The International Imperative: Why Should We Care So. BRAND Countries Education Systems? Playbook

Transcription

1 The International Imperative: Why Should We Care So OECD Much About EMPLOYER Other BRAND Countries Education Systems? Playbook National Conference of State Legislatures: Legislative Summit Seattle, August 2015 Yuri Belfali Head, Early Childhood and Schools Division OECD 1

2 2 International comparisons matter: Fig II.3.3 To understand where you stand, how others are performing, and what strong performers are doing: By sailing to different countries and looking at the world through PISA Adult Skills Survey TALIS Etc.

3 3 PISA in brief Over half a million students representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 65 countries/economies took an internationally agreed 2-hour test Goes beyond testing whether students can reproduce what they were taught to assess students capacity to extrapolate from what they know and creatively apply their knowledge in novel situations Mathematics, reading, science, problem-solving, financial literacy Total of 390 minutes of assessment material and responded to questions on their personal background, their schools and their engagement with learning and school Parents, principals and system leaders provided data on school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences.

4 4 Each year OECD countries spend 200bn$ on math education in school What do 15-year-olds know and what can they do with what they know? PISA 2012 results

5 Mean score High mathematics performance Shanghai-China performs above this line (613) Chinese Taipei Singapore Hong Kong-China Korea Average performance of 15-year-olds in Mathematics Fig I.2.13 US Massachusetts Poland Belgium Germany Austria Slovenia New Zealand Denmark Czech Republic France LuxembourgLatvia Portugal Spain Slovak Connecticut Republic United States Hungary Florida Israel Greece Romania Chile 12 countries perform below this line Macao-China Japan Liechtenstein Switzerland Netherlands Estonia Finland Canada Viet Nam Australia Ireland United Kingdom Iceland Norway Italy Russian Fed. Lithuania Sweden Croatia Serbia Turkey Bulgaria U.A.E. Kazakhstan Thailand Malaysia Mexico Low mathematics performance 26% of American 15-year-olds do not reach PISA Level 2 (OECD average 23%, Shanghai 4%, Japan 11%, Canada 14%, Some estimate long-term economic cost to be US$72 trillion )

6 Test Questions (Level 2): Helen the Cyclist Helen has just got a new bike. It has a speedometer which sits on the handlebar. The speedometer can tell Helen the distance she travels and her average speed for a trip. Try the test! Question On one trip, Helen rode 4 km in the first 10 minutes and then 2 km in the next 5 minutes. Which one of the following statements is correct? A. Helen's average speed was greater in the first 10 minutes than in the next 5 minutes. B. Helen's average speed was the same in the first 10 minutes and in the next 5 minutes. C. Helen's average speed was less in the first 10 minutes than in the next 5 minutes. D. It is not possible to tell anything about Helen's average speed from the information given.

7 Percent of 15-year-olds who scored Level 2 or Above Shanghai-China Singapore Hong Kong-China Korea Estonia Macao-China Japan Finland Switzerland Chinese Taipei Canada Liechtenstein Vietnam Poland Netherlands Denmark Ireland Germany Austria Belgium Australia Latvia Slovenia Czech Republic Iceland United Kingdom Norway France New Zealand OECD average Spain Russian Federation Luxembourg Italy Portugal United States Lithuania Sweden Slovak Republic Hungary Croatia Israel Greece Serbia Romania Turkey Cyprus* Bulgaria Kazakhstan United Arab Emirates Thailand Chile Malaysia Mexico Uruguay Montenegro Costa Rica Albania Argentina Brazil Tunisia Jordan Qatar Colombia Peru Indonesia

8 2012 Singapore Chinese Taipei Korea Hong Kong-China Massachusetts Strong socio-economic impact on student performance 26 Slovak Rep. 24 Japan Switzerland Liechtenstein Netherlands Estonia Poland Belgium Canada Finland Germany Viet Nam Denmark Austria New Zealand Australia Slovenia Ireland Czech Rep. Iceland 22France UK Luxembourg Latvia Norway Portugal Italy US Russian Fed. Spain Lithuania Sweden Hungary Croatia Israel Connecticut Florida Macao-China Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities 2 0 Chile Bulgaria Romania Greece Turkey Serbia United Arab Emirates Malaysia Kazakhstan Thailand Mexico

9 PISA performance (mathematics) Don t close achievement gaps the wrong way Performance differences between top and bottom quarter of socio-economic distribution Source: PISA 2012

10 Mexico Chile Greece Norway Sweden Iceland Israel Italy United States Spain Denmark Luxembourg Australia Ireland United Kingdom Hungary Canada Finland Austria Turkey Liechtenstein Czech Republic Estonia Portugal Slovenia Slovak Republic New Zealand Germany Netherlands France Switzerland Poland Belgium Japan Macao-China Hong Kong-China Korea Singapore Chinese Taipei Shanghai-China Poverty isn t destiny: PISA performance by decile of social background Source: PISA 2012

11 Variation in student performance as % of OECD average variation Albania Finland Iceland Sweden Norway Denmark Estonia Ireland Spain Canada Poland Latvia Kazakhstan United States Mexico Colombia Costa Rica Russian Fed. Malaysia Jordan New Zealand Lithuania Greece Montenegro United Kingdom Argentina Australia Brazil Portugal Indonesia Chile Thailand Romania Tunisia Switzerland Peru Uruguay Croatia U.A.E. Macao-China Serbia Viet Nam Korea Hong Kong-China Singapore Austria Italy Luxembourg Czech Republic Japan Bulgaria Israel Qatar Shanghai-China Germany Slovenia Slovak Republic Turkey Belgium Hungary Liechtenstein Netherlands Chinese Taipei 11 Variability in student mathematics performance between and within schools Fig II Performance differences between schools OECD average Performance variation of students within schools OECD average 100

12 Shanghai-China Singapore Chinese Taipei Hong Kong-China Korea Liechtenstein Macao-China Japan Switzerland Belgium Netherlands Germany Poland Canada Finland New Zealand Australia Estonia Austria Slovenia Viet Nam France Czech Republic OECD average United Kingdom Luxembourg Iceland Slovak Republic Ireland Portugal Denmark Italy Norway Israel Hungary United States Lithuania Sweden Spain Latvia Russian Federation Croatia Turkey Serbia Bulgaria Greece United Arab Emirates Romania Thailand Qatar Chile Uruguay Malaysia Montenegro Kazakhstan Albania Tunisia Brazil Mexico Peru Costa Rica Jordan Colombia Indonesia Argentina 12 % 60 Percentage of top performers in mathematics Tab I.2.1a Across OECD, 13% of students are top performers (Level 5 or 6). They can develop and work with models for complex situations, and work strategically with advanced thinking and reasoning skills Massachusetts Connecticut Florida 0 UK

13 Bulgaria Shanghai-China Poland United Arab Emirates Hungary Slovenia Israel Uruguay Montenegro Croatia Spain Ireland Hong Kong-China Netherlands Estonia Turkey Malaysia Germany Denmark Belgium Chinese Taipei Finland OECD average Colombia Austria Slovak Republic Russian Federation Portugal Sweden Canada Czech Republic Chile Norway Singapore France Australia Brazil Macao-China England (U.K.) Italy United States Serbia Japan Korea 13 Relative performance in problem solving Fig V.2.15 % 40 Students' performance in problem solving is higher than their expected performance Students' performance in problem solving is lower than their expected performance

14 Lessons from high performers Low impact on outcomes 14 Must haves High impact on outcomes Quick wins Catching up with the top-performers Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Low hanging fruits

15 Lessons from high performers Low impact on outcomes 15 Must haves High impact on outcomes Commitment to universal achievement Quick wins Capacity at point of delivery Low feasibility Coherence Resources where they yield most A learning system Gateways, instructional systems High feasibility Incentive structures and accountability Money pits Low hanging fruits

16 Lessons from high performers Low impact on outcomes 16 Low feasibility High impact on outcomes A commitment Must haves to education and the belief that Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve Capacity at point Universal of delivery educational standards and Resources personalization as the approach to heterogeneity where in the they student yield body most as opposed to a belief that students have different Gateways, instructional destinations to be met with different expectations, and systems selection/stratification as the approach to heterogeneity Coherence A learning system Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom High feasibility Incentive structures and accountability Money pits Low hanging fruits

17 Countries where students have stronger beliefs Fig III in their abilities perform better in mathematics Mean mathematics performance OECD average Mean index of mathematics self-efficacy 650 Shanghai-China Singapore Hong Kong-China Korea Chinese Taipei Japan Macao-China Switzerland NetherlandsEstonia Finland Canada Liechtenstein Belgium Poland Germany Viet Nam Denmark Slovenia New Zealand Latvia Italy Portugal Austria Australia Russian Fed. Hungary Croatia Luxembourg Greece Slovak Republic Spain Turkey Israel Sweden Norway Serbia Lithuania Czech Republic U.A.E. United Kingdom Thailand Malaysia Romania Iceland Chile Bulgaria Kazakhstan Ireland United States Montenegro France Costa Rica Brazil Uruguay Mexico Albania Argentina Tunisia Colombia Qatar Jordan Indonesia Peru R² =

18 18 Perceived self-responsibility for failure in mathematics Fig III.3.6 Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements: France Shanghai-China OECD average Sometimes I am just unlucky The teacher did not get students interested in the material Sometimes the course material is too hard This week I made bad guesses on the quiz My teacher did not explain the concepts well this week I m not very good at solving mathematics problems US %

19 Lessons from high performers Low impact on outcomes 19 Capacity at point of delivery Low feasibility Coherence High impact on outcomes Must haves Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the system and aligned with Resources high stakes gateways and instructional systems where they yield most Well established delivery chain Gateways, through instructional which curricular goals translate into instructional systems systems, instructional practices and student learning (intended, implemented and A learning achieved) system High level of metacognitive content of instruction High feasibility Incentive structures and accountability Money pits Low hanging fruits

20 Lessons from high performers Low impact on outcomes 20 Capacity at the point of delivery Must haves High impact on outcomes Quick wins Attracting, developing and retaining high quality teachers and school Commitment leaders and to a work universal organisation achievement in which they can use their potential Capacity Instructional leadership and human resource at point of delivery Resources management in schools where they yield most Keeping teaching an attractive profession Gateways, instructional System-wide career development systems Coherence A learning system Low feasibility High feasibility Incentive structures and accountability Money pits Low hanging fruits

21 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status 21 TALIS in Brief 21 Fig II.3.3 Over 100 thousand randomly selected lower secondary teachers and their school leaders from over 6500 schools representing more than 4 million teachers in 34 countries took an internationally-agreed survey about the working conditions and learning environments in their schools responding to questions about their background, their teaching practices, support and development, their relationships with colleagues and students and the leadership in their schools

22 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after acc 22 Implementing ounting highly for socio-economic effective teacher status policy and practice Improve the societal view of teaching as a profession Recruit top candidates into the profession Developing Teaching as a profession Retain and recognise effective teachers path for growth Support teachers in continued development of practice

23 Malaysia Singapore Korea Abu Dhabi (UAE) Finland Mexico Alberta (Canada) Flanders (Belgium) Netherlands Australia England (UK) Romania Israel United States Chile Average Norway Japan Latvia Serbia Bulgaria Denmark Poland Iceland Estonia Brazil Italy Czech Republic Portugal Croatia Spain Sweden France Slovak Republic Percentage of teachers 23 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status 23 Teachers' perceptions of the value of teaching Fig II.3.3 Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that teaching profession is a valued profession in society Above-average performers in PISA

24 Share of mathematics top performers 24 Countries Mean mathematics where teachers performance, believe by school their profession location, is valued show after higher accounting levels of for student socio-economic achievement status Fig II.3.3 Relationship between lower secondary teachers' views on the value of their profession in society and the country s share of top mathematics performers in PISA Singapore Korea 25 Japan Flanders (Belgium) R 2 = 0.24 r= Poland Netherlands Estonia France Australia Czech Republic England (UK) Slovak Republic Italy Iceland Portugal Norway Israel Sweden Spain Denmark Latvia United States Croatia Serbia Bulgaria Romania Chile Brazil Alberta (Canada) Finland Mexico Percentage of teachers who agree that teaching is valued in society

25 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after acc ounting for socio-economic status 25 Teachers' needs for professional development Fig II.3.3 Percentage of lower secondary teachers indicating they have a high level of need for professional development in the following areas United States Average Teaching students with special needs ICT skills for teaching New technologies in the workplace Student behaviour and classroom management Teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting Approaches to individualised learning Student career guidance and counselling Student evaluation and assessment practice Teaching cross-curricular skills Developing competencies for future work Pedagogical competencies School management and administration Knowledge of the subject field(s) Knowledge of the curriculum

26 Test scores of teachers and graduates (numeracy) Japan Finland Flanders (Belgium) Germany Norway Netherlands Austria Czech Republic Sweden Australia France Slovak Republic Northern Ireland (UK) Denmark England/N. Ireland (UK) England (UK) Korea Ireland Canada United States Estonia Poland Italy Middle half of the numeracy skill distribution of graduates (16-65 years) PIAAC test scores (numeracy)

27 Test scores of teachers and graduates (numeracy) Japan Finland Flanders (Belgium) Germany Norway Netherlands Austria Czech Republic Sweden Australia France Slovak Republic Northern Ireland (UK) Denmark England/N. Ireland (UK) England (UK) Korea Ireland Canada United States Estonia Poland Italy Middle half of the numeracy skill distribution of graduates (16-65 years) Numeracy skills of teachers PIAAC test scores (numeracy)

28 Lessons from high performers Low impact on outcomes 28 Low feasibility Must haves Money pits High impact on outcomes Commitment to universal achievement Aligned incentive structures Capacity For students at point of delivery For teachers Coherence Resources where they yield most A learning system Quick wins Incentives, accountability, knowledge management How gateways affect the strength, direction, clarity and nature of the incentives operating on students at each stage of their education Degree to which students have incentives to take tough courses and study hard Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing well Make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation Improve their own performance and the performance of their colleagues Pursue professional development opportunities that lead to stronger pedagogical practices Gateways, instructional systems Low hanging fruits High feasibility Incentive structures and A balance between vertical and lateral accountability accountability Effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread innovation communication within the system and with stakeholders around it A capable centre with authority and legitimacy to act

29 Mathematics performance (score points) Lessons from high performers Countries that grant schools autonomy over curricula and assessments tend to perform better in mathematics 650 Shanghai-China Chinese Taipei Viet Nam Korea Singapore Estonia Hong Kong-China Japan Latvia Poland Slovenia Czech Rep. Switzerland Belgium Canada Portugal Germany Finland New Zealand Lithuania Croatia Austria Hungary Netherlands Serbia Spain France Australia Italy UK Turkey Norway Macao-China Greece Bulgaria Denmark Iceland Thailand Kazakhstan Romania Slovak Rep. R² = 0.13 Israel Malaysia Uruguay USA Sweden Chile Jordan Costa Rica Brazil Indonesia Luxembourg Tunisia Albania Colombia UAE Argentina Peru 350 Qatar Index of school responsibility for curriculum and assessment (index points) 29 Source: PISA 2012

30 30 Quality assurance and school improvement Fig IV.4.14 ercentage of students in schools whose principal reported that their schools have the following for quality assurance and improvement: Singapore OECD average Implementation of a standardised policy for mathematics Regular consultation with one or more experts over a period of at least six months with the aim of improving Teacher mentoring Written feedback from students (e.g. regarding lessons, teachers or resources) External evaluation Internal evaluation/self-evaluation Systematic recording of data, including teacher and student attendance and graduation rates, test results Written specification of student-performance standards Written specification of the school's curriculum and educational goals %

31 Lessons from high performers Low impact on outcomes 31 High impact on outcomes Must haves Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Investing resources where they can make most of a difference Capacity at point of delivery Alignment of resources Resources with key challenges (e.g. attracting the most where talented they yield teachers mostto the most challenging classrooms) Gateways, instructional Effective spending choices that prioritise high quality systems teachers over smaller classes Coherence A learning system Low feasibility High feasibility Incentive structures and accountability Money pits Low hanging fruits

32 Mathematics performance (score points) 32 Align the resources with the challenges Countries with better performance in mathematics tend to allocate educational resources more equitably Shanghai-China Costa Rica Peru Mexico Chinese Taipei Viet Nam Korea Singapore R² = 0.19 Hong Kong-China Estonia Japan Poland Switzerland Slovenia Canada Latvia Finland Belgium Macao-China Germany New Zealand Slovak UK Rep. Ireland Iceland France Austria Australia Denmark Romania Croatia USA Turkey Sweden Israel Spain Hungary Greece Bulgaria Portugal Italy Norway Thailand Serbia Chile Malaysia Uruguay Kazakhstan Brazil Jordan Indonesia UAE Montenegro Colombia Argentina Tunisia Luxembourg Qatar 0.5 Adjusted by per capita GDP Less equity Equity in resource allocation (index points) Greater equity Source: PISA 2012

33 Lessons from high performers Low impact on outcomes 33 Must haves High impact on outcomes Commitment to universal achievement Quick wins Capacity at point of delivery Coherence of policies and practices Alignment of policies across all aspects of the system Coherence Coherence of policies over sustained periods of time Low feasibility Consistency of implementation Fidelity of implementation (without excessive control) Resources where they yield most A learning system Gateways, instructional systems High feasibility Incentive structures and accountability Money pits Low hanging fruits

34 Lessons from high performers Innovating to create 21st-century learning environments Regrouping educators To give learners a sense of belonging & engagement Inquiry, authentic learning, collaboration, Widