1. 1
1
for better education policies
Leveraging evidence
Leveraging evidence
for better education policies
OECD’s Contribution to Education Development
Andreas Schleicher
Shanghai, 22 September 2011
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
Andreas Schleicher
Shanghai, 22 September 2011
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
Andreas Schleicher
Shanghai, 22 September 2011
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
Andreas Schleicher
Shanghai, 22 September 2011
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
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 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
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
43. 50 School performance and socio-economic background
50
Shanghai
Score
for better education policies
643
Leveraging evidence
Student performance
Andreas Schleicher
Shanghai, 22 September 2011
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
Andreas Schleicher
Shanghai, 22 September 2011
… and remember:
Without data, you are just another person with an
opinion
Editor's Notes
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.
