Leveraging evidence for better education policies ( OECD’s Contribution to Education Development)
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
0 gefällt mir•486 views
Shanghai 21 September 2011 Andreas Schleicher Advisor of the Secretary-General on Education Policy
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (17)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (20)
Ähnlich wie Leveraging evidence for better education policies ( OECD’s Contribution to Education Development)
Ähnlich wie Leveraging evidence for better education policies ( OECD’s Contribution to Education Development) (20)
Mehr von EduSkills OECD
Mehr von EduSkills OECD (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Leveraging evidence for better education policies ( OECD’s Contribution to Education Development)
- 1. 1 1 for better education policies Leveraging evidence Leveraging evidence for better education policies OECD’s Contribution to Education Development Shanghai, 22 September 2011 Andreas Schleicher Shanghai 21 September 2011 Andreas Schleicher Advisor of the Secretary-General on Education Policy
- 2. 2Do we objectives the • 2 understand policy Turning evidence into policies • What countries care about, what they intend to do about it and how they define success for better education policies • Do we understand the policy context and can we anticipate • Do we understand the delivery Leveraging evidence its future development ? challenge and delivery • Do we understand the capacity? strategic requirements for • Nature and size of the change? barriers that systems face • Are these • Do we understand past and to deliver reform goals present performance vis a vis • Technically feasible? • Can what works in one Shanghai, 22 September 2011 Andreas Schleicher the policy goals as well as the • Politically and socially suitable? country by done in another drivers of performance and • Robust and cost-effective? by real people in real their underlying system situations? activities? • Avoiding big time and • What is added value of energy traps? international comparisons?
- 3. Dimensions of evidence Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Outputs and Policy Levers Antecedents Outcomes shape educational contextualise or impact of learning outcomes constrain ed policy Quality and Individ attitudes, Socio-economic Level Individual distribution of engagement and background of A learner knowledge & skills behaviour learners Quality of Teaching, learning Student learning, Level Instructional instructional practices and teacher working B settings delivery classroom climate conditions Output and The learning Community Level Schools, other performance of environment at and school C institutions institutions school characteristics Social & economic Structures, National educ, Level Country or outcomes of resource alloc social and D system education and policies economic context
- 4. Dimensions of evidence Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Outputs and Policy Levers Antecedents Outcomes shape educational contextualise or impact of learning outcomes constrain ed policy Quality and Individ attitudes, Socio-economic Level Individual distribution of engagement and background of A learner knowledge & skills behaviour learners Quality of Teaching, learning Student learning, Level Instructional instructional practices and teacher working B settings delivery classroom climate conditions Output and The learning Community Level Schools, other performance of environment at and school C institutions institutions school characteristics Social & economic Structures, National educ, Level Country or outcomes of resource alloc social and D system education and policies economic context
- 5. Andreas Schleicher Leveraging evidence Shanghai, 22 September 2011 for better education policies 5 5 Changing demands on education
- 6. 6 6 Then Now Learning a place Learning an activity for better education policies Prescription Informed profession Leveraging evidence Delivered wisdom User-generated wisdom Uniformity Embracing diversity Shanghai, 22 September 2011 Andreas Schleicher Conformity Ingenious Curriculum-centred Learner-centred Provision Outcomes
- 7. Andreas Schleicher Leveraging evidence Shanghai, 22 September 2011 for better education policies 7 7 Unabated educational expansion
- 8. 8 8 Australia Austria A world of change – higher education Key findings from the 2011 edition of Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic 30,000.0 Denmark Estonia 1995 Finland Education at a Glance France 25,000.0 Germany Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) Greece Hungary Cost per student 20,000.0 Iceland Ireland Israel Italy 15,000.0 Japan Korea Council 16 September 2011 Luxembourg 10,000.0 Mexico Netherland New Zealand Norway 5,000.0 Poland Portugal Slovak Republic 0.0 Slovenia 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Spain Sweden Switzerland Graduate supply Turkey United Kingdom Tertiary-type A graduation rate United States
- 9. 9 9 Australia Austria A world of change – higher education Key findings from the 2011 edition of Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic 30,000.0 Denmark Estonia 1995 Finland Education at a Glance France 25,000.0 Germany Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) Greece Hungary Cost per student 20,000.0 Iceland United States Ireland Israel Italy 15,000.0 Finland Japan Korea Council 16 September 2011 Luxembourg 10,000.0 Japan Mexico Netherland New Zealand Norway 5,000.0 Poland Portugal Slovak Republic 0.0 Slovenia 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Spain Sweden Switzerland Graduate supply Turkey United Kingdom Tertiary-type A graduation rate United States
