Transcript No Slide Title

1
1
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Public hearing on performances of
education systems in the EU
European parliament, 28 November 2006
Andreas Schleicher
Head, Indicators and Analysis Division
OECD Directorate for Education
2
Performanes of the EU education
systems today.
Session 1: Comparative analysis.
100
60
30
20
10
United States
Switzerland
Czech Republic
Germany
Denmark
Norway
Canada
Slovakia
Sweden
Austria
Japan
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Finland
Netherlands
France
Iceland
Hungary
Australia
Luxembourg
Belgium
Poland
Ireland
Korea
Argentina
Greece
Chile
Peru
Italy
Spain
Brasil
Turkey
México
China
Portugal
Indonesia
Thailand
India
3
3
Growth in baseline qualifications
A world of change (2004)
1960's
1970's
90
80
1980's
(ISCED 3)
Approximated by percentage of persons with ISCED3 qualfications in age groups 55-64, 45-55, 45-44 und 25-34 years
1990's
1
70
22
50
40
13
25
0
4
4
Growth in university-level qualifications

30
Approximated by the percentage of persons with ISCED 5A/6 qualfication
born in the period shown below (2004)
Rising tertiary level qualifications seem
1940-49
1950-59
1960-69
1970-79
generally not to have led to an “inflation” of the
labour-market value of qualifications.

20

10
In all but three of the 20 countries with available
data, the earnings benefit increased between 1997
3
and 2003, in Germany, Italy and Hungary
by between
9
20% and 40%
(UK 9%).
Growing benefits in many of the countries with the
22
steepest attainment growth
12
19
20
EU19 average
Austria
Mexico
Belgium
Greece
Korea
Slovak Republic
Luxembourg
New Zealand
Spain
Ireland
France
Japan1
Germany
Finland
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Australia
Iceland
Sweden
Canada
Norway
Denmark
Netherlands
United States
0
OECD
Czech Republic
50
Austria
60
Belgium
70
Mexico
Switzerland
Germany
France
Ireland
Japan
Slovak Republic
United Kingdom
Denmark
Spain
Italy
Korea
Netherlands
Hungary
United States
New Zealand
Poland
Finland
Iceland
Sweden
Australia
5
5
University entry
Sum of net entry rates into tertiary education for single year of age (2003)
Tertiary-type A
%
80
Current
graduation
rate
40
30
20
10
0
0
OECD
EU
Japan
Korea
Italy
Slovak
United Kingdom
Australia
Czech Republic
Mexico
Spain
New Zealand
Poland
Germany
Portugal
Public
Hungary
Ireland
Iceland
% of GDP
Turkey
Austria
Netherlands
France
Greece
United States
Belgium
Canada
Norway
Switzerland
Sweden
Denmark
Finland
6
6
Investment in high-level qualifications
Expenditure on tertiary educational institutions
as a percentage of GDP (2003)
Private
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
8
8
Aspirations for higher education at age 15
Aspiration gap between bottom and top
quarter of socio-economic groups
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Korea
United
States
Japan
HongKong
EU
9
Countries participating in PISA
An international assessment of the quality of
student learning outcomes
OECD countries participating from PISA 2000
OECD countries participating from PISA from 2003
OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2000
OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2003
OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2006
10
10
High mathematics performance
Hong Kong-China
Liechtenstein
Macao-China
Performance
Finland of 15-year-olds in
Korea
540
applying mathematics in
Netherlands
Japan
Canada novel contexts
Belgium
Switzerland
Australia
New Zealand
520
Iceland
Ireland
Poland
Latvia
Russian Federation
Italy
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Sweden
Austria
Germany
500
Slovak Republic
Norway
Luxembourg
Hungary
Spain
United States
480
Portugal
460
Low mathematicsGreece
performance
11
11
Mathematical literacy in PISA
The real world
The mathematical World
Making the problem amenable
to mathematical treatment
A model of reality
Understanding,
structuring and
simplifying the
situation
A mathematical
model
Using relevant
mathematical
tools to solve
the problem
A real situation
Validating
the results
Mathematical
results
Real results
Interpreting
the mathematical results
12
12
High mathematics performance
Hong Kong-China
High average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
Liechtenstein
Macao-China
Average performance
Finland High average performance
Korea of 15-year-olds in
540
Netherlands High social equity
Japan mathematics
Canada
Belgium
Switzerland
Australia
New Zealand
520
Iceland
Strong socioeconomic impact on
student performance
Ireland
Poland
Latvia
Russian Federation
Italy
Low average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Sweden
Austria
Germany
500
Slovak Republic
Norway
Luxembourg
Hungary
Socially equitable
distribution of
learning opportunities
Spain
United States
480
Portugal
460
Low average performance
High social equity
Low mathematicsGreece
performance
13
13
High mathematics performance
High average performance
540
Large socio-economic disparities Netherlands
Liechtenstein
Hong Kong-China
Durchschnittliche
High average performance
Finland
Schülerleistungen
im
Korea
High social equity
Bereich Mathematik
Japan
Canada
Belgium
Switzerland
Australia
New Zealand
520
Czech Republic
Iceland
Denmark
France
Sweden
Austria
Socially equitable
Ireland
Strong socioeconomic impact on Germany
Slovak Republic
student performance
Hungary
500
Poland
Luxembourg
United States
Norway
Spain
480
Portugal
Low average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
460
distribution of
learning opportunities
Latvia
Russian Federation
Italy
Low average performance
High social equity
Low mathematics performance
Greece
14
14
Postsec. participation rate at age 19 associated with
PISA reading proficiency at age 15 (Canada)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
15
15
Increased likelihood of postsec. particip. at age 19
associated with reading proficiency at age 15 (Canada)
after accounting for school engagement, gender, mother tongue,
place of residence, parental, education and family income
(reference group Level 1)
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
16
16
Odds ratios of high school graduation associated with
reading prof, at 15 (Ref. PISA Level 5) (Canada),
after accounting for school engagement, gender, mother tongue,
place of residence, parental, education and family income
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
17
17
Future supply of upper-secondary graduates
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
2003
2010
6,000,000
2015
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
China
EU
India
US
18
18
Future supply of upper-secondary graduates
2003
2 0 10
2 0 15
C hi na
EU
I ndi a
US
Future supply of tertiary graduates
5,000,000
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2003
2,500,000
2010
2,000,000
2015
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
China
EU
India
US
19
19 Percentage of science graduates
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Korea
Japan
EU
United States
20
20

Progress

Why care?
Concerns about skill barriers to economic growth,
productivity growth and rates of technological
innovation
– One additional year of education equals to between
3 and 6% of GDP
– Rising tertiary level qualifications have generally not led to
an “inflation” of the labour-market value of qualifications
(in all but three of the 20 countries with available data, the earnings
benefit increased between 1997 and 2003, in Germany, Italy and Hungary
by between 20% and 40%)

Fairness

Concerns about the role of skills in creating social
inequity in economic outcomes
– Both average and distribution of skill matter
to long-term growth (high percentages of low skill impede growth)

Value for money

Concerns about the demand for, and efficiency and
effectiveness of, investments in public goods
21
Problems and successes
Session 2
School performance and schools’ socioeconomic background - Germany
22
22
800
Student performance and student SES
within schools
Student performance
School performance and school SES
School proportional to size
500
200
-3
Disadvantage
-2
-1
0
1
PISA Index of social background
2
Advantage
3
School performance and schools’ socioeconomic background – United States
23
23
700
OECD
Student performance
OECD
Student performance and student SES
within schools
School performance and school SES
School proportional to size
500
300
-3
Disadvantage
-2
-1
0
1
PISA Index of social background
2
Advantage
3
School performance and schools’ socioeconomic background - Finland
24
24
800
Student performance and student SES
Student performance
Student performance and student SES
within schools
School performance and school SES
School proportional to size
500
200
-3
Disadvantage
-2
-1
0
1
PISA Index of social background
2
Advantage
3
Iceland
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Poland
Denmark
Ireland
Canada
Spain
New Zealand
Australia
United States
Mexico
Portugal
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Greece
Slovak Republic
Korea
Czech Republic
Netherlands
Austria
Germany
Italy
Belgium
Japan
Hungary
Turkey
25
25
Consistency in quality standards
Variation in the performance of 15-year-olds in mathematics
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 4.1a, p.383.
Consistency in quality standards
26
26
Variation in the performance of 15-year-olds in mathematics
100
Variation of
performance within
schools
80
60
40
20
0
-20
1
11
Iceland
Norway
Sweden
Poland
Ireland
Canada
Spain
New Zealand
Australia
United States
Mexico
Portugal
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Greece
Slovak Republic
Korea
Czech Republic
Netherlands
Austria
Germany
Italy
Belgium
Japan
Hungary
Turkey
14
12
5
-80
Denmark
-60
Finland
Variation of
performance between
schools
-40
OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 4.1a, p.383.
28
28
High mathematics performance
High average performance
540
Large socio-economic disparities Netherlands
Liechtenstein
Hong Kong-China
Durchschnittliche
High average performance
Finland
Schülerleistungen
im
Korea
High social equity
Bereich Mathematik
Japan
Canada
Belgium
Switzerland
Australia
New
Zealand
520
Czech Republic
Iceland
Denmark
France
Sweden
Austria
Socially equitable
Ireland
Strong socioeconomic impact on Germany
Slovak Republic
student performance
Hungary
500
Poland
Luxembourg
United States
480
Portugal
Low average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
460
Norway
distribution of
learning opportunities
Spain
Latvia
Russian Federation
Italy
Low average performance
High social equity
Low mathematics performance
Greece
High mathematics performance
29
29
540
Netherlands
Liechtenstein
Hong Kong-China
Durchschnittliche
Finland
Schülerleistungen
im
Korea
Bereich Mathematik
Japan
Canada
Belgium
Switzerland
Australia
New
Zealand
520
Czech Republic
Iceland
Denmark
France
Sweden
Austria
Socially equitable
Ireland
Strong socioeconomic impact on Germany
Slovak Republic
student performance
Hungary
500
Poland
Luxembourg
United States
480
Early selection and
institutional differentiation
Portugal
Norway
Spain
Latvia
Russian Federation
Italy
460
High degree of stratification
Low degree of stratification
distribution of
learning opportunities
Low mathematics performance
Greece
30
30
The earnings advantage of education
Relative earnings of 25-64-year-olds with income from employment
(upper secondary education=100)
200
180
160
140
120
100
Females below upper sec.
Males Tertiary-B
Females Tertiary-B
Males Tertiary-A
Females Tertiary A
Switzerland
Sweden
Spain
United States
Males below upper sec
Norway
New Zealand
Korea
Italy
Ireland
Hungary
Germany
France
Finland
Denmark
Canada
Belgium
Australia
60
United Kingdom
80
Where do high skills pay?
31
31
Distribution of 25-64-year-olds by level of earnings
EU
United States
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Be
lo
w
pp
e
U
up
pe
r
se
co
nd
r
ar
y
Te sec
o
rt
nd
ia
ar
ry
y
Te
-t
rt
yp
ia
e
ry
B
-t
Be
yp
lo
e
w
A
up
pe
r
se
U
co
pp
nd
er
ar
y
Te sec
o
rt
nd
ia
ar
ry
y
Te
-t
rt
yp
ia
e
ry
B
-t
yp
e
A
0%
More than 2 times the median
More than 1.5 times the median
but at or below 2.0 times the
median
More than the median but at or
below 1.5 times the median
More than half the median but
at or below the median
At or below half of the median
32
32
Private internal rates of return (RoR) for an individual obtaining a
university-level degree (ISCED 5/6) from an upper secondary and
post-secondary non-tertiary level of education (ISCED 3/4) (2002)
MALES
United States
Switzerland
Sweden
Norway
at age 40, no fees, income/male
Netherlands
at age 40, fees, income/male
Italy
Immediately to higher ed/male
France
Finland
Denmark
Belgium
-5
0
5
10
15
20
33
33
Private internal rates of return (RoR) for an individual obtaining a
university-level degree (ISCED 5/6) from an upper secondary and
post-secondary non-tertiary level of education (ISCED 3/4) (2002)
FEMALES
United States
Switzerland
Sweden
Norway
at age 40, no fees,
income/female
Netherlands
at age 40, fees, income/female
Italy
Immediately to higher ed/female
France
Finland
Denmark
Belgium
0
5
10
15
20
The driving forces of GDP per capita growth
34
34
Average annual percentage change (1990-2000)
Working-age population/total population
Employment/working-age population
Labour productivity
GDP per capita growth
6.5
6
5.5
•But in almost all countries, the biggest
•Increases4.5in employment
rates made
a big
•Ireland,
Korea,
Mexico and Turkey were the
contribution
came
from
increased
4 to growth in some countries
contribution
only countries where demography made a
labour productivity
3.5
significant positive impact on GDP per capita
3
growth…
2.5
2
…in others1.5it
is beginning to act as a slight drag
on growth 1
5
0.5
0
-0.5
•While declines in employment rates reduced
growth in others
Switzerland
New Zealand
Germany2
Japan
Sweden
Italy
Iceland
France
Mexico
Canada
Greece
Denmark
Belgium
Austria
Norway1
United Kingdom
Turkey
Finland
United States
Netherlands
Australia
Spain
Portugal
Korea
Ireland
-1.5
Luxembourg
-1
Enhancements in human capital contribute to
labour productivity growth
35
35
Average annual percentage change (1990-2000)
Hours worked
Level of education
Hourly GDP per efficient unit of labour
Labour productivity
5
4
3
2
1
0
New Zealand
Netherlands
France
Canada
Germany
Norway
Italy
United Kingdom
Australia
Portugal
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
Ireland
-2
United States
-1
36
Policy levers
Session 3
37
37
 Sympathy
doesn’t
raise standards –
High ambitions
and clear standards
aspiration does

