Transcript No Slide Title

ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
11
Benchmarking Internationally
The Need Confronts Reality
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
July 2, 2008
Andreas Schleicher
Head, Indicators and Analysis Division
OECD Directorate for Education
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
22
In the dark…
…all institutions and education systems look the same…
But with a little light….
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
33
In the dark…
…all institutions and education systems look the same…
But with a little light….
…important differences become apparent….
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
44
Today
1. There is nowhere to hide

How the global talent pool has changed

Outlook on the demand and supply of skills
2. Where we are – and where we can be


Where the US stands in terms of quality
and equity of schooling outcomes
What the best performing countries show
can be achieved
3. How we can get there

Some policy levers that emerge from
international comparisons .
PISA
OECD Programme for
International Student Assessment
Briefing of Council
14 November 2007
55
There is nowhere to hide
How the global talent pool has changed
Outlook on demand and supply of skills
1. Excluding ISCED 3C short programmes
3. Including some ISCED 3C short programmes
2. Year of reference 2004
3. Year of reference 2003.
Brazil2
Mexico
Portugal
Turkey
Spain
Italy
1
Greece
13
Chile2
90
Korea
Ireland
Poland
Belgium
Iceland
Australia
France
OECD average
EU19 average
Luxembourg
1970s
Netherlands
United Kingdom3
Finland
Hungary
1980s
New Zealand
Slovak Republic
Israel
Slovenia
1990s
Austria3
Russian Federation4
Sweden
Norway
Canada
Denmark
Switzerland
Germany
20
Estonia
80
Czech Republic
%
United States
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
66 A world of change in baseline qualifications
Approximated by percentage of persons with high school or equivalent qualfications
in the age groups 55-64, 45-55, 45-44 und 25-34 years
1960s
100
1
70
60
50
40
30
27
10
0
Ireland
Mexico
Turkey
Portugal
New Zealand
Spain
United States
Luxembourg
Sweden
Iceland
Italy
OECD average
Slovak Republic
Hungary
EU19 average
United Kingdom
Denmark
Poland
Switzerland
Czech Republic4
1. Year of reference 2004.
Norway
Korea
Japan
Finland1
Germany
Greece
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
77
Percentage of graduates to the population at the typical age of graduation
High school graduation rates
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
College-level graduation rates
88
Percentage of tertiary type A graduates to the population at the typical age of graduation
2005
60

50
1995
Note also: rising higher education qualifications
Decline of the relative
seem generally not to have led to
an
“inflation”
position
of the US from
2
1995 to 2005
of the labour-market value of qualifications.
15
40