- 10. 10 10 Australia Austria A world of change – higher education Key findings from the 2011 edition of Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic 30,000.0 Denmark Estonia 2000 Finland Education at a Glance France 25,000.0 Germany Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) Greece Hungary 20,000.0 Iceland Ireland Israel Italy 15,000.0 Japan Korea Council 16 September 2011 United Kingdom Luxembourg 10,000.0 Mexico Netherland New Zealand Norway 5,000.0 Poland Portugal Slovak Republic 0.0 Slovenia 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom Tertiary-type A graduation rate United States
- 11. 11 11 Australia Austria A world of change – higher education Key findings from the 2011 edition of Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic 30,000.0 Denmark Estonia 2001 Finland Education at a Glance France 25,000.0 Germany Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) Greece Hungary 20,000.0 Iceland Ireland Israel Italy 15,000.0 Australia Japan Korea Council 16 September 2011 Luxembourg 10,000.0 Mexico Netherland New Zealand Norway 5,000.0 Poland Portugal Slovak Republic 0.0 Slovenia 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom Tertiary-type A graduation rate United States
- 12. 12 12 Australia Austria A world of change – higher education Key findings from the 2011 edition of Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic 30,000.0 Denmark Estonia 2002 Finland Education at a Glance France 25,000.0 Germany Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) Greece Hungary 20,000.0 Iceland Ireland Israel Italy 15,000.0 Japan Korea Council 16 September 2011 Luxembourg 10,000.0 Mexico Netherland New Zealand Norway 5,000.0 Poland Portugal Slovak Republic 0.0 Slovenia 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom Tertiary-type A graduation rate United States
- 13. 13 13 Australia Austria A world of change – higher education Key findings from the 2011 edition of Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic 30,000.0 Denmark Estonia 2003 Finland Education at a Glance France 25,000.0 Germany Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) Greece Hungary 20,000.0 Iceland Ireland Israel Italy 15,000.0 Japan Korea Council 16 September 2011 Luxembourg 10,000.0 Mexico Netherland New Zealand Norway 5,000.0 Poland Portugal Slovak Republic 0.0 Slovenia 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom Tertiary-type A graduation rate United States
- 14. 14 14 Australia Austria A world of change – higher education Key findings from the 2011 edition of Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic 30,000.0 Denmark Estonia 2004 Finland Education at a Glance France 25,000.0 Germany Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) Greece Hungary 20,000.0 Iceland Ireland Israel Italy 15,000.0 Japan Korea Council 16 September 2011 Luxembourg 10,000.0 Mexico Netherland New Zealand Norway 5,000.0 Poland Portugal Slovak Republic 0.0 Slovenia 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom Tertiary-type A graduation rate United States
- 15. 15 15 Australia Austria A world of change – higher education Key findings from the 2011 edition of Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic 30,000.0 Denmark Estonia 2005 Finland Education at a Glance France 25,000.0 Germany Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) Greece Hungary 20,000.0 Iceland Ireland Israel Italy 15,000.0 Japan Korea Council 16 September 2011 Luxembourg 10,000.0 Mexico Netherland New Zealand Norway 5,000.0 Poland Portugal Slovak Republic 0.0 Slovenia 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom Tertiary-type A graduation rate United States
- 16. 16 16 Australia Austria A world of change – higher education Key findings from the 2011 edition of Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic 30,000.0 Denmark Estonia 2006 Finland Education at a Glance France 25,000.0 Germany Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) Greece Hungary 20,000.0 Iceland Ireland Israel Italy 15,000.0 Japan Korea Council 16 September 2011 Luxembourg 10,000.0 Mexico Netherland New Zealand Norway 5,000.0 Poland Portugal Slovak Republic 0.0 Slovenia 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom Tertiary-type A graduation rate United States
- 17. 17 17 Australia Austria A world of change – higher education Key findings from the 2011 edition of Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic 30,000.0 Denmark Estonia 2007 Finland Education at a Glance France 25,000.0 Germany Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) Greece Hungary 20,000.0 Iceland Ireland Israel Italy 15,000.0 Japan Korea Council 16 September 2011 Luxembourg 10,000.0 Mexico Netherland New Zealand Norway 5,000.0 Poland Portugal Slovak Republic 0.0 Slovenia 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom Tertiary-type A graduation rate United States
- 18. 18 18 Australia Austria A world of change – higher education Key findings from the 2011 edition of Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic 30,000.0 Denmark Estonia 2008 Finland Education at a Glance France 25,000.0 Germany Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) Greece Hungary 20,000.0 Iceland Finland Ireland Israel Italy 15,000.0 Japan Korea Council 16 September 2011 Luxembourg 10,000.0 Mexico Netherland New Zealand Norway 5,000.0 Poland Portugal Slovak Republic 0.0 Slovenia 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom Tertiary-type A graduation rate United States
