2010 e-asean (workshop session 3) - rev 1.1
45
1 1 Andreas Schleicher Jakarta, May 11, 2010 Regional and International Education Co-operation – Examples from the OECD Seeing your education system in the mirror of other systems Examples from the OECD Jakarta, May 11 2010 Andreas Schleicher Education Policy Advisor of the OECD Secretary-General
description
Transcript of 2010 e-asean (workshop session 3) - rev 1.1
11A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D
Seeing your education system in the mirror of other systems
Examples from the OECD
Jakarta, May 11 2010
Andreas SchleicherEducation Policy Advisor of the OECD Secretary-General
Dimensions for educational benchmarking
National educ, social and economic context
Structures, resource alloc
and policies
Social & economic
outcomes of education
Community and school
characteristics
Student learning, teacher working
conditions
Socio-economic background of
learners
Antecedentscontextualise or
constrain ed policy
The learning environment at
school
Teaching, learning
practices and classroom
climate
Individ attitudes, engagement and
behaviour
Output and performance of
institutions
Quality of instructional
delivery
Quality and distribution of knowledge &
skills
Policy Leversshape educational
outcomes
Outputs and Outcomes
impact of learning
Individual learner
LevelA
Instructional settings
LevelB
Schools, other institutions
LevelC
Country or system
LevelD
Domain 3Domain 2Domain 1
National educ, social and economic context
Structures, resource alloc
and policies
Social & economic
outcomes of education
Community and school
characteristics
Student learning, teacher working
conditions
Socio-economic background of
learners
Antecedentscontextualise or
constrain ed policy
The learning environment at
school
Teaching, learning
practices and classroom
climate
Individ attitudes, engagement and
behaviour
Output and performance of
institutions
Quality of instructional
delivery
Quality and distribution of knowledge &
skills
Policy Leversshape educational
outcomes
Outputs and Outcomes
impact of learning
Individual learner
LevelA
Instructional settings
LevelB
Schools, other institutions
LevelC
Country or system
LevelD
Domain 3Domain 2Domain 1
Dimensions for educational benchmarking
AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
1995Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
Graduate supply
Cost
per
stu
den
t
AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
1995Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
United States
Finland
Graduate supply
Cost
per
stu
den
t
Japan
AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2000Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
Australia
FinlandUnited Kingdom
AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2001Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2002Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2003Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2004Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2005Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2006Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
United States
Australia
Finland
United Kingdom A
A
A
What about international
students?
National educ, social and economic context
Structures, resource alloc
and policies
Social & economic
outcomes of education
Community and school
characteristics
Student learning, teacher working
conditions
Socio-economic background of
learners
Antecedentscontextualise or
constrain ed policy
The learning environment at
school
Teaching, learning
practices and classroom
climate
Individ attitudes, engagement and
behaviour
Output and performance of
institutions
Quality of instructional
delivery
Quality and distribution of knowledge &
skills
Policy Leversshape educational
outcomes
Outputs and Outcomes
impact of learning
Individual learner
LevelA
Instructional settings
LevelB
Schools, other institutions
LevelC
Country or system
LevelD
Domain 3Domain 2Domain 1
Dimensions for educational benchmarking
National educ, social and economic context
Structures, resource alloc
and policies
Social & economic
outcomes of education
Community and school
characteristics
Student learning, teacher working
conditions
Socio-economic background of
learners
Antecedentscontextualise or
constrain ed policy
The learning environment at
school
Teaching, learning
practices and classroom
climate
Individ attitudes, engagement and
behaviour
Output and performance of
institutions
Quality of instructional
delivery
Quality and distribution of knowledge &
skills