30
20
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%
10
1. Net graduation rate is calculated by summing the graduation rates by single year of age in 2005.
2. Year of reference 2004.
Turkey
Slovenia1
Germany1
Austria1
Czech Republic4
Greece
Switzerland
Slovak Republic1
Portugal1
Spain1
United States
Israel1
EU19 average
Japan
Hungary
OECD average
Sweden1
Ireland
United Kingdom
Norway1
Italy
Netherlands1
Poland
Denmark1
Finland1,2
New Zealand1
Iceland1
0
Australia1
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
% 70
Moving targets
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
10
10
Future supply of high school 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
Future supply of high school graduates
11
11
2003
2 0 10
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
2 0 15
C hi na
EU
I ndi a
US
Future supply of college 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
12
12
How the demand for skills has changed
Mean task input as percentiles of the 1960 task distribution
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
Economy-wide measures of routine and non-routine task input (US)
Routine manual
65
60
Nonroutine manual
55
Routine cognitive
50
Nonroutine analytic
45
40
1960
1970
(Levy and Murnane)
1980
1990
2002
Nonroutine interactive
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
15
15
OECD’s PISA assessment of the
knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds
Coverage of world economy 83%
81%
77%
87%
86%
85%
OECD-PISA framework
Briefing of Council
14 November 2007
16
16
Level
B
Instructional
settings
PISA
Individual
learner
OECD Programme for
International Student Assessment
Level
A
Level
C
Level
D
Schools, other
institutions
Country or
system
Domain 1
Domain 2
Domain 3
Outputs and
Outcomes
Policy Levers
impact of learning
shape educational
outcomes
Antecedents
contextualise or
constrain ed policy
Quality and
distribution of
Individ attitudes,
engagement and
Socio-economic
background of
knowledge & skills
behaviour
learners
Quality of
instructional
Teaching, learning Student learning,
teacher working
practices and
delivery
classroom climate
conditions
Output and
performance of
The learning
environment at
Community
and school
institutions
school
characteristics
Social & economic
outcomes of
Structures,
resource alloc
National educ,
social and
education
and policies
economic context
565
18
18
High science performance
565
Finland
Average performance
of 15-year-olds in
science – extrapolate
545
545
Hong Kong-China
and apply
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
545
Italy
525
Autonoma of Bolzano
Friuli Venezia Giulia
Veneto
Trento
505
Emilia Romagna
Piemonte
Lombardia
485
Canada
Spain
Japan
New Zealand
Australia
La Rioja
525
525
Netherlands
Liechtenstein
Korea
Slovenia
Castile and Leon
United Kingdom Germany
Navarre
Czech Republic Switzerland
Aragon
Macao-China Austria
Belgium
Ireland
505
505
Hungary
Cantabria
Sweden
Basque Country
Poland
Asturias
France Denmark
Galicia
Iceland Croatia
United States Latvia
Slovak Republic, Spain, Lithuania Catalonia
Norway 485
Luxembourg
485
Chinese Taipei
Estonia
Portugal
Liguria
565
465
Russian Federation
Italy
Greece
465
465
Andalusia
Israel
445
16
445
16
445
… 18 countries perform
below
this line
6
16
Low science performance
6
High science performance
565
Finland
19
19
High average performance
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
Large socio-economic disparities
Average performance
15-year-olds
Highof
average
performancein
science – extrapolate
High social equity
545
Hong Kong-China
and apply
Canada
Japan
New Zealand
Australia
525
Netherlands
Liechtenstein
Korea
Slovenia
United Kingdom Germany
Czech Republic Switzerland
Macao-China Austria
Belgium
Ireland
Socially equitable
505
Hungary
Sweden
distribution of learning
Poland
opportunities
France Denmark
Iceland Croatia
United States Latvia
Slovak Republic, Spain, Lithuania
Norway 485
Luxembourg
Chinese Taipei
Estonia
Strong socioeconomic impact on
student performance
Portugal
Russian Federation
Italy
Greece
465
Israel
Low average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
Low average performance
445
16
Low science performance
High social equity
6
High science performance
20
20
560
High average performance
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
Large socio-economic disparities
540
Chinese Taipei
New Zealand
Finland
Durchschnittliche
High average performance
Schülerleistungen im
High social equity
Bereich
Mathematik
Hong Kong-China
Estonai
Australia
Netherlands
Slovenia 520
Germany
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Czech Republic
Austria
Belgium
Ireland
Strong socioHungary
Sweden
economic impact on
500
Poland
student performance
Denmark
France
Croatia
Latvia
United States
Slovak Republic
Lithuania
Spain
Luxembourg
Canada
Japan
Korea
Liechtenstein
Macao-China
Socially equitable
distribution of learning
opportunities
Iceland
Norway
480
Portugal
Russian Federation
Italy
Greece
460
Low average performance
LowIsrael
average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
High social equity
440
22
Low science performance
12
2
23
23
Top and bottom performers in science
These students can consistently identify,
explainLevel
and apply
scientific
knowledge,
link 3
6 Level
5 Level
4 Level
different information sources and
explanations and use evidence from these to
justify decisions, demonstrate advanced
scientific thinking in unfamiliar situations…
100
80
Level 2
Below Level 1
20
530
0
These students often confuse key
features of a scientific
investigation, apply incorrect
563
515
527
531
534
500
information,
mix
personal
beliefs
with facts in support of a position…
474
475
424
410
489
522
Korea
40
United States
60
20
40
Large prop. of poor perf.
Large proportion of top performers
Mexico
Turkey
Italy
Portugal
OECD average
Canada
Japan
Australia
United Kingdom
Finland
60
New Zealand
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
%
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
24
24
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
PISA
OECD Programme for
International Student Assessment
Briefing of Council
14 November 2007
25
25
Some policy levers that emerge from
international comparisons
How to get there
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
26
26
Some myths

US coverage of the sampled population
is more comprehensive than in other countries



US covered 96% of 15-year-olds enrolled (OECD 97%)
US covered 86% of all 15-year-olds (OECD 89%)
No impact on mean performance
No relationship between size of countries
and average performance
 No relationship between proportion of
immigrants and average performance
 Few difference in students’ reported
test motivation
 Limited impact of national item preferences .