- 19. 19 19 The composition of the global talent pool has changed… Countries’ share in the population with tertiary education, for 25-34 and 55-64 year- Key findings from the 2011 edition of old age groups, percentage (2009) 55-64-year-old population 25-34-year-old population Education at a Glance Council 16 September 2011 About 39 million people About 81 million people who attained tertiary level who attained tertiary level
- 20. 20 20 The composition of the global talent pool has changed… Countries’ share in the population with tertiary education, for 25-34 and 55-64 year- Key findings from the 2011 edition of old age groups, percentage (2009) 55-64-year-old population 25-34-year-old population Education at a Glance United United other, 14.5 States, 20.5 other, 12.9 States, 35.8 Korea, 1.6 Australia, 1.7 Korea, 5.7 Mexico, 1.8 Australia, 1.6 Council 16 September 2011 Italy, 1.9 Mexico, 3.9 Spain, 2.1 Italy, 2.0 Japan, 10.9 Brazil, 3.5 Spain, 3.5 France, 3.5 Canada, 4.2 Brazil, 4.5 United France, 4.1 China, 18.3 Kingdom, 5.3 Japan, 12.4 Canada, 3.1 Germany, 6.3 Germany, 3.1 China, 6.9 United Kingdom, 4.4
- 21. 21 21 Key findings from the 2011 edition of …and will continue to change Share of new entrants into tertiary education in 2009 (OECD and G20 countries) Other China, 36.6% Education at a Glance countries, 4.8% Netherlands, 0.5 % Other Portugal 0.5% Chile, 1.3% Czech Republic 0.4% Australia, 1.3% Israel 0.4% Council 16 September 2011 Sweden 0.4% Italy, 1.4% Belgium 0.4% Spain, 1.6% Hungary 0.4% Poland, 2.1% Austria 0.4% New Zealand 0.3% Germany, 2.5% United Switzerland 0.3% States, 12.9%Slovak Republic 0.3% Argentina, 2.7% Denmark 0.2% Korea, 3.1% Norway 0.2% Ireland 0.2% Mexico, 3.1% Russian Finland 0.2% Federation, 10.0 Slovenia 0.1% United % Estonia 0.1% Kingdom, 3.3% Japan, 4.2% Indonesia, 4.9% Iceland 0.0% Turkey, 3.7%
- 22. Dimensions of evidence Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Outputs and Policy Levers Antecedents Outcomes shape educational contextualise or impact of learning outcomes constrain ed policy Quality and Individ attitudes, Socio-economic Level Individual distribution of engagement and background of A learner knowledge & skills behaviour learners Quality of Teaching, learning Student learning, Level Instructional instructional practices and teacher working B settings delivery classroom climate conditions Output and The learning Community Level Schools, other performance of environment at and school C institutions institutions school characteristics Social & economic Structures, National educ, Level Country or outcomes of resource alloc social and D system education and policies economic context
- 23. Dimensions of evidence Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Outputs and Policy Levers Antecedents Outcomes shape educational contextualise or impact of learning outcomes constrain ed policy Quality and Individ attitudes, Socio-economic Level Individual distribution of engagement and background of A learner knowledge & skills behaviour learners Quality of Teaching, learning Student learning, Level Instructional instructional practices and teacher working B settings delivery classroom climate conditions Output and The learning Community Level Schools, other performance of environment at and school C institutions institutions school characteristics Social & economic Structures, National educ, Level Country or outcomes of resource alloc social and D system education and policies economic context
- 24. 25 25 for better education policies Leveraging evidence 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 Andreas Schleicher Shanghai, 22 September 2011
- 25. Components of the private net present value for a man 26 26 with higher education (2007 or latest available year) Direct cost Foregone earnings Income tax effect Social contribution effect Transfers effect Grosss earnings benefits Unemployment effect for better education policies Portugal 373,851 United States 323,808 Italy Leveraging evidence 311,966 Korea 300,868 Ireland 253,947 Czech Republic 240,449 Hungary 230,098 Slovenia 225,663 Poland 215,125 United Kingdom 207,653 Canada 175,670 OECD Average 175,067 Austria 173,522 Shanghai, 22 September 2011 Andreas Schleicher Germany 147,769 France 144,133 Japan 143,018 Finland 135,515 Net Belgium 115,464 present Netherlands 112,928 value in Australia 100,520 Spain 95,320 USD Norway 92,320 equ. New Zealand 74,457 Turkey 64,177 Sweden 62,481 Denmark 55,946 -400,000 -200,000 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 USD equivalent C hart A9.3
- 26. Andreas Schleicher Leveraging evidence Shanghai, 22 September 2011 for better education policies 27 27 Taxpayers are getting a good return too
- 27. Public cost and benefits for a man obtaining tertiary education 28 28 (2007 or latest available year) Public benefits Public costs United States 193,584 Germany 168,649 for better education policies Belgium 167,241 Hungary 166,872 Slovenia 155,664 Leveraging evidence Finland 100,177 United Kingdom 95,322 Netherlands 95,030 Poland 94,125 OECD Average 91,036 Austria 89,705 Portugal 89,464 Korea 89,034 Ireland 85,917 Andreas Schleicher Shanghai, 22 September 2011 Australia 84,532 Italy 82,932 Czech Republic 81,307 Canada 79,774 Japan 67,411 France 63,701 Net present Norway 43,419 value New Zealand 46,482 Sweden 37,542 Spain 29,582 Denmark 28,621 Turkey 21,724 Chart A9.5 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 In equivalent USD
- 28. Andreas Schleicher Leveraging evidence Shanghai, 22 September 2011 for better education policies 29 29 More than money