Policy Leversshape educational
outcomes
Outputs and Outcomes
impact of learning
Individual learner
LevelA
Instructional settings
LevelB
Schools, other institutions
LevelC
Country or system
LevelD
Domain 3Domain 2Domain 1
Dimensions for educational benchmarking
1515A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D
DenmarkSwedenNorway
New ZealandFranceTurkey
GermanyAustralia
SpainAustria
BelgiumFinlandCanada
OECD averageKorea
IrelandHungary
PolandCzech RepublicUnited States
ItalyPortugal
-250,000 -150,000 -50,000 50,000 150,000 250,000 350,000 450,000
7,34218,802
23,30640,036
40,26041,090
48,02448,714
55,69560,51963,414
64,66469,235
82,00785,586
104,410127,691
146,539146,673
169,945173,889
186,307
Direct cost Gross earnings benefits Income tax effect Social contribution effect
Transfers effect Unemployment effect Net present value in USD equivalent
USD equivalentA8.3
Components of the private net present value for a male with higher education
Net present value in
USD equivalent
35K$56K$ 367K$105K$27K$ 26K$ 170K$
1616A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D
TurkeyDenmark
SwedenNorway
SpainKorea
CanadaNew Zealand
FranceAustria
AustraliaPortugal
OECD averageFinlandPoland
GermanyItaly
IrelandHungaryBelgium
United StatesCzech Republic
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000
10,34614,23617,19717,85119,75221,28023,875
28,19336,73037,586
47,36850,27151,95455,61257,221
63,60463,756
74,21994,80496,186100,119
160,834
Public cost and benefits for a male obtaining post-secondary education
Public benefit
s
Public
costs
Net present value, USD equivalent
(numbers in orange show
negative values)
USD equivalent
National educ, social and economic context
Structures, resource alloc
and policies
Social & economic
outcomes of education
Community and school
characteristics
Student learning, teacher working
conditions
Socio-economic background of
learners
Antecedentscontextualise or
constrain ed policy
The learning environment at
school
Teaching, learning
practices and classroom
climate
Individ attitudes, engagement and
behaviour
Output and performance of
institutions
Quality of instructional
delivery
Quality and distribution of knowledge &
skills
Policy Leversshape educational
outcomes
Outputs and Outcomes
impact of learning
Individual learner
LevelA
Instructional settings
LevelB
Schools, other institutions
LevelC
Country or system
LevelD
Domain 3Domain 2Domain 1
Dimensions for educational benchmarking
1818A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D
Port
ug
al
Sp
ain
Sw
itze
rlan
d
Tu
rkey
Belg
ium
Kore
a
Lu
xem
bou
rg
Germ
an
y
Gre
ece
Jap
an
Au
stra
lia
Un
ited
Kin
gd
om
New
Zeala
nd
Fra
nce
Neth
erl
an
ds
Den
mark
Italy
Au
stri
a
Cze
ch
Rep
ub
lic
Hu
ng
ary
Norw
ay
Icela
nd
Irela
nd
Mexic
o
Fin
lan
d
Sw
ed
en
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Pola
nd
Slo
vak R
ep
ub
lic
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Salary as % of GDP/capita Instruction time 1/teaching time 1/class sizePort
ug
al
Sp
ain
Sw
itze
rlan
d
Tu
rkey
Belg
ium
Kore
a
Lu
xem
bou
rg
Germ
an
y
Gre
ece
Jap
an
Au
stra
lia
Un
ited
Kin
gd
om
New
Zeala
nd
Fra
nce
Neth
erl
an
ds
Den
mark
Italy
Au
stri
a
Cze
ch
Rep
ub
lic
Hu
ng
ary
Norw
ay
Icela
nd
Irela
nd
Mexic
o
Fin
lan
d
Sw
ed
en
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Pola
nd
Slo
vak R
ep
ub
lic
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Difference with OECD average
Spending choices on secondary schoolsContribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher compensation costs
per student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004)
Percentage points
National educ, social and economic context
Structures, resource alloc
and policies
Social & economic
outcomes of education
Community and school
characteristics
Student learning, teacher working
conditions
Socio-economic background of
learners
Antecedentscontextualise or
constrain ed policy
The learning environment at
school
Teaching, learning
practices and classroom
climate
Individ attitudes, engagement and
behaviour
Output and performance of
institutions
Quality of instructional
delivery
Quality and distribution of knowledge &
skills
Policy Leversshape educational
outcomes
Outputs and Outcomes
impact of learning
Individual learner
LevelA
Instructional settings
LevelB
Schools, other institutions
LevelC
Country or system
LevelD
Domain 3Domain 2Domain 1
Dimensions for educational benchmarking
National educ, social and economic context
Structures, resource alloc
and policies
Social & economic
outcomes of education
Community and school
