Better education policies

11A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

Leveraging evidence for better education

policiesOECD’s Contribution to Education Development

Shanghai21 September 2011

Andreas SchleicherAdvisor of the Secretary-General on Education Policy

22A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

Turning evidence into policies

Policy objectives/

context

Evidence base

Delivery reality

• Do we understand the policy objectives • What countries care about,

what they intend to do about it and how they define success

• Do we understand the policy context and can we anticipate its future development ?

• Do we understand the strategic requirements for change?

• Are these• Technically feasible?• Politically and socially

suitable?• Robust and cost-effective?

• Do we understand the delivery challenge and delivery capacity? • Nature and size of the

barriers that systems face to deliver reform goals

• Can what works in one country by done in another by real people in real situations?

• Avoiding big time and energy traps?

• Do we understand past and present performance vis a vis the policy goals as well as the drivers of performance and their underlying system activities?

• What is added value of international comparisons?

Dimensions of evidence

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



and policies

Social & economic



characteristics


conditions


learners


constrain ed policy


school

Teaching, learning


climate


behaviour


institutions


delivery


skills


outcomes


impact of learning

Individual learner

LevelA


LevelB


LevelC

Country or system

LevelD



55A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

Changing demands on education

66A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

Then Now

Learning a place Learning an activity

Prescription Informed profession

Delivered wisdom User-generated wisdom

Uniformity Embracing diversity

Conformity Ingenious

Curriculum-centred Learner-centred

Provision Outcomes

Bureaucratic look-up Devolved – look outwards

Management Leadership

Public vs private Public with private

Culture as obstacle Culture as capital

77A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

Unabated educational expansion

88 1

6 S

ep

tem

ber

2011

Counci

lKey fi

nd

ing

s fr

om

the 2

01

1 e

dit

ion o

fEd

uca

tion a

t a G

lance

AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States

A world of change – higher education

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0

5,000.0

10,000.0

15,000.0

20,000.0

25,000.0

30,000.0

1995

Expe

ndit

ure

per

stud

ent

at t

ertia

ry le

vel (

USD

)

Tertiary-type A graduation rate

Graduate supply

Cost

per

stu

den

t

99 1

6 S

ep

tem

ber

2011

Counci

lKey fi

nd

ing

s fr

om

the 2

01

1 e

dit

ion o

fEd

uca

tion a

t a G

lance



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0

5,000.0

10,000.0

15,000.0

20,000.0

25,000.0

30,000.0

1995

Expe

ndit

ure

per

stud

ent

at t

ertia

ry le

vel (

USD

)


Graduate supply

Cost

per

stu

den

t

United States

Finland

Japan

1010 1

6 S

ep

tem

ber

2011

Counci

lKey fi

nd

ing

s fr

om

the 2

01

1 e

dit

ion o

fEd

uca

tion a

t a G

lance



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0

5,000.0

10,000.0

15,000.0

20,000.0

25,000.0

30,000.0

2000

Expe

ndit

ure

per

stud

ent

at t

ertia

ry le

vel (

USD

)


United Kingdom

1111 1

6 S

ep

tem

ber

2011

Counci

lKey fi

nd

ing

s fr

om

the 2

01

1 e

dit

ion o

fEd

uca

tion a

t a G

lance



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0

5,000.0

10,000.0

15,000.0

20,000.0

25,000.0

30,000.0

2001

Expe

ndit

ure

per

stud

ent

at t

ertia

ry le

vel (

USD

)


Australia

1212 1

6 S

ep

tem

ber

2011

Counci

lKey fi

nd

ing

s fr

om

the 2

01

1 e

dit

ion o

fEd

uca

tion a

t a G

lance



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0

5,000.0

10,000.0

15,000.0

20,000.0

25,000.0

30,000.0

2002

Expe

ndit

ure

per

stud

ent

at t

ertia

ry le

vel (

USD

)


1313 1

6 S

ep

tem

ber

2011

Counci

lKey fi

nd

ing

s fr

om

the 2

01

1 e

dit

ion o

fEd

uca

tion a

t a G

lance



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0

5,000.0

10,000.0

15,000.0

20,000.0

25,000.0

30,000.0

2003

Expe

ndit

ure

per

stud

ent

at t

ertia

ry le

vel (

USD

)


