Transcript No Slide Title

1
1
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Literacy skills
for the world of tomorrow
21st World Congress on Reading, 7-10 August 2006
Andreas Schleicher
Head, Indicators and Analysis Division
OECD Directorate for Education
2
2
3
3
In the dark…
…all students, schools and education systems look the same…
But with a little light….
4
4
In the dark…
…all students, schools and education systems look the same…
But with a little light….
…important differences become apparent….
Portugal
Luxembourg
Austria
Italy
1980's
Mexico
Turkey
Greece
Belgium
Slovak Republic
8
Korea
Spain
Ireland
1970's
New Zealand
Czech Republic
France
Poland
Germany
Japan
Iceland
Finland
1960's
United Kingdom
Australia
Hungary
Switzerland
Sweden
Netherlands
Canada
40
Norway
Denmark
United States
5
5
Approximated by the percentage of persons with ISCED 5A/6 qualfication in the age
groups 55-64, 45-55, 45-44 und 25-34 years (2003)
High-level qualifications
1990's
3
30
20
20
10
0
21
6
6
Overview
1. Why literacy skills matter

Literacy and the knowledge economy
2. Where we are today - and where we can be


What PISA shows students in different
countries can do with what they have learned
Examples from the best performing countries
3. How we can get there

Some policy levers that emerge from
international comparisons
7
Why literacy matters
Literacy and the knowledge economy
8
8
Who will be “safe” from outsourcing,
digitalisation and automatisation?

The great synthesisers


The great explainers


Conventionally, our approach to problems was
breaking them down into manageable bits and
pieces, today we create value by synthesising
disparate bits together
The more content we can search and access, the
more important the filters and explainers become
The great collaborators and orchestrators

The more complex the globalised world becomes,
the more individuals and companies need various
forms of co-ordination and management
9
9
Who will be “safe” from outsourcing,
digitalisation and automatisation?

The great versatilists





The great personalisers


Specialists generally have deep skills and narrow scope, giving
them expertise that is recognised by peers but not valued
outside their domain
Generalists have broad scope but shallow skills
Versatilists apply depth of skill to a progressively widening
scope of situations and experiences, gaining new competencies,
building relationships, and assuming new roles.
They are capable not only of constantly adapting but also of
constantly learning and growing
A revival of interpersonal skills, skills that have atrhophied to
some degree because of the industrial age and the Internet
The great localisers

Localising the global
10
10
Why literacy skills matter
 Reading
is the currency in the
knowledge society


Just as those with little money have
difficulty meeting their basic needs, those
with limited literacy are likely to find it
more challenging to pursue their goals
Like most currencies, reading literacy has
been subject to inflation over the years
 Despite
the rapid growth in the supply of
qualifications, demand grows even faster

Such that the earnings and employment gap
continues to grow
11
11
Why literacy skills matter
Approximately three quarters of adults with
the lowest level of reading literacy in IALS
were either not working or, if working, in
relatively low-paying jobs (in the bottom 40%
of wage earners)
 Adults in the two lowest reading literacy levels
were typically twice as likely to be unemployed
as those in the highest three levels
 Lower skills place individuals at higher risks of
dependency and also influence civic, community
and political behaviour