characteristics
Student learning, teacher working
conditions
Socio-economic background of
learners
Antecedentscontextualise or
constrain ed policy
The learning environment at
school
Teaching, learning
practices and classroom
climate
Individ attitudes, engagement and
behaviour
Output and performance of
institutions
Quality and distribution of knowledge &
skills
Policy Leversshape educational
outcomes
Outputs and Outcomes
impact of learning
Individual learner
LevelA
Instructional settings
LevelB
Schools, other institutions
LevelC
Country or system
LevelD
Domain 3Domain 2Domain 1
Dimensions for educational benchmarking
Quality of instructional
delivery
2323A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D OECD’s PISA assessment of the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds
Coverage of world economy 77%81%83%85%86%87%
2525A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
DAverage performanceof 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply
High science performance
Low science performance
… 18 countries perform below this line
I srael
I talyPortugal Greece
Russian Federation
LuxembourgSlovak Republic,Spain,Iceland Latvia
Croatia
Sweden
DenmarkFrancePoland
Hungary
AustriaBelgiumIreland
Czech Republic SwitzerlandMacao- ChinaGermanyUnited Kingdom
Korea
J apanAustralia
Slovenia
NetherlandsLiechtenstein
New ZealandChinese Taipei
Hong Kong- China
Finland
CanadaEstonia
United States LithuaniaNorway
445
465
485
505
525
545
565
616
Poland 2000
2626A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
DAverage performanceof 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply
Low average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
High average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
Low average performance
High social equity
High average performance
High social equity
Strong socio-economic impact on
student performance
Socially equitable distribution of
learning opportunities
High science performance
Low science performance
I srael
I talyPortugal Greece
Russian Federation
LuxembourgSlovak Republic,Spain,Iceland Latvia
Croatia
Sweden
DenmarkFrancePoland
Hungary
AustriaBelgiumIreland
Czech Republic SwitzerlandMacao- ChinaGermanyUnited Kingdom
Korea
J apanAustralia
Slovenia
NetherlandsLiechtenstein
New ZealandChinese Taipei
Hong Kong- China
Finland
CanadaEstonia
United States LithuaniaNorway
445
465
485
505
525
545
565
616
2727A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik
Low average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
High average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
Low average performance
High social equity
High average performance
High social equity
Strong socio-economic impact on
student performance
Socially equitable distribution of
learning opportunities
High science performance
Low science performance
I srael
GreecePortugal I talyRussian Federation
LuxembourgSlovak Republic SpainIcelandLatvia
Croatia
Sweden
DenmarkFrancePoland
Hungary
AustriaBelgiumIreland
Czech Republic Switzerland Macao- China
Germany United Kingdom
Korea
J apanAustralia
SloveniaNetherlands
Liechtenstein
New ZealandChinese Taipei
Hong Kong- China
Finland
CanadaEstonai
United StatesLithuania Norway
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
21222
2828A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Tur
key
Hun
gary
Jap
an
Bel
gium
Ital
y
Ger
man
y
Aus
tria
Net
herl
ands
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Kor
ea
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
Gre
ece
Swit
zerl
and
Luxe
mbou
rg
Port
ugal
Mex
ico
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Aus
tral
ia
New
Zea
land
Spa
in
Can
ada
Irel
and
Den
mar
k
Pola
nd
Swed
en
Nor
way
Fin
land
Icel
and
Consistency in quality standardsVariation in the performance of 15-year-olds in mathematics
2929A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D
- 80
- 60
- 40
- 20
0
20
40
60
80
100Tur
key
Hun
gary
Jap
an
Bel
gium
Ital
y
Ger
man
y
Aus
tria
Net
herl
ands
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Kor
ea
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
Gre
ece
Swit
zerl
and
Luxe
mbou
rg
Port
ugal
Mex
ico
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Aus
tral
ia
New
Zea
land
Spa
in
Can
ada
Irel
and
Den
mar
k
Pola
nd
Swed
en
Nor
way
Fin
land
Icel
and
Variation of performance
between schools
Variation of performance within
schools
Consistency in quality standardsVariation in the performance of 15-year-olds in mathematics
OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 4.1a, p.383.