- 29. 31 Low skills and social outcomes 31 Odds ratios Has fair to poor health for better education policies 2.6 Leveraging evidence Does not volunteer for 2.4 charity or non-profit 2.2 organizations Poor understanding of 2.0 political issues facing country 1.8 Poor level of general trust Andreas Schleicher Shanghai, 22 September 2011 1.6 Higher propensity of 1.4 believing people try to take 1.2 of advantage of others Lower propensity to 1.0 reciprocate Level 5 Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1 PIAAC skill level Poor political efficacy Odds are adjusted for age, gender, pand immigration status.
- 30. 32 32 Learning goes beyond school Cross-sectional skill-age profiles for youths by education and work status Mean skill score 320 310 Youth in education 15 September 2011 Andreas Schleicher 300 Lisbon Council Youth in and work 290 education 280 270 260 Youth in work PIAAC OECD Programme for the international assessment of adult competencies 250 240 230 Not in education, 220 not in work 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Age Linear (In education only) Linear (In education and work) Linear (Work only) Linear (NEET)
- 31. Dimensions of evidence Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Outputs and Policy Levers Antecedents Outcomes shape educational contextualise or impact of learning outcomes constrain ed policy Quality and Individ attitudes, Socio-economic Level Individual distribution of engagement and background of A learner knowledge & skills behaviour learners Quality of Teaching, learning Student learning, Level Instructional instructional practices and teacher working B settings delivery classroom climate conditions Output and The learning Community Level Schools, other performance of environment at and school C institutions institutions school characteristics Social & economic Structures, National educ, Level Country or outcomes of resource alloc social and D system education and policies economic context
- 32. Andreas Schleicher Leveraging evidence Shanghai, 22 September 2011 for better education policies 34 34 0 5 10 15 -10 -5 Portugal Spain Percentage points Switzerland Turkey Belgium Korea Luxembourg Germany Greece Salary as % of GDP/capita Japan Australia United Kingdom New Zealand France Netherlands Instruction time Denmark Italy Austria Difference with OECD average Czech Republic Hungary Norway per student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004) 1/teaching time Iceland Ireland Mexico Finland Spending choices on secondary schools Contribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher compensation costs Sweden United States 1/class size Poland Slovak Republic
- 33. Dimensions of evidence Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Outputs and Policy Levers Antecedents Outcomes shape educational contextualise or impact of learning outcomes constrain ed policy Quality and Individ attitudes, Socio-economic Level Individual distribution of engagement and background of A learner knowledge & skills behaviour learners Quality of Teaching, learning Student learning, Level Instructional instructional practices and teacher working B settings delivery classroom climate conditions Output and The learning Community Level Schools, other performance of environment at and school C institutions institutions school characteristics Social & economic Structures, National educ, Level Country or outcomes of resource alloc social and D system education and policies economic context
- 34. Dimensions of evidence Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Outputs and Policy Levers Antecedents Outcomes shape educational contextualise or impact of learning outcomes constrain ed policy Quality and Individ attitudes, Socio-economic Level Individual distribution of engagement and background of A learner knowledge & skills behaviour learners Quality of Teaching, learning Student learning, Level Instructional instructional practices and teacher working B settings delivery classroom climate conditions Output and The learning Community Level Schools, other performance of environment at and school C institutions institutions school characteristics Social & economic Structures, National educ, Level Country or outcomes of resource alloc social and D system education and policies economic context
- 35. Andreas Schleicher Leveraging evidence Shanghai, 22 September 2011 for better education policies 39 39 Quality as the key to success
- 36. 43 43 OECD’s PISA assessment of the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds Coverage of world economy 83% 87% 86% 85% 81% 77% for better education policies Leveraging evidence Andreas Schleicher Shanghai, 22 September 2011
- 37. Shanghai-China High reading performance 44 44 Average performance of 15-year-olds in Korea 540.000 Finland reading – extrapolate Hong Kong-China and apply for better education policies Singapore Canada New Zealand 520.000 Japan Leveraging evidence Australia Belgium Netherlands Poland, Switzerland Norway , Estonia United States Iceland 500.000 Germany, Sweden Liechtenstein France, Ireland Chinese Taipei Hungary, United Kingdom Denmark Portugal Macao-China Italy Latvia Andreas Schleicher Shanghai, 22 September 2011 Slovenia Greece Spain 480.000 Slovak Republic, Czech Republic Croatia Luxembourg, Israel Austria Lithuania Turkey 460.000 Dubai (UAE) Russian Federation Chile Serbia 440.000 55 45 35 25 … 17 countries perform below this line Low reading performance