12
Where we are - and where we can be
What PISA shows students can do
Examples of the best performing countries
13
PISA country participation
Key features of PISA 2003
Information collected
volume of the tests
6½ hours of assessment material
each student
2 hours on paper-and-pencil tasks (subset of all questions)
½ hour for questionnaire on background, learning habits,
learning environment, engagement and motivation
school principals
questionnaire (school demography, learning environment
quality)
Coverage
PISA covers roughly nine tens of the world economy
countries participating from PISA 2000
In Iceland all OECD
15-year-olds
in school took part, in other countries
OECD countries participating from PISA from 2003
representative
samples of between 3,500 and 50,000
OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2000
students OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2003
OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2006
14
14
High reading performance
Finland
540
Korea
Liechtenstein
Ireland
Hong Kong-China
Macao-China
Poland
Iceland
Latvia
Average performance
of 15-year-olds in
reading literacy
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
520
Sweden
Netherlands
Belgium
Norway
Japan
France
United States
Denmark Austria
Germany
Czech Republic
500
Switzerland
Hungary
Luxembourg
Portugal
Spain
480
Italy
Greece
Slovak Republic
460
Low reading performance
15
15
High reading performance
High average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
Finland
540
Korea
Liechtenstein
Ireland
Strong socioeconomic impact on
student performance
Hong Kong-China
Macao-China
Poland
Iceland
Latvia
Average performance
High average performance
of 15-year-olds in
High social equity
reading literacy
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
520
Sweden
Netherlands
Belgium
Norway
Japan
France
United States
Denmark Austria
Germany
Czech Republic
500
Switzerland
Socially equitable
distribution of
learning opportunities
Hungary
Luxembourg
Portugal
Spain
480
Italy
Low average performance
Greece
Slovak Republic
460
Low average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
Low reading performance
High social equity
16
16
High reading performance
Durchschnittliche
High average performance
Finland
Schülerleistungen
im
High social equity
Bereich
Mathematik
Korea
High average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
540
Liechtenstein
Australia
New
520
Ireland
Netherlands
Zealand
Sweden
Hong Kong-China
Strong socio- Belgium
economic impact on
student performance
Socially equitable
distribution of
Japan
learning
opportunities
Norway
Switzerland
Poland
France
United States
Denmark
Latvia
Austria
Czech Republic
500
Germany
Hungary
480
Luxembourg
Portugal
Low average performance
460
Iceland
Spain
Greece
Slovak Republic
Canada
Italy
Low average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
Low reading performance
High social equity
School performance and schools’ socioeconomic background - Hungary
17
17
700
Student performance and student SES
within schools
Student performance
School performance and school SES
Student performance and student 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 - Hungary
18
18
700
Student performance and student SES
within schools
Student performance
School performance and school SES
Student performance and student 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 - Hungary
19
19
700
OECD
OECD
Student performance
OECD
Student performance and student SES
within schools
School performance and school SES
Student performance and student 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 - Hungary
20
20
700
OECD
OECD
Student performance
OECD
Student performance and student SES
within schools
School performance and school SES
Student performance and student 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
21
21
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
24
How can we get there?
Levers for policy that emerge from
international comparisons
25
25
 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
26
26 Reading in competition with professionals
Every boy knows
Nintendo
Every girl
knows Barbie
More people can identify the
golden arches of McDonalds than
the Christian Cross
(Sponsor Research International)
The role of books and
engagement with reading
27
27

Results from PISA show…

Students from advantaged backgrounds…
… have a greater chance of coming to school more engaged
in reading and entering into a virtuous circle of increasing
reading interest and improved reading performance
… but not all engaged students come from
privileged homes…
… and those from more modest backgrounds who read
regularly and feel positive about it are better readers
than students with home advantages and weaker reading
engagement