National educ, social and economic context
Structures, resource alloc
and policies
Social & economic
outcomes of education
Community and school
characteristics
Student learning, teacher working
conditions
Socio-economic background of
learners
Antecedentscontextualise or
constrain ed policy
The learning environment at
school
Teaching, learning
practices and classroom
climate
Individ attitudes, engagement and
behaviour
Output and performance of
institutions
Quality of instructional
delivery
Quality and distribution of knowledge &
skills
Policy Leversshape educational
outcomes
Outputs and Outcomes
impact of learning
Individual learner
LevelA
Instructional settings
LevelB
Schools, other institutions
LevelC
Country or system
LevelD
Domain 3Domain 2Domain 1
Dimensions for educational benchmarking
3333A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D
Age 19
Age 21
Age 21
048
121620
Level 2Level 3
Level 4Level 5
Increased likelihood of postsec. particip. at age 19/21 associated with PISA reading proficiency at age 15
(Canada)after accounting for school engagement, gender, mother
tongue, place of residence, parental, education and family income (reference group PISA Level 1)
Odds ratioCollege entry
School marks at age 15
PISA performance at age
15
3434A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D
20102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050205120522053205420552056205720582059206020612062206320642065206620672068206920702071207220732074207520762077207820792080208120822083208420852086208720882089209020912092209320942095209620972098209921002101210221032104210521062107210821092110-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Relationship between test performance and economic outcomes
Annual improved GDP from raising performance by 25 PISA pointsPe
rcent
add
itio
n t
o G
DP
3535A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Potential increase in economic output (bn $)
Increase average performance by 25 PISA points (Total 115 trillion $)
bn$
3636A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
DPublic and private schools
0 20 40 60 80 100
Luxembourg
J apan
I taly
Switzerland
Finland
Denmark
Czech Republic
Sweden
Hungary
Austria
Portugal
United States
Netherlands
Slovak Republic
Korea
I reland
Spain
Canada
Mexico
New Zealand
Germany
OECD
United Kingdom
Government schools
Government dependent private
Government independent private
- 150 - 100 - 50 0 50 100
Observed perf ormance diff erence
Diff erence af ter accounting f or socio-economic background of students and schools
Private schools perform better
Public schools perform better
%Score point difference
3737A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D
No
Yes
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
No
Yes
0
41
46
63
Standards based external
examinations School autonomyin selecting teachers for hire
PISA score in science
School autonomy, standards-based examinations and science performance
School autonomy in selecting teachers for hire
3838A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
DPooled international dataset, effects of selected
school/system factors on science performance after accounting for all other factors in the model
OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies from Tomorrow’s World, Table 6.1a
Gross Net30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Approx. one school year
Sco
re p
oin
t d
iffe
ren
ce in
sci
en
ce
Schools practicing ability grouping (gross and net)
Academically selective schools (gross and net)
but no system-wide effect
School results posted publicly (gross and net)
One additional hour of science learning at
school (gross and net)
One additional hour of out-of-school lessons
(gross and net)
One additional hour of self-study or homework
(gross and net)
School activities to promote science
learning(gross and net)
Schools with greater autonomy (resources)
(gross and net)
Each additional 10% of public funding(gross only)
Schools with more competing schools
(gross only)
School principal’s perception that lack of
qualified teachers hinders instruction
(gross only)
School principal’s positive evaluation of quality of educational
materials(gross only)
Measured effect
Effect after accounting for the socio-economic
background of students, schools and countries
3939A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D Paradigm shifts
The old bureaucratic system The modern enabling system
Hit and miss Universal high standards
Uniformity Embracing diversity
Provision Outcomes
Bureaucratic look-up Devolved – look outwards
Talk equity Deliver equity
Prescription Informed profession
Conformity Ingenious
Curriculum-centred Learner-centred
Interactive Participative
Individualised Community-centred
Delivered wisdom User-generated wisdom
Management Leadership
Public vs private Public with private
Culture as obstacle Culture as capital
4040A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D
Low policy value
High policy value
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low-hanging fruits
Quick wins
Examine individual, institutional and systemic
factors associated with performance
Establish the relative standing of students and
schools
Extending the range of competencies through which
quality is assessed
Measuring growth in learning
A real-time assessment environment that bridges the gap between formative and
summative assessment .