PISA suggests that students and schools
perform better in a climate characterised
by high expectations and the readiness to
invest effort, the enjoyment of learning, a
strong disciplinary climate, and good
teacher-student relations
– Among these aspects, students’ perception of
teacher-student relations and classroom
Access to best practice
disciplinary climate display the strongest
and quality professional
relationships
development
38
38
Challenge and support
Strong support
Poor performance
Strong performance
Improvements idiosyncratic
Systemic improvement
Low
challenge
High
challenge
Poor performance
Conflict
Stagnation
Demoralisation
Weak support
39
39
Governance of the school system


In many of the best performing countries
Monitoring
and equity-related goals
 School-based decision-making is combined with
Standard
setting
and
equity-related
goals

Diverging
views
how
evaluation
and
assessment
devices to ensure a fair distribution ofcan and

Key should
objectives:
be used
substantive
educational
opportunities
– Raise
educational
aspirations,
establish
– Some
see them
primarily as
tools to reveal best practices and
over educational
reference
transparency
The
provision
of standards
curricula
at and
identify
shared
problems
inobjectives,
order and
to encourage
teachers
framework
teachersand develop more supportive and productive
schoolsfor
to improve
national/subnational
levels is combined with
learning
environments

Approaches
range
from definition of broad
advanced evaluation
and support systems



– Others
extend
their
purpose toof
support
contestability of
educational
goals
up to
formulation
concise
–public
Thatservices
are implemented
by professional
or market-mechanisms
in theagencies
allocation of
performance
expectations
resources
 Process-oriented
and/or
Some
countries
go beyond assessments
establishing educational
– e.g. by making comparative results of schools publicly available to
standards
as
mere yardsticks
and use
centralised
final examinations
are following
complimented
facilitate parental
choice or by having funds
students
performance
benchmarks
that students
at
with individual
and feed-back