Schools can make a significant difference to bring
students into the virtuous circle
–
Seeking mutual reinforcement of cognitive skills and
motivation, particularly for boys
28
28
High
Performance
Finland
OECD average performance of students
with more than 250 books
540
Korea
Liechtenstein
Ireland
Hong Kong-China
Macao-China
Poland
Iceland
Latvia
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
520
Sweden
Netherlands
Belgium
Performance of students with
101 – 250 books at home
Performance of students with
51 – 100 books at home
Access to books at home
Norway
Japan
France
United States
Denmark Austria
Germany
Czech Republic Performance
500
Switzerland
Hungary
And
moreover…
Spain
480
Italy
Luxembourg
Portugal
of students with
11 – 50 books at home
“Cultural capital” appears
more closely related to
Greece
Slovak Republic
student performance
than family wealth
460
Low
Performance
OECD average performance of students
who have 10 or fewer books at home
29
29
High
Performance
Finland
About once a month or more .
540
Korea
Liechtenstein
Ireland
Hong Kong-China
Macao-China
Poland
Iceland
Latvia
Italy
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
520
Sweden
Netherlands
Belgium
A few times per year
Public and school libraries
Norway
Japan
France
United States
Denmark Austria
Germany OECD
Czech Republic
500
Switzerland
average performance of students
who never or hardly ever borrow books to
Hungary
Spain
480
Luxembourg read for pleasure from a public library
Portugal
Greece
Slovak Republic
460
Low
Performance
Russian Federation
30
30
High
Performance
Finland
30 minutes to one hour
One hour or more
540
Korea
Liechtenstein
Ireland
Hong Kong-China
Macao-China
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
520
30 minutes or less each day
Sweden
Netherlands
Belgium
Reading for enjoyment
And
moreover…
Norway
500
Switzerland
Japan
Poland France
Predictive power
ofUnited
reading
Statesactivities almost equally
Iceland
Denmark Austria
Latvia
strong for
mathematics
Germany and science performance
Czech Republic
Hungary
Luxembourg
Portugal OECD
Spain
480
Italy
average performance of students who
never or hardly ever read for enjoyment
Greece
Slovak Republic
460
Low
Performance
31
31
High
Performance
Finland
540
Korea
Liechtenstein
Ireland
Hong Kong-China
Macao-China
Poland
Iceland
Latvia
Diversified readers in long texts (22%)
(Magazines, newspapers, demanding texts and
books)
Canada
Australia
Diversified
New Zealand
520
(Magazines, newspapers, comics and moderate
Sweden
Netherlands
readers of fiction and non-fiction)
Belgium
A profile of reading
engagement
Moderately
diversified readers (27%)
Norway
Japan
France
United States
Denmark (Typical
Germany Austria
Czech Republic
500
Switzerland
Hungary
Luxembourg
Portugal
Spain
480
Italy
readers in short texts (28%)
Greece
Slovak Republic
460
Low
Performance
materials are magazines or newspapers)
OECD average performance of
least diversified readers (22%)
(only magazines frequently read)
Some conclusions
32
32
Having diverse reading material at home is strongly
associated with high overall student performane and
engagement in reading, which includes positive
attitudes towards reading…
… but there is much schools can do to bring students into
the virtuous circle of increasing reading interest and
student performance
 Improvement in literacy performance relies not just on
improving student cognitive skills but also on increasing
their engagement in reading
 Engagement in reading may be an effective policy lever
to mediate the impact of social background on
performance
 The emergence at relatively early ages of, for
example, gender differences in reading performance
and engagement underline the importance of an early
start

33
33
Challenge and support
Strong support
Poor performance
Strong performance
Improvements idiosyncratic
Systemic improvement
Low
challenge
High
challenge
Poor performance
Conflict
Stagnation
Demoralisation
Weak support
34
34
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
35
35
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
36
36
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
High mathematics performance
37
37
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
38
38
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
39
39
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
40
40
The past



The future
41
41
Creating a knowledge-rich profession in which schools and
teachers have the capacity to act, the knowledge to do so
wisely, and access to effective support systems
Informed professional
judgement, the teacher as
a “knowledge worker”
Informed
prescription
National
prescription
Professional
judgement
Uninformed
prescription, teachers
implement curricula
Uninformed professional
judgement, teachers
working in isolation
The tradition of
education systems has
been “knowledge poor”
Paradigm shifts
42
42
The old bureaucratic education system
The modern enabling education system
Hit & miss
Universal high standards
Uniformity
Embracing diversity
Provision
Outcomes
Bureaucratic – look up
Devolved – look outwards
Talk equity
Deliver equity
Received wisdom
Data and best practice
Prescription
Informed profession
Demarcation
Collaboration
43
43
Further information

www.pisa.oecd.org
– All national and international publications
– The complete micro-level database

email: [email protected]

[email protected]
… and remember:
Without data, you are just another person
with an opinion