
Spain 86
Italy 85
Liechtenstein 85
Hong Kong- China 85
Australia 85
Canada 84
Denmark 84
Serbia 84
New Zealand 84
Belgium 84
Poland 84
Netherlands 84
Tunisia 83
Slovak Republic 83
United Kingdom 83
OECD average 82
Sweden 82
Switzerland 82
Chile 82
Turkey 82
Thailand 81
Macao-China 81
Bulgaria 81
Jordan 80
Israel 80
Japan 80
Luxembourg 79
Austria 79
France 79
Mexico 78
Germany 77
Estonia 77
Chinese Taipei 77
Norway 76
United States 76
Romania 76
Montenegro 76
Ireland 76
Argentina 75
Lithuania 73
Azerbaijan 72
Brazil 71
Korea 68
Colombia 63
Kyrgyzstan 57
Indonesia 54
Qatar 53
Mei-Ling from Singapore was preparing to go to South Africa for 3 months as an exchange student. She needed to change some Singapore dollars (SGD) into South African rand (ZAR).
Question: Mei-Ling found out that the exchange rate between Singapore dollars and South African rand was:
1 SGD = 4.2 ZAR
Mei-Ling changed 3000 Singapore dollars into South African rand at this exchange rate. How much money in South African rand did Mei-Ling get?
Answer: ________________________
% students by country who answered correctly
Liechtenstein 95
Macao- China 93
Finland 90
France 89
Hong Kong-China 89
Sweden 89
Austria 87
Switzerland 87
Belgium 87
Czech Republic 87
Canada 86
Slovak Republic 86
Iceland 86
Denmark 85
Russian Federation 85Luxembourg 85
Netherlands 85
Hungary 84
Ireland 83
Germany 83Australia 81
Korea 81
Latvia 80
New Zealand 80OECD average 80
Japan 79
Spain 79
Serbia 79
Norway 77
Poland 77
Portugal 74
United Kingdom 74
Greece 73
Italy 71
Uruguay 71
Mexico 60
Thailand 60
Turkey 60
Indonesia 59
Tunisia 55
United States 54
Brazil 37
12600 zAR
Answering this question correctly corresponds to a difficulty of 406 score points on the PISA mathematics scale. Across countries, 80% of students answered correctly. To answer the question correctly students have to draw on skills from the reproduction competency cluster.
Figure 1 shows changing levels of Lake Chad, in Saharan North Africa. Lake
Chad disappeared completely in about 20,000BC, during the last Ice Age. In
about 11,000 BC it reappeared. Today, its level is about the same as it was in
AD 1000.
Figure 2
aurochs
giraffe
buffalo
Saharan rock art and changing patterns of wildlife
rhinoceros
hippopotamus
elephant
ostrich
gazelle
cattle
dog
horse
camel
8000 BC 7000 BC 6000 BC 5000 BC 4000 BC 3000 BC 2000 BC 1000 BC 0 AD 1000
Question: Figure 2 is based on the assumption that:
A. the animals in the rock art were present in the area at the time they were drawn.
B. the artists who drew the animals were highly skilled.
C. the artists who drew the animals were able to travel widely.
D. there was no attempt to domesticate the animals which were depicted in the rock art.
Figure 2 shows Saharan rock art (ancient drawings or paintings found on
the walls of caves) and changing patterns of wildlife
Answering this question correctly corresponds to a difficulty of 397 score points on the PISA reading scale. Across countries, 77% of students answered correctly. To do so, they interpreted the text correctly.
• % students by country who answered correctly
Finland 87
Hungary 85
Korea 85
Netherlands 84
Austria 83
Sweden 82
Spain 82
France 82
Belgium 81
Czech Republic 80
Denmark 80
Canada 80
Germany 80
Australia 80
Liechtenstein 79
Japan 79
Italy 79
Switzerland 78
New Zealand 78
Portugal 78
OECD average 77
United Kingdom 76
Poland 73
Ireland 72
Luxembourg 72
Norway 72
United States 71
Iceland 70
Greece 68
Latvia 68
Brazil 63
Russian Federation 59
Mexico 49
1212 Methods
Some methodological considerations to estimate the impact of improved basic skills
on long-term economic growth
• The projections assume that higher educational achievement allows a country to keep on growing at a higher rate in the long run– Education increases the innovative capacity of the economy
through developing new ideas and new technologies
– A given level of education can lead to a continuing stream of new ideas, thus making it possible for education to affect growth even when no new education is added to the economy .