1414 1

6 S

ep

tem

ber

2011

Counci

lKey fi

nd

ing

s fr

om

the 2

01

1 e

dit

ion o

fEd

uca

tion a

t a G

lance



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0

5,000.0

10,000.0

15,000.0

20,000.0

25,000.0

30,000.0

2004

Expe

ndit

ure

per

stud

ent

at t

ertia

ry le

vel (

USD

)


1515 1

6 S

ep

tem

ber

2011

Counci

lKey fi

nd

ing

s fr

om

the 2

01

1 e

dit

ion o

fEd

uca

tion a

t a G

lance



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0

5,000.0

10,000.0

15,000.0

20,000.0

25,000.0

30,000.0

2005

Expe

ndit

ure

per

stud

ent

at t

ertia

ry le

vel (

USD

)


1616 1

6 S

ep

tem

ber

2011

Counci

lKey fi

nd

ing

s fr

om

the 2

01

1 e

dit

ion o

fEd

uca

tion a

t a G

lance



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0

5,000.0

10,000.0

15,000.0

20,000.0

25,000.0

30,000.0

2006

Expe

ndit

ure

per

stud

ent

at t

ertia

ry le

vel (

USD

)


1717 1

6 S

ep

tem

ber

2011

Counci

lKey fi

nd

ing

s fr

om

the 2

01

1 e

dit

ion o

fEd

uca

tion a

t a G

lance



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0

5,000.0

10,000.0

15,000.0

20,000.0

25,000.0

30,000.0

2007

Expe

ndit

ure

per

stud

ent

at t

ertia

ry le

vel (

USD

)


1818 1

6 S

ep

tem

ber

2011

Counci

lKey fi

nd

ing

s fr

om

the 2

01

1 e

dit

ion o

fEd

uca

tion a

t a G

lance



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0

5,000.0

10,000.0

15,000.0

20,000.0

25,000.0

30,000.0

2008 Ex

pend

itur

e pe

r st

uden

t at

ter

tiary

leve

l (U

SD)


Finland

1919 1

6 S

ep

tem

ber

2011

Counci

lKey fi

nd

ing

s fr

om

the 2

01

1 e

dit

ion o

fEd

uca

tion a

t a G

lance

The composition of the global talent pool has changed…

Countries’ share in the population with tertiary education, for 25-34 and 55-64 year-old age groups, percentage (2009)

55-64-year-old population 25-34-year-old population

About 39 million people who attained tertiary level

About 81 million people who attained tertiary level

albiser_e

EAG 2011: chart A4.2OK

2020 1

6 S

ep

tem

ber

2011

Counci

lKey fi

nd

ing

s fr

om

the 2

01

1 e

dit

ion o

fEd

uca

tion a

t a G

lance

United States, 35.8

Japan, 12.4

China, 6.9Germany, 6.3

United Kingdom, 5.3

Canada, 4.2

France, 3.5

Brazil, 3.5

Spain, 2.1Italy, 1.9

Mexico, 1.8

Australia, 1.7

Korea, 1.6other, 12.9

55-64-year-old population

United States, 20.5

Japan, 10.9

China, 18.3

Germany, 3.1United Kingdom, 4.4

Canada, 3.1France, 4.1

Brazil, 4.5

Spain, 3.5

Italy, 2.0

Mexico, 3.9

Australia, 1.6

Korea, 5.7

other, 14.5

25-34-year-old population

The composition of the global talent pool has changed…

Countries’ share in the population with tertiary education, for 25-34 and 55-64 year-old age groups, percentage (2009)

albiser_e

EAG 2011: chart A4.2OK

2121 1

6 S

ep

tem

ber

2011

Counci

lKey fi

nd

ing

s fr

om

the 2

01

1 e

dit

ion o

fEd

uca

tion a

t a G

lance

…and will continue to changeShare of new entrants into tertiary education in 2009 (OECD and G20

countries)