Differences
in typereports
of performance
benchmarks being used
particular age or grade levels should reach
mechanisms
student
learning progress
and
reported foron
the
various stakeholders
involved,
Instruments
including parents, teachers and schools
– Minimum standards, targets defining excellence,
normative performance benchmarks
40
40
High ambitions
Devolved
responsibility,
the school as the
centre of action
Accountability
and intervention in
inverse proportion to
success
Access to best practice
and quality professional
development
41
41
High mathematics performance
High average performance
540
Large socio-economic disparities Netherlands
Liechtenstein
Hong Kong-China
Durchschnittliche
High average performance
Finland
Schülerleistungen
im
Korea
High social equity
Bereich Mathematik
Japan
Canada
Belgium
Switzerland
Australia
New
Zealand
520
Czech Republic
Iceland
Denmark
France
Sweden
Austria
Socially equitable
Ireland
Strong socioeconomic impact on Germany
Slovak Republic
student performance
Hungary
500
Poland
Luxembourg
United States
480
Portugal
Low average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
460
Norway
distribution of
learning opportunities
Spain
Latvia
Russian Federation
Italy
Low average performance
High social equity
Low mathematics performance
Greece
High mathematics performance
42
42
540
Netherlands
Liechtenstein
Hong Kong-China
Durchschnittliche
Finland
Schülerleistungen
im
Korea
Bereich Mathematik
Japan
Canada
Belgium
Switzerland
Australia
New
Zealand
520
Czech Republic
Iceland
Denmark
France
Sweden
Austria
Socially equitable
Ireland
Strong socioeconomic impact on Germany
Slovak Republic
student performance
Hungary
500
Poland
Luxembourg
United States
480
School with responsibility for
deciding which courses are offered
High degree of autonomy
Portugal
Norway
distribution of
learning opportunities
Spain
Latvia
Russian Federation
Italy
460
Low degree of autonomyLow mathematics performance
Greece
43
43
Strong ambitions
Integrated
educational
opportunities
Accountability
Devolved
responsibility,
the school as the
centre of action
Individualised
learning
Access to best practice
and quality professional
development
High mathematics performance
44
44
540
Netherlands
Liechtenstein
Hong Kong-China
Durchschnittliche
Finland
Schülerleistungen
im
Korea
Bereich Mathematik
Japan
Canada
Belgium
Switzerland
Australia
New
Zealand
520
Czech Republic
Iceland
Denmark
France
Sweden
Austria
Socially equitable
Ireland
Strong socioeconomic impact on Germany
Slovak Republic
student performance
Hungary
500
Poland
Luxembourg
United States
480
Early selection and
institutional differentiation
Portugal
Norway
Spain
Latvia
Russian Federation
Italy
460
High degree of stratification
Low degree of stratification
distribution of
learning opportunities
Low mathematics performance
Greece
45
45
High ambitions
Integrated
educational
opportunities
Devolved
responsibility,
the school as the
centre of action
Accountability
Individualised
and intervention in
learning
inverse proportion to
success
Access to best practice
and quality professional
development
Participation of the labour force in non-formal jobrelated continuing education and training (2003)
46
46
All levels of education
Lower upper secondary education
%
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education
Tertiary education
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
OECD
Greece
Hungary
Italy
Spain
Portugal
Poland
Czech Republic
Ireland
Germany
Luxembourg
Belgium
France
Slovak Republic
Austria
Canada 1
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Finland
United States
Sweden
Denmark
0
OECD
Greece
Hungary
%
Italy
Unemployed
Spain
Portugal
Poland
Ireland
Czech Republic
Employed
Germany
Luxembourg
Belgium
Austria
Total
France
Slovak Republic
Canada 1
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Finland
United States
Denmark
Sweden
47
47
Participation of the labour force in non-formal jobrelated continuing education and training (2003)
Labour
force
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Participation of the labour force in non-formal jobrelated continuing education and training (2003)
48
48
Total
Resource industries
Goods-producing industries
Lower-tier services
Upper-tier services
%
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
OECD
Greece
Hungary
Italy
Spain
Portugal
Poland
Czech Republic
Germany
Luxembourg
Ireland
Belgium
France
Austria
Slovak Republic
Canada1
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States
Finland
Denmark
Sweden
0
49
49

www.pisa.oecd.org
– All national and international publications
– The complete micro-level database


email: [email protected]
Thank
you
!
[email protected]
… and remember:
Without data, you are just another person
with an opinion