Underlying growth model
• An aggregate production function where the output of the macro economy is a direct function of capital and labour– The human capital component of growth comes through
accumulation of more education that implies the economy moves from one steady state level to another; once at the new level, education exerts no further influence on growth .
Alternative growth models
• Improvements will occur steadily – from today’s performance up to reaching
the post-2015 goals in 2030
• It will take another 40 years until the more skilled workers replace the existing workforce
• The growth rate is calculated each year into the future based on the average skill of workers
• Future gains in GDP are discounted to the present with a 3% discount rate – (so that the projections are directly comparable
to current levels of GDP).
Assumptions
• Annual improvement by 1.67 PISA points per year (=25 points by 2030) and full enrolment
• Present value of added GDP would be 340% of the country’s current GDP over the next 80 years (or on average 7.3% higher GDP each year)
• By 2095, GDP would be 30% higher than with current skill levels– This is equivalent to an annual growth rate that is 0.5
percentage points higher than at current skill levels.
18 An example Country Improvement/y
Montenegro 1.7
Chile 1.9
Serbia 2.2
Poland 2.6
Italy 2.7
Portugal 2.8
Mexico 3.1
Tunisia 3.1
Turkey 3.2
Dubai (UAE) 3.7
Singapore 3.8
Brazil 4.1
Bulgaria 4.2
Shanghai-China 4.2
Israel 4.2
Romania 4.9
Albania 5.6
U.A.E. * 5.9
Malaysia 8.1
Kazakhstan 9
Qatar 9.2
19 Skills and growth
• Couldn’t higher growth cause higher achievement?– Correlation between education spending and student performance is
weak, so it is unlikely that the relationship comes from growth induced resources lifting student achievement
– For a subset of countries, the period of testing has been separated from the subsequent period of observed economic impacts, but the impact was even bigger
• Couldn’t other factors besides cognitive skills be responsible for countries’ growth?– In an extensive investigation of alternative model specifications,
different measures of cognitive skills, various groupings of countries (including some that eliminate regional differences), and specific subperiods of economic growth have been employed but the results show high consistency in the alternative estimates, in both quantitative impacts and statistical significance
– Neither do measures of geographical location, political stability, capital stock and population growth significantly affect the estimated impact of cognitive skills
20 Causality in brief
• How do we know international differences in test scores reflect school policies and not things like health and nutrition differences in the population or cultural differences?– This concern has been addressed by focusing attention just on
the variations in achievement that arise directly from institutional characteristics of each country’s school system (exit examinations, autonomy, relative teacher salaries and private schooling). When the analysis is limited in this way, the estimation of the growth relationship yields essentially the same results
• Do changes in test scores over time relate to changes in growth rates?– For 12 OECD countries, the magnitude of trends in education
performance can be related to the magnitude of trends in growth rates over time. This investigation provides more evidence of the causal influence of cognitive skills.
21 Causality in brief
• What if achievement is simply a reflection of other aspects of the economy and not the driving force in growth? – One way to test this is to consider the implications of differences in
measured skills within a single economy. This was done by comparing immigrants to the United states who have been educated in their home countries with immigrants educated just in the United states.
– This comparison finds that the cognitive skills seen in the immigrant’s home country lead to higher incomes, but only if the immigrant was in fact educated in the home country. Immigrants from the same home country who are schooled in the United states see no economic return to home-country test scores – a finding that pinpoints the value of better schools
22 Causality in brief
2323 The high cost of low educational performance
What if the World delivered on the post-2015 development goals?