- 38. High reading performance 45 45 Average performance High average performance Highof 15-year-olds in average performance Large socio-economic disparities science – extrapolate High social equity and apply for better education policies Leveraging evidence Strong socio- Socially equitable economic impact on distribution of learning student performance opportunities Andreas Schleicher Shanghai, 22 September 2011 Low average performance Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High social equity Low reading performance
- 39. Australia High reading performance 46 46 Belgium 2009 2009 Canada Durchschnittliche High average performance High average performance Chile Czech Rep Large socio-economic disparities Schülerleistungen im High social equity Denmark Bereich Mathematik for better education policies Finland Germany Greece Leveraging evidence Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Strong socio- Socially equitable Italy economic impact on distribution of learning Japan student performance opportunities Korea Shanghai, 22 September 2011 Andreas Schleicher Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Low average performance Low average performance Sweden SwitzerlandLarge socio-economic disparities High social equity UK 55 45 35 25 15 US Low reading performance
- 40. Australia High reading performance 47 47 Belgium 2009 Canada Durchschnittliche High average performance High average performance Chile Czech Rep Large socio-economic disparities Schülerleistungen im High social equity Denmark Bereich Mathematik for better education policies Finland Germany Greece Leveraging evidence Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Strong socio- Socially equitable Italy economic impact on distribution of learning Japan student performance opportunities Korea Andreas Schleicher Shanghai, 22 September 2011 Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Low average performance Low average performance Sweden SwitzerlandLarge socio-economic disparities High social equity UK US Low reading performance
- 41. Australia High reading performance 48 48 Belgium 2000 Canada Durchschnittliche High average performance High average performance Chile Czech Rep Large socio-economic disparities Schülerleistungen im High social equity Denmark Bereich Mathematik for better education policies Finland Germany Greece Leveraging evidence Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Strong socio- Socially equitable Italy economic impact on distribution of learning Japan student performance opportunities Korea Andreas Schleicher Shanghai, 22 September 2011 Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Low average performance Low average performance Sweden SwitzerlandLarge socio-economic disparities High social equity UK US Low reading performance
- 42. Australia High reading performance 49 49 Belgium 2000 Canada Durchschnittliche High average performance High average performance Chile Czech Rep Large socio-economic disparities Schülerleistungen im High social equity Denmark Bereich Mathematik for better education policies Finland Germany Greece Leveraging evidence Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Strong socio- Socially equitable Italy economic impact on distribution of learning Japan student performance opportunities Korea Shanghai, 22 September 2011 Andreas Schleicher Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Low average performance Low average performance Sweden SwitzerlandLarge socio-economic disparities High social equity UK US Low reading performance
- 43. 50 School performance and socio-economic background 50 Shanghai Score for better education policies 643 Leveraging evidence Student performance Shanghai, 22 September 2011 Andreas Schleicher 350 -2 -1 0 1 Disadvantage PISA Index of socio-economic background Advantage
- 44. Dimensions for educational benchmarking Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Outputs and Policy Levers Antecedents Outcomes shape educational contextualise or impact of learning outcomes constrain ed policy Quality and Individ attitudes, Socio-economic Level Individual distribution of engagement and background of A learner knowledge & skills behaviour learners Quality of Teaching, learning Student learning, Level Instructional instructional practices and teacher working B settings delivery classroom climate conditions Output and The learning Community Level Schools, other performance of environment at and school C institutions institutions school characteristics Social & economic Structures, National educ, Level Country or outcomes of resource alloc social and D system education and policies economic context
- 45. 54 54 through the prism of PISA Using evidence for development Seeing Japanese schools Phases of development Poor Adequate Adequate Good Good Great •World class •Transparency . •Tackling performance. Main focus of policy •Spreading best underperformance •Continuous learning practice and innovation . •Prescribing . •Regulating . •Enabling Role of government •Justifying •Capacity-building •Incentivising . •Leading •Implementing •Accommodating PISA International Student Assessment OECD Programme for •Evidence-driven •Accepting evidence •Evidence-based Role of professions •Achieving high •Adopting minimum •Adopting best . reliability and standards practice innovation . Nature of relationship •Top-down •Negotiated •Principled between government and •Antagonistic . •Pragmatic . •Strategic partnership professions •Improvement in •Steady improvement •Consistent quality outcomes Main outcomes •Reduction of public •Growing public •Public engagement satisfaction . and co-production . anxiety.