27
27
Money matters - but other things do too
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
Science
performance
575
Finland
550
Japan
New Zealand Australia
Korea Germany Netherlands
Switzerland
Czech Republic
Austria
United Kingdom
Belgium
Ireland
Sweden
Hungary
Denmark United States
Poland
France
Slovak Republic
Spain
Iceland
Norway
Italy
Greece Portugal
525
500
475
450
Turkey
425
y = 0.0006x + 462
R² = 0.1904
Mexico
400
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
Cumulative expenditure (US$ converted using PPPs)
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
30
30
High ambitions
and universal standards
Access to best practice
and quality professional
development
31
31
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
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
School autonomy, standards-based
examinations and science performance
32
32
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
School autonomy in selecting teachers for hire
70
PISA score
in science
60
50
41
40
30
20
10
Yes
0
No
No
Yes
School autonomy
in selecting teachers for hire
Standards based
external
examinations
Public and private schools
33
33
Government schools
Government dependent private
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
Government independent private
% 0
Luxembourg
Japan
Italy
Switzerland
Finland
Denmark
Czech Republic
Sweden
Hungary
Austria
Portugal
United States
Netherlands
Slovak Republic
Korea
Ireland
Spain
Canada
Mexico
New Zealand
Germany
OECD
United Kingdom
20
40
60
80
Observed performance difference
Difference after accounting for socio-economic background of students and schools
-150
100
-100
-50
0
Score point difference
Private schools
perform better
50
100
Public schools
perform better
Pooled international dataset, effects of selected
school/system factors on science performance after
accounting for all other factors in the model
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
34
34
100
Score point difference in science
64% of US90
students in
schools that
80 compete with
more than 2 schools in same
70 one school,
area, 11% with
26% with no school
60
50
40
30
91% of US students in
Approx. one
schools posting
achievement
20 school
year
data publicly (OECD 38%)
10
School principal’s positive
evaluation of quality of
Schools with more
educational materials
competing schools
(gross only)
(gross only)
Schools with greater
autonomy (resources)
(gross and net)
School activities to
One additional
of
promote
sciencehour
learning
self-study
(gross or
andhomework
net)
One additional hour of
(gross and net)
science learning at school
School
results
posted
(gross
and net)
publicly
(grossselective
and net)
Academically
schools (gross and net) but
no system-wide effect
26% of US0students in
Schools practicing ability
One
additional
outschools with no vacant
grouping
(grosshour
and of
net)
of-school
lessons
10
Each
additional
10% of
science teaching
positions
School
principal’s
(gross
and net)
public funding
(OECD 38%),
20 71% where all
perception
that
lack of
(gross only)
Effect after accounting
vacant positions had been
qualified
teachers
hinders
30 59%), BUT
filled (OECD
for the socio-economic
instruction
Measured
Gross effect
Net
20% where principals
(gross only) background of students,
report that instruction is
schools and countries
hindered by a lack of
qualified science teachers
OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies from Tomorrow’s World, Table 6.1a
35
35
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
Strong ambitions
Devolved
responsibility,
the school as the centre
of action
From prescribed
Accountability
forms of teaching and
assessment towards
personalised learning
Access to best practice
and quality professional
development
Integrated
educational
opportunities
37
37
A second chance?
Expected hours in non-formal job-related training (2003)
1400
All levels of education
Lower secondary education
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education
Tertiary education
%
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Italy
Greece
Poland
Luxembourg
Czech Republic
Ireland
Slovak Republic
Spain
Hungary
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Portugal
Germany
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Sweden
Finland
France
United States
C5.1a
Switzerland
0
Denmark
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
This chart shows the expected number of hours in non-formal job-related education
and training, over a forty year period, for 25-to-64 year olds.
Some paradigm shifts
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
38
38
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
39
39
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008

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 college-level qualifications seem generally not to
have 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

Value for money

Concerns about the demand for, and efficiency and
effectiveness of, investments in public goods
ECS Forum on National Education Policy
Austin, 2 July 2008
40
40

www.oecd.org; www.pisa.oecd.org
– All national and international publications
– The complete micro-level database

email: [email protected]

[email protected]
Thank you !
… and remember:
Without data, you are just another person with an
opinion