Monitor educational progress
Assuming that every new skill domain is orthogonal
to all others
4141A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D
High ambitions and universal
standards
Rigor, focus and coherence
Great systems attract great teachers and
provide access to best practice and quality
professional development
4242A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D Challenge and support
Weak support
Strong support
Lowchallenge
Highchallenge
Strong performance
Systemic improvement
Poor performance
Improvements idiosyncratic
Conflict
Demoralisation
Poor performance
Stagnation
4343A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D Human capital
International Best Practice• Principals who are trained,
empowered, accountable and provide instructional leadership
• Attracting, recruiting and providing excellent training for prospective teachers from the top third of the graduate distribution
• Incentives, rules and funding encourage a fair distribution of teaching talent
The past
• Principals who manage ‘a building’, who have little training and preparation and are accountable but not empowered
• Attracting and recruiting teachers from the bottom third of the graduate distribution and offering training which does not relate to real classrooms• The best teachers are in the most advantaged communities
4444A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D Human capital (cont…)
International Best Practice• Expectations of teachers are
clear; consistent quality, strong professional ethic and excellent professional development focused on classroom practice
• Teachers and the system expect every child to succeed and intervene preventatively to ensure this
The past
• Seniority and tenure matter more than performance; patchy professional development; wide variation in quality
• Wide achievement gaps, just beginning to narrow but systemic and professional barriers to transformation remain in place
4545C
rea
ting
Effe
ctiv
e T
ea
chin
g
an
d L
ea
rnin
g E
nvi
ron
me
nts
O
EC
D T
ea
chin
g a
nd
Le
arn
ing
In
tern
atio
na
l Stu
dy
(TA
LIS
)
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Individual and col-
laborative research
Qualifica-tion pro-grammes
Informal dialogue to
improve teaching
Reading professional
literature
Courses and workshops
Professional develop-
ment net-work
Mentoring and peer
observation
Observation visits to
other schools
Education conferences
and semi-nars
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Fuente: OCDE. Tablas 3.2 y 3.8
Figure
3.15
Relatively few teachers participate in the kinds of professional development which they find has the largest impact on their work
Comparison of teachers participating in professional development activities and teachers reporting
moderate or high level impact by types of activity
4646A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D
High ambitions
Access to best practice and quality professional development
Accountability and intervention in
inverse proportion to success
Devolved responsibility,
the school as the centre of action
4747A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
DLocal responsibility and national
prescription
National prescription
Schools leading reform
Schools todayThe industrial
model, detailed prescription of
what schools do
Schools tomorrow?
Building capacity
Finland todayEvery school an effective school
Towards system-wide sustainable reform
4848A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D
Strong ambitions
Access to best practice and quality professional development
Accountability
Devolvedresponsibility,
the school as the centre of action
Integrated educational
opportunities
From prescribed forms of teaching and assessment towards personalised learning
4949A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik
Low average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
High average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
Low average performance
High social equity
High average performance
High social equity
Strong socio-economic impact on
student performance
Socially equitable distribution of
learning opportunities
High science performance
Low science performanceTurkey
AustraliaJ apan
Finland
CanadaNew Zealand
Korea
Czech Republic United KingdomAustria
Germany
Netherlands
SwitzerlandI relandBelgium
PolandSwedenHungary
IcelandFrance Denmark
United States SpainLuxembourg NorwaySlovak Republic
I talyGreecePortugal
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
21222
Early selection and institutional differentiation
High degree of stratification
Low degree of stratification
5050A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rJa
kart
a, M
ay 1
1, 2
010
Re
gio
na
l a
nd
In
tern
ati
on
al
Ed
uc
ati
on
Co
-op
era
tio
n –
Ex
am
ple
s f
rom
th
e O
EC
D
Thank you !
www.oecd.org; www.pisa.oecd.org– All national and international publications– The complete micro-level database
email: [email protected]
…and remember:
Without data, you are just another person with an opinion