- 46. 55 55 www.oecd.org; www.pisa.oecd.org for better education policies – All national and international publications – The complete micro-level database Leveraging evidence email: pisa@oecd.org Thank you ! Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org Shanghai, 22 September 2011 Andreas Schleicher … and remember: Without data, you are just another person with an opinion
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Such an OECD knowledge base needs to reflect three dimension, (1) an understanding of what countries are trying to achieve, (2) the evidence that we have, and (3) what we know about policy delivery in different contexts. As concerning the policy context: Do we understand what countries care about, what they intend to do about it and how they define success? Do we understand the policy context, and that is not just about the context as it stands, but how we anticipate its future development, because in an area like education where the delivery chain of reforms is so long, we need to think far into the future. Do we understand the strategic requirements for change, and do we judge various approaches to change technically feasible? And not everything that is feasible is politically suitable. And not everything that can be done is robust and cost-effective. With regard to the evidence: Are our indicators and analyses adequately capturing past and present performance of the education system vis a vis the reform goals, and have we been able to pin-point the drivers of performance and their underlying system activities? How does what we produce at the OECD, whether that is data, country reviews or thematic review relate to and add value to what other players provide?Finally, to what extent is our analysis useful and actionable in national contexts. Do we understand the challenges for reform delivery in countries and their delivery capacity? Is what we propose doable by real people in real situations and avoiding big time and energy traps?
- The first thing you see is a dramatic expansion of higher education.
- This is going to be a perspective from 30,000 feet above, which does not allow us to see much detail, but rather to get an impression of the big picture of changes in education that we are seeing around the world.Some of these changes are profound. In the past, learning was considered a place, we brought kids to school. Now learning is an activity that cuts through everything children do at all stages of our lives.In old bureaucratic education systems, teachers were often left alone in classrooms with a lot of prescription what to teach. The most successful systems now set ambitious goals, are clear about what students should be able to do and then provide teachers with the tools to establish what content and instruction they need to deliver to their individual students. The past was about delivered wisdom, the challenge now is to enable user-generated wisdom.In the past, different students were taught in similar ways, today the challenge is to embrace increasing diversity with differentiated pedagogical practices. The goal of the past was standardization and conformity, now it’s about being ingenious, about personalizing educational experiences, about realising that ordinary students have extraordinary talents. Education systems have always talked about equity, now we measure their success by how well they deliver equity, in terms of moderating the impact which social background has on learning outcomes.The past was curriculum-centered, the future is learner centered. In the past, the policy focus was on the provision of education, today it’s on outcomes, shifting from looking upwards in the bureaucracy towards looking outwards to the next teacher, the next school, about creating networks of innovation In the past we emphasized school management, now it is about leadership, with a focus on supporting, evaluating and developing teacher quality as its core, which includes coordinating the curriculum and teaching program, monitoring and evaluating teacher practice, promoting teacher professional development and supporting collaborative work cultures.In the past, we considered social background and culture as obstacles to learning, the best performing systems capitalize on the diversity of learners; see diversity not as the problem, but as the potential of the knowledge society. And Ontario is actually a great example in this respect.
- The first thing you see is a dramatic expansion of higher education.
- This chart shows you the college graduation rate on the horizontal axis, and how much countries invest per college student each year. Each dot is one country.
- This shows you both how rapidly education systems have expanded but also how much the pace of change has differed across countries. The United States, that was the benchmark for higher education output in 1995, is now an average performer because so many countries have expanded higher education so much faster.In fact, if you followed this chart closely, you will see that, while most countries have moved towards the right, towards more people completing degrees, the US has primarily moved upwards, becoming more expensive.
- The expansion of higher education has had significant implications on the global talent pool (here 36 countries with comparable data). Among the age group nearing retirement, there are 39 million with a tertiary qualification. Among the age group entering the labour-force, it is 81 million.