The economic value of getting every 15-year-old to complete at least PISA Level 1
The economic value of improvement
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
700%
800%
900%
1000%
1100%
1200%
1300%
1400%
Baseline skills Full enrolment without
increase in quality
Baseline skills and full
enrolment
Lower middle income countries
Upper middle income countries
High income non-OECD
High income OECD
Value of improvement in terms of current GDP
over working life of today’s 15-year-olds
The increase in GDP among high income countries would still exceed total current spending on schooling
25 The economic value of improvement
Low mathematics performanceIran*
Costa Rica
UruguayMontenegro
Bahrain*
Georgia*Brazil JordanArgentina Albania
Tunisia MacedoniaSaudi Arabia* Colombia
QatarIndonesiaBotswana*
Peru Oman*
Morocco*
Honduras*
South Africa*
Ghana*
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
* Substituted from TIMSS
3880% GDP
4,526 bn$
1427% GDP
2,459 bn$
751% GDP
23,841 bn$
Singapore
Hong Kong-ChinaChinese Taipei
Korea
Macao-ChinaJapan LiechtensteinSwitzerland
NetherlandsEstonia FinlandCanada
PolandBelgiumGermany Viet Nam
Austria AustraliaIrelandSlovenia
DenmarkNew ZealandCzech Republic France
United KingdomIceland
LatviaLuxembourg NorwayPortugal ItalySpain
Russian Fed.Slovak Republic United StatesLithuaniaSwedenHungary
CroatiaIsrael
GreeceSerbiaTurkey
Romania
BulgariaU.A.E.KazakhstanThailand
ChileMalaysia
Mexico
High mathematics performance
Low mathematics performance
86% GDP
402 bn$
153% GDP
27,929 bn$
551% GDP
12,448 bn$
375% GDP
2,415 bn$
143% GDP
3,650 bn$
304% GDP
1,667 bn$
38% GDP
209 bn$
Socially equitable
distribution of learning
opportunities
High mathematics performance
Low mathematics performance
Strong socio-economic
impact on student
performance
Singapore
Hong Kong-ChinaChinese Taipei
Korea
Macao-ChinaJapan LiechtensteinSwitzerland
NetherlandsEstonia FinlandCanada
PolandBelgiumGermany Viet Nam
Austria AustraliaIrelandSlovenia
DenmarkNew ZealandCzech Republic France
United KingdomIceland
LatviaLuxembourg NorwayPortugal ItalySpain
Russian Fed.Slovak Republic United StatesLithuaniaSwedenHungary
CroatiaIsrael
GreeceSerbiaTurkey
Romania
BulgariaU.A.E.KazakhstanThailand
ChileMalaysia
Mexico
AustraliaAustria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
IcelandIreland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Singapore
Hong Kong-ChinaChinese Taipei
Macao-China
Liechtenstein
Viet Nam
Latvia
Russian Fed.Lithuania
Croatia
SerbiaRomania
BulgariaUnited Arab
EmiratesKazakhstan
Thailand
Malaysia
02468101214161820222426
Socially equitable
distribution of learning
opportunities
Strong socio-economic
impact on student
performance
AustraliaAustria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
IcelandIreland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
2012
Socially equitable
distribution of learning
opportunities
Strong socio-economic
impact on student
performance
AustraliaAustria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
IcelandIreland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Port
ugal
Spa
in
Sw
itze
rlan
d
Belg
ium
Kor
ea
Lux
em
bou
rg
Germ
any
Gre
ece
Jap
an
Aus
tral
ia
Uni
ted K
ingd
om
New
Zeal
and
Fra
nce
Neth
erl
ands
Den
mar
k
Ital
y
Aus
tria
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Hun
gary
Nor
way
Icela
nd
Irela
nd
Mexic
o
Fin
land
Sw
eden
Uni
ted S
tate
s
Pola
nd
Slo
vak
Repu
blic
Salary as % of GDP/capita Instruction time 1/teaching time 1/class size
Contribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher
compensation costs, per student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004)
Percentage points
Difference with OECD average
3333 Excellence and equity
Excellence and equity are compatible goals in the post-2015 agenda
• Basic skills for all or cultivating top achievers?– The impact of the basic-skills share does not vary
significantly with the initial level of development
– The impact of the top-performing share is significantly larger in countries that have more scope to catch up to the most productive countries (the process of economic convergence is accelerated in countries with larger shares of high-performing students).
Excellence and equity
AustraliaAustria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
IcelandIreland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
AustraliaAustria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
IcelandIreland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Singapore
Shanghai
Singapore
2003 - 2012
Chile 2003
Turkey 2003
Change in performance between PISA 2003 and 2012
Indonesia
Thailand
Russian Fed.