China, 36.6%

United States, 12.9%

Russian Federa-tion, 10.0%

Indonesia, 4.9%Japan, 4.2%Turkey, 3.7%

United Kingdom, 3.3%

Mexico, 3.1%Korea, 3.1%

Argentina, 2.7%Germany, 2.5%

Poland, 2.1%

Spain, 1.6%Italy, 1.4%

Australia, 1.3%Chile, 1.3%

Netherlands, 0.5%

Other countries, 4.8%

OtherPortugal 0.5%Czech Republic 0.4%Israel 0.4%Sweden 0.4%Belgium 0.4%Hungary 0.4%Austria 0.4%New Zealand 0.3%Switzerland 0.3%Slovak Republic 0.3%Denmark 0.2%Norway 0.2%Ireland 0.2%Finland 0.2%Slovenia 0.1%Estonia 0.1%Iceland 0.0%

albiser_e

EAG 2011: Chart A1.4OK



and policies

Social & economic



characteristics


conditions


learners


constrain ed policy


school

Teaching, learning


climate


behaviour


institutions


delivery


skills


outcomes


impact of learning

Individual learner

LevelA


LevelB


LevelC

Country or system

LevelD



2525A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

The increase in the number of knowledge workers has not led to a decrease in their pay

…which is what happened to low-skilled workers

2626A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

DenmarkSwedenTurkey

New ZealandNorway

SpainAustralia

NetherlandsBelgiumFinland

JapanFrance

GermanyAustria

OECD AverageCanada

United KingdomPoland

SloveniaHungary

Czech RepublicIreland

KoreaItaly

United StatesPortugal

-400,000 -200,000 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000

55,946 62,481

64,177 74,457

92,320 95,320

100,520 112,928

115,464 135,515 143,018

144,133 147,769

173,522 175,067

175,670 207,653

215,125 225,663 230,098

240,449 253,947

300,868 311,966

323,808 373,851

Foregone earnings Income tax effect Social contribution effectTransfers effect Grosss earnings benefits Unemployment effectNet Present value

USD equivalentC hart A9.3

Components of the private net present value for a man with higher education (2007 or latest available

year)

Net present value in USD equ.

albiser_e

EAG 2011: chart A9.3OKEAG 2010: Data updated but for female instead of male (as in EAG 2010)

2727A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

Taxpayers are getting a good return too

2828A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

TurkeyDenmark

SpainSweden

New ZealandNorwayFranceJapan

CanadaCzech Republic

ItalyAustralia

IrelandKorea

PortugalAustria

OECD AveragePoland

NetherlandsUnited Kingdom

FinlandSloveniaHungaryBelgium

GermanyUnited States

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000

21,724

28,621

29,58237,542

46,482

43,41963,701

67,411

79,77481,307

82,93284,532

85,91789,034

89,46489,705

91,036

94,12595,030

95,322

100,177155,664

166,872167,241

168,649

193,584

Public benefits Public costs

Chart A9.5 In equivalent USD

Public cost and benefits for a man obtaining tertiary education (2007 or latest available year)

Net present value

albiser_e

EAG 2011: chart A9.5 (tertiary)OK

2929A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

More than money

3131A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

Low skills and social outcomes

Odds are adjusted for age, gender, pand immigration status.

Level 5 Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 11.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6Has fair to poor health

Does not volunteer for charity or non-profit organizations

Poor understanding of po-litical issues facing coun-try

Poor level of general trust

Higher propensity of be-lieving people try to take of advantage of others

Lower propensity to reciprocate

Poor political efficacyPIAAC skill level

Odds ratios

3232P

IAA

CO

EC

D P

rogr

amm

e fo

r th

e in

tern

atio

nal

asse

ssm

ent o

f adu

lt co

mpe

tenc

ies

Lisb

on C

ounc

il1

5 S

ep

tem

be

r 2

011

An

dre

as

Sch

leic

he

rLearning goes beyond school

Cross-sectional skill-age profiles for youths by education and work status

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

Age

Mean skill score

Youth in education

Youth in education and work

Youth in work

Not in education, not

in work



and policies

Social & economic



characteristics


conditions


learners


constrain ed policy


school

Teaching, learning


climate


behaviour


institutions


delivery


skills


outcomes


impact of learning

Individual learner

LevelA


LevelB


LevelC

Country or system

LevelD



3434A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

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



and policies

Social & economic



characteristics


conditions


learners


constrain ed policy


school

Teaching, learning


climate


behaviour


institutions


delivery


skills


outcomes


impact of learning

Individual learner

LevelA


LevelB


LevelC

Country or system

LevelD





and policies

Social & economic



characteristics


conditions


learners


constrain ed policy


school

Teaching, learning


climate


behaviour


institutions


skills


outcomes


impact of learning

Individual learner

LevelA


LevelB


LevelC

Country or system

LevelD




delivery

3939A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

Quality as the key to success

4343A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

OECD’s PISA assessment of the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds

Coverage of world economy 77%81%83%85%86%87%

4444A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

Average performanceof 15-year-olds in reading – extrapolate and apply

High reading performance

Low reading performance … 17 countries perform below this line

1525354555440.000

460.000

480.000

500.000

520.000

540.000

560.000

Shanghai-China

KoreaFinlandHong Kong-China

Singapore CanadaNew Zealand

JapanAustralia

NetherlandsBelgiumNorway, EstoniaSwitzerlandPoland,IcelandUnited States LiechtensteinSwedenGermany,

IrelandFrance, Chinese TaipeiDenmarkUnited KingdomHungary,Portugal

Macao-China ItalyLatvia

Slovenia GreeceSpain

Czech RepublicSlovak Republic, CroatiaIsraelLuxembourg,

Austria LithuaniaTurkey

Dubai (UAE) Russian Federation

Chile

Serbia

4545A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

Average performanceof 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply

Low average performance

Large socio-economic disparities

High average performance



High social equity


High social equity

Strong socio-economic impact on

student performance

Socially equitable distribution of

learning opportunities


Low reading performance

4646A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik






High social equity


High social equity


student performance





AustraliaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUKUS

2009

1525354555

2009

4747A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies







High social equity


High social equity


student performance






2009

4848A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies







High social equity


High social equity


student performance






2000

4949A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies







High social equity


High social equity


student performance






2000

Other rapid improvers in reading:Peru, Indonesia, Latvia, Israel and Brazil

Rapid improvers in mathematics:Mexico, Brazil, Turkey, Greece, Portugal, Italy

and GermanyRapid improvers in science:

Qatar, Turkey, Portugal, Korea, Brazil, Colombia, Italy, Norway, United States, Poland

5050A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

-2 -1 0 1 2350

643

Score

School performance and socio-economic background Shanghai

Stu

dent

perf

orm

ance

AdvantagePISA Index of socio-economic background

Disadvantage



and policies

Social & economic



characteristics


conditions


learners


constrain ed policy


school

Teaching, learning


climate


behaviour


institutions


skills


outcomes


impact of learning

Individual learner

LevelA


LevelB


LevelC

Country or system

LevelD


Dimensions for educational benchmarking


delivery

5454P

ISA

OE

CD

Pro

gram

me

for

Inte

rnat

iona

l Stu

dent

Ass

essm

ent

See

ing

Japa

nese

sch

ools

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f PIS

A

•Principled•Strategic partnership

•Negotiated•Pragmatic .

•Top-down•Antagonistic .

•Leading•Evidence-driven•Achieving high reliability and innovation .

• Enabling• Incentivising

.

•World class performance.

•Continuous learning and innovation .

Good Great

•Accommodating•Evidence-based•Adopting best . practice

•Regulating .•Capacity-building

•Transparency .•Spreading best practice

• Implementing•Accepting evidence•Adopting minimum standards

•Prescribing .• Justifying

• Tackling underperformance

Adequate GoodPoor Adequate

Main focus of policy

Role of government

Role of professions

Nature of relationship between government

and professions

Phases of development

Main outcomes

• Improvement in outcomes

•Reduction of public anxiety.

•Steady improvement

•Growing public satisfaction .

•Consistent quality•Public engagement and co-production .

Using evidence for development

5555A

ndre

as S

chle

iche

rS

hang

hai,

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

11L

ev

era

gin

g e

vid

en

ce

fo

r b

ett

er

ed

uc

ati

on

po

lic

ies

Thank you !

www.oecd.org; www.pisa.oecd.org– All national and international publications– The complete micro-level database

email: [email protected]

[email protected]

…and remember:

Without data, you are just another person with an opinion

Better education policies

Education

Transcript of Better education policies