- But while in the older age group every third person in global talent pool was in the United States, it is only every fifth in the younger age group. China’s share of this global talent pool has expanded from less 7% among the older age group to 18% among those who have just entered the labor market – just 2 percentage points below that of the U.S. In sum, the US still has one of most highly educated labour forces in the OECD area. With 41% of the adult population having attained a tertiary degree, the US ranks among the top five countries on this measure, and has over 10 percentage points more of its labour force with this level of education than the OECD average (30%). But much of this advantage stems from a high educational level among older age groups. The US, together with Germany and Israel, are the only countries where attainment levels among those about to leave the labour market (55-64 year-olds) are similar to those who have just entered the labour market (25-34 year-olds). This is why the picture looks very different among younger age groups. Among those 25-34 year-olds who have recently entered the labour market, the US ranks 15th among 34 OECD countries in tertiary attainment (Table A1.3a). Similarly, the rate of graduation from tertiary education has increased in the US from 42% in 2000 to 49% in 2009, but the pace of the expansion has been more rapid in other countries: on average across OECD countries, graduation rates have increased from 37% to 47%. Graduation rates from longer, theory-based programmes (tertiary-type A) and advanced research programmes in the US stand at the OECD average of 38% (Table A3.2).
- When you ahead into the future output of education systems, by comparing the number of people who are entering higher education, you can see even more dramatic changes.
- And the picture becomes even more pronounced when you look at the number of high school graduates across countries, which represent the future pool of potential university entrants.
- Tertiary education brings substantial economic benefits to individuals. On average across OECD countries, a person with a tertiary education can expect to earn over 50% more than a person with an upper secondary education. This premium is 79% in the U.S., among the highest in the OECD area (ranked 6 of 34) and provides a solid incentive for completing higher levels of education. The penalty for not completing high school is particularly severe in the US: someone who has not completed an upper secondary education can only expect to receive 64% of a high school graduate’s earnings (77% on average across OECD countries). Education thus determines access to well-paid jobs more in the US than in other OECD countries. As in most other countries, the earnings premium for those with higher education has been increasing over the past decade, suggesting that, in the US, the supply of tertiary-educated workers has not kept up with demand. The earnings premium has increased from 66% in 1999 to 79% in 2009, and the pace of the increase appears to be have intensified by the current economic crisis (Table A8.2a).
- The additional taxes and social contributions paid by tertiary graduates make investment in this level of education very profitable, from the public perspective.
- The net gain over the working life of a tertiary-educated man in the US is above USD 190,000 – the highest in the OECD area and well above the OECD average of USD 91,000. Among tertiary-educated women in the US, the net gain is close to USD 90,000, also well above the OECD average of USD 55,000. These high returns to taxpayers are largely seen in income taxes paid by tertiary graduates, who have a particularly large earnings premium in the US. In addition, the public share of the direct costs for higher education is among the lowest in the OECD area. Further expanding higher education to meet labour-market demands thus makes good economic sense from a public perspective (Table A9.4).
- Marginal probability in this figure essentially reflects the correlation between skill and unemployment holding other variables (i.e., age, gender, foreign language status, and country) at their average.
- You can see a similar relationship between skills and social outcomes. If you lack foundation skills, you are more likely to be in poor health, you are less likely to volunteer, you will have less of an understanding of political issues facing your country.You are also less likely to trust institution and people and constantly think that others are taking advantage of you. You may ask why trust is so important but the bottom line is that there is no functioning democracy without trust in institutions and there is no functioning business relationship without trust in your partners and the rule of law. Afghanistan is an example for what financial capital can achieve in a country without a human capital base. You will also be less likely to reciprocate.Finally, those with poor skills show also low levels of political efficacy, that is, they tend to believe that politicians do what they want and that they themselves have no influence.
- One of the innovations of PIAAC is that it does not solely look at schools and universities when it comes to skill formation, but that it takes a truly lifelong, and lifewide, perspective of learning.That is very important, because given the pace of change in the demand for skills, and amplified by the impact of demographics you just saw, the workforce twenty years down the road will largely consist of people who are already in the labour market. Much of the demand for new skills will thus have to be met by training existing workers. This chart from PIAAC shows you how different forms of learning contribute to enhancing skills among youths. You see that if you stay enrolled in formal education between the ages of 16 and 25 years you learn something, as one would expect. But you also see that those youths who combine education and work tend to start out from a lower base but increase their skills even more rapidly. And those who are only working also keep improving their skill base, even if they do not quite catch up.In contrast, those who are neither in work nor in education are actually losing the skills they acquired in school. They end up worth than they started out with.So what does this imply for policy? Well, to help adults keep learning, education and training systems need to offer flexibility, allowing adults to learn what they want, when they want, and how they want; second, they need to facilitate access by reducing barriers to entry, such as institutional rigidities, up-front fees and age restrictions; third, they need to offer a variety of entry and re-entry pathways for people who need a second chance or want to upgrade their skills or learn new ones later in life; fourth they need to recognise all learning throughout a working life, by ensuring that credit is granted for components of programmes, offering training modules, and providing credit accumulation and credit-transfer systems. PIAAC shows you which countries are doing a good job with these things and which are not.Initial results from PIAAC also suggest that we need better policies to tackle inequities in training programmes, including ‘age training gaps’ and ‘gender training gaps’, where older workers and women, respectively, are often less involved in training than their younger and male counterparts (OECD, 2005a). The bias towards large firms in providing skills development is also striking (participation in training activities is 50% lower in SMEs than in large firms, see Martinez-Fernandez, 2008; Dalziel, 2010; Kubitz, 2011; Box 2).[drop rest?]In addition to developing policies to boost participation in general, targeted interventions may be needed to support certain groups that tend to be marginalised in the labour market. Integrating immigrants and minorities into the labour market is an issue of major concern in most OECD countries (OECD, 2010k). School dropouts are another group at risk as are young people who entered the labour during the recent downturn. To activate older workers, co-ordinated policies are needed, including reforming pension schemes, increasing the retirement age, introducing age-discrimination legislation and encouraging greater investment in training older workers (OECD, 2006a). Women represent the largest underutilised pool of human capital in most countries. These are all issues where PIAAC will shed light on.