United States
Latvia
Spain
NorwayLuxembourg
Ireland
Austria
SwitzerlandJapan
Liechtenstein
Korea
Brazil
Tunisia
Mexico
Uruguay
Turkey
Greece
Italy
Portugal
Hungary
Poland
Slovak Republic
OECD average
Germany
Sweden
France
Denmark
Iceland
Czech Republic
New ZealandAustralia
Macao-China
Belgium
Canada
Netherlands
Finland
Hong Kong-China
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
350 400 450 500 550 600
Ave
rag
e a
nn
ua
l m
ath
em
ati
cs
sc
ore
ch
an
ge
Average mathematics performance in PISA 2003
Imp
rovin
g p
erfo
rma
nc
eD
ete
riora
ting
pe
rform
an
ce
PISA 2003 performance below the OECD averagePISA 2003 performance
above the OECD average
Fig I.2.1837
B
3838 Skills and inclusive growth
Achieving basic skills would make economic growth more inclusive
• Achieving universal basic skills will make economic growth more inclusive– The increase in average earnings from attaining universal basic skills amounts
to some 4.2% across the 28 countries with universal enrolment in secondary schools.
– This increase is accompanied by a 5.2% average reduction in the achievement-induced part of the standard deviation of earnings
• Universal basic skills will also expand the size of the economy, and thus differs from simple tax and redistribution schemes that might change income distribution but would not add to societal output– Policies to improve knowledge capital will also promote inclusion and a more
equitable income distribution
Inclusive growth
4040 Why poverty need not be destiny
It’s not just about poor kids in poor neighborhoods but about many kids in many neighborhoods
The country where students go to class matters more than what social class students come from
4141PISA mathematics performance
by decile of social background
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
600
625
650
675
Mexic
oChile
Gre
ece
Norw
ay
Sw
eden
Icela
nd
Isra
el
Italy
United S
tate
sSpain
Denm
ark
Luxem
bourg
Aust
ralia
Irela
nd
United K
ingdom
Hungary
Canada
Fin
land
Aust
ria
Turk
ey
Lie
chte
nst
ein
Cze
ch R
epublic
Est
onia
Port
ugal
Slo
venia
Slo
vak R
epublic
New
Zeala
nd
Germ
any
Neth
erlands
Fra
nce
Sw
itze
rland
Pola
nd
Belg
ium
Japan
Maca
o-C
hin
aH
ong K
ong-C
hin
aKore
aSin
gapore
Chin
ese
Taip
ei
Shanghai-Chin
a
Source: PISA 2012
Australia
Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Spain
France
Iceland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Bulgaria
Malaysia
Mexico
NetherlandsNorway
Poland
Portugal
RomaniaSerbia
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Latvia
United States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% s
tudents
from
dis
advanta
ged b
ack
gro
unds
the p
erc
enta
ge o
f st
udents
with a
valu
e o
f ESCS low
er
than -
1
% principals who reported that more than 30% of their studentsare from socioeconomically disadvantaged homes
Social background – principal and students
Size of bullet represents
impact of social background
on student performance
4343 Educational improvement
Making sure skills are put to good use
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
Reading at
work
Writing at
work
Numeracy at
work
ICT at work Problem
solving at work
Average
United
States
Japan
Use of skills at work
Most frequent use = 4
Least frequent use = 0
Index
of use
Australia
Austria
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
GermanyIreland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Slovak Republic
Spain Sweden
United States
England/N. Ireland (UK)
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3
(log)
Labour
pro
duct
ivity
Use of reading skills at work
45Labour productivity
and the use of reading skills at work
• Obtaining the projected gains will require a variety of structural changes in each country’s economy so that the new, more skilled workers can be productively absorbed into the labour force. These changes are assumed to be similar to the productivity improvements seen over past half century
46 Assumptions
0.940.89
2.55
1.84
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Openness to international trade Protection against expropriation risk
Closed
economy
Open
economy
Least
protection
Most
protection
1.61*
0.95
Estimated effect of
test scores on growth
4848L
essons f
rom
hig
h p
erf
orm
ers
Can we make it happen?It’s everybody’s business
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
4949L
essons f
rom
hig
h p
erf
orm
ers
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
5050L
essons f
rom
hig
h p
erf
orm
ers
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 Ambitious educational standards and personalization
as the approach to heterogeneity in the student body…
… as opposed to a belief that students have different destinations to be met with different expectations, and selection/stratification as the approach to heterogeneity
Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom
United States
Poland
Hong Kong-China
Brazil
New Zealand
Greece
Uruguay
United Kingdom
EstoniaFinland
Albania
Croatia
Latvia
Slovak RepublicLuxembourg
Germany
Lithuania
Austria
Czech Republic
Chinese Taipei
France
Thailand
Japan
Turkey Sweden
HungaryAustralia
Israel
Canada
IrelandBulgaria
Jordan
Chile
Macao-China
U.A.E.