- This chart shows the proportion of teachers who participated in various types of professional development over the last 18 months, on average across countries with available data. These are impressive numbers. But do governments offer, and do teachers take up the kind of professional development that is actually most effective?
- The yellow bar shows you the proportion of teachers who think that the various types of professional development have a moderate to large impact on their development as a teacher. So you see that, while individual and collaborative research seems to have the largest impact (the yellow bar is long), participation rates here, shown by the blue bar, are comparatively low. The same is true for sustained qualification programs, these seem to make a genuine impact but few teachers pursue such courses. In contrast, lots of teachers participate in one-off seminars and workshops which much fewer teachers perceive to be of value.These data thus show that we need to do better in matching the costs and benefit as well as supply and demand for professional development. Courses and workshopsProfessional development networkMentoring and peer observationObservation visits to other schoolsEducation conferences and seminars
- I want to concludethe presentation by stressing the point that it is really the quality of learning outcomes, as opposed to the length of formal education, that is driving learning outcomes.
- Let us go back to the 1960s. The chart shows you the wealth of world regions and the average years of schooling in these regions, which is the most traditional measure of human capital. Have a look at Latin America, it ranked third in wealth and third in years of schooling, so in the 1960s the world seemed pretty much in order.
- But when you look at economic growth between 1960 and 2000, you see that something went wrong. Despite the fact that Latin America did well in terms of years of schooling, only Sub-Saharan Africa did worse in terms of economic growth. So in 2000, Latin America had fallen back considerably in terms of GDP per capita.You can draw two conclusions from this: Either education is not as important for economic growth as we thought, or we have for a long time been measuring the wrong thing.
- Now let me add one additional element, and that is a measure of the quality of education, in the form of the score of the different world regions on international tests like PISA or TIMSS. And you see now that the world looks in order again, there seems a close relationship between test scores and economic growth. You can see that even more clearly when you put this into graphical form. This is one of the charts produced by Professor Hanushek. And, as Professor Hanushek will explain, the relationship holds even when you account for other factors, it even holds when you compare growth in economies with growth in learning outcomes, which is the closest we can come to examining causality.So what this tells you is that it is not simply years of schooling or the number of graduates we produce, but indeed the quality of learning outcomes that counts.
- You have seen very large performance differences among schools and countries, but how predictive are these for the success of students and nations?
- To what extent is performance in school predictive of success in later life?The best way to find out whether what students have learned at school matters for their life is to actuallywatch what happens to them after they leave school. This is exactly what we have done that with around 30,000 students in Canada. We tested them in the year 2000 when they were 15 years old in reading, math and science, and since then we are following up with them each year on what choices they make and how successful they are in their transition from school to higher education and work.The horizontal axis shows you the PISA level which 15-year-old Canadians had scored in 2000. Level 2 is the baseline level on the PISA reading test and Level 5 the top level in reading.The red bar shows you how many times more successful someone who scored Level 2 at age 15 was at age 19 to have made a successful transition to university, as compared to someone who did not make it to the baseline PISA level 1. And to ensure that what you see here is not simply a reflection of social background, gender, immigration or school engagement, we have already statistically accounted for all of these factors. The orange bar. …How would you expect the picture to be like at age 21? We are talking about test scores here, but for a moment, lets go back to the judgements schools make on young people, for example through school marks. You can do the same thing here, you can see how well school marks at age 15 predict the subsequent success of youths. You see that there is some relationship as well, but that it is much less pronounced than when we use the direct measure of skills. What this tells you how important reliable measures of student performance are, an area where the UK is leading the field since some years.