Belgium
Netherlands
Spain
Argentina
Indonesia
Denmark
Kazakhstan
Peru
Costa Rica
Switzerland
Montenegro
Tunisia
Iceland
Slovenia
Qatar
Singapore
Portugal
Norway
Colombia
Malaysia
Mexico
Liechtenstein
Korea
Serbia
Russian Fed.
Romania
Viet Nam
Italy
Shanghai-China
R² = 0.36
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
-0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Me
an
ma
the
ma
tic
s p
erf
orm
an
ce
Mean index of mathematics self-efficacy
OE
CD
ave
rag
e
Countries where students have stronger beliefs
in their abilities perform better in mathematics51 Fig III.4.5
5555L
essons f
rom
hig
h p
erf
orm
ers
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 …
5656L
essons f
rom
hig
h p
erf
orm
ers
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 …
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 status5757 Capacity at the point of delivery
Mean mathematics performance, by school location,
after accounting for socio-economic statusFig II.3.35858 Teachers' perceptions of the value of teaching
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that teaching profession 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
AE)
Finla
nd
Mexi
co
Alb
erta (Canada)
Flanders
(Belg
ium
)
Neth
erlands
Aust
ralia
Engla
nd (UK)
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
Above-average performers in PISA
Mean mathematics performance, by school location,
after accounting for socio-economic statusFig II.3.35959
Countries where teachers believe their profession is valued
show higher levels of student achievement
Relationship between lower secondary teachers' views on the value of their profession in society and the country’s
share of top mathematics performers in PISA 2012
Australia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
EstoniaFinland
France
IcelandIsrael
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Serbia
Singapore
Slovak Republic
SpainSweden
Alberta (Canada)
England (UK)
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
R2 = 0.24 r= 0.49
Teacher skills and graduate skills (numeracy)
230 250 270 290 310 330 350
Italy
Poland
Estonia
United States
Canada
Ireland
Korea
England (UK)
England/N. Ireland (UK)
Denmark
Northern Ireland (UK)
Slovak Republic
France
Australia
Sweden
Czech Republic
Austria
Netherlands
Norway
Germany
Flanders (Belgium)
Finland
Japan
Middle half of the numeracy
skill distribution of graduates
(16-65 years)
PIAAC test scores (numeracy)
Teacher skills and graduate skills (numeracy)
230 250 270 290 310 330 350
Italy
Poland
Estonia
United States
Canada
Ireland
Korea
England (UK)
England/N. Ireland (UK)
Denmark
Northern Ireland (UK)
Slovak Republic
France
Australia
Sweden
Czech Republic
Austria
Netherlands
Norway
Germany
Flanders (Belgium)
Finland
Japan
Middle half of the numeracy
skill distribution of graduates
(16-65 years)
Numeracy skills of teachers
PIAAC test scores (numeracy)
Mean mathematics performance, by school location,
after accounting for socio-economic statusFig II.3.36262 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
6565L
essons f
rom
hig
h p
erf
orm
ers
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
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
6666L
essons f
rom
hig
h p
erf
orm
ers
66 Aligning autonomy with accountability
6767L
essons f
rom
hig
h p
erf
orm
ers
67
67
Hong Kong-China
Brazil
Uruguay
Albania
Croatia
Latvia
Lithuania
Chinese Taipei
ThailandBulgaria
Jordan
Macao-China
UAE Argentina
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
Peru
Costa Rica
Tunisia
Qatar
Singapore
Colombia
Malaysia
Serbia
Romania
Viet Nam
Shanghai-China
USA
Poland
New Zealand
Greece
UK
Estonia
Finland
Slovak Rep.
Luxembourg
GermanyAustria
Czech Rep.
France
Japan
Turkey
Sweden
HungaryAustralia
Israel
Canada
Chile
Belgium
NetherlandsSpain
Denmark
Switzerland
Iceland
Slovenia
Portugal
Norway
Korea
Italy
R² = 0.13
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Ma
the
ma
tic
s p
erf
orm
an
ce
(sc
ore
po
ints
)
Index of school responsibility for curriculum and assessment (index points)
Countries that grant schools autonomy over curricula and assessments tend to perform better in mathematics
Source: PISA 2012
No shared mathpolicy
Shared math policy455
460
465
470
475
480
485
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with
less autonomy in systems with standardised math policies
Score points
School autonomy for curriculum and assessment
x system's extent of implementing a standardised math policy (e.g. curriculum and
instructional materials)
Fig IV.1.16
Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with
less autonomy in systems with more collaboration
Teachers don't participate inmanagement
Teachers participate inmanagement455
460
465
470
475
480
485
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
Score points
School autonomy for resource allocation x System's level of teachers
participating in school management
Across all participating countries and economies
Fig IV.1.17
0 20 40 60 80 100
Written specification of the school's curriculum andeducational goals
Written specification of student-performance standards
Systematic recording of data, including teacher andstudent attendance and graduation rates, test results…
Internal evaluation/self-evaluation
External evaluation
Written feedback from students (e.g. regarding lessons,teachers or resources)
Teacher mentoring
Regular consultation with one or more experts over aperiod of at least six months with the aim of improving…
Implementation of a standardised policy for mathematics
%
Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that their schools have the following for quality assurance and improvement:
Singapore OECD average
Quality assurance and school improvement Fig IV.4.1471
7272L
essons f
rom
hig
h p
erf
orm
ers
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
7474 Adequate resources to address disadvantage
Disadvantaged schools reported
more teacher shortage
Advantaged schools reported
more teacher shortage
-0.5
-0.3
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
Ko
rea
Esto
nia
Isra
el
La
tvia
Slo
ve
nia
Ita
lyP
ola
nd
Sin
gap
ore
Arg
en
tin
aN
eth
erl
an
ds
Po
rtu
ga
lC
olo
mb
iaF
ran
ce
Fin
lan
dT
un
isia
Ma
cao
-Ch
ina
Sp
ain
Gre
ec
eS
wit
zerl
an
dN
orw
ay
Ru
ss
ian
Fe
d.
Jap
an
Au
str
iaM
on
ten
eg
roC
roati
aC
an
ad
aO
EC
D a
ve
rag
eG
erm
an
yD
en
mark
Hu
ng
ary
Un
ite
d K
ing
do
mL
ux
em
bo
urg
Ho
ng
Ko
ng
-Ch
ina
Belg
ium
Ice
lan
dV
iet
Na
mIr
ela
nd
Un
ite
d S
tate
sC
hil
eC
zech
Rep
ub
lic
Serb
iaT
urk
ey
Me
xic
oIn
do
nesia
Uru
gu
ay
Sh
an
gh
ai-
Ch
ina
Slo
va
k R
ep
ub
lic
Sw
ed
en
Bra
zil
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
dA
us
tralia
Ch
ine
se
Ta
ipe
i
Me
an
in
de
x d
iffe
ren
ce
Difference between socio-economically disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged schools
A shortage of qualified teachers is more of concernin disadvantaged schools
7575L
essons f
rom
hig
h p
erf
orm
ers
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
Coherence of policies and practices
Alignment of policies across all aspects of the system
Coherence of policies over sustained periods of time
Consistency of implementation
Fidelity of implementation (without excessive control)
7676L
essons f
rom
hig
h p
erf
orm
ers
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
7777L
essons f
rom
hig
h p
erf
orm
ers
Average school systems High performers in PISA
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
7878L
essons f
rom
hig
h p
erf
orm
ers Some students learn at high levels All students need to learn at high levels
Student inclusion
Routine cognitive skills Conceptual understanding, complex ways of thinking, ways of working
Curriculum, instruction and assessment
Standardisation and compliance High-level professional knowledge workers
Teacher quality
‘Tayloristic’, hierarchical Flat, collegial
Work organisation
Primarily to authorities Primarily to peers and stakeholders
Accountability
What it all means
The old bureaucratic system The modern enabling system
7979L
essons f
rom
hig
h p
erf
orm
ers
79
79 Thank you
Find out more about this report at
– http://www.oecd.org/edu/universal-basic-skills-9789264234833-en.htm
– #UniversalBasicSkills
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: SchleicherEDU
and remember:
Without data, you are just another person with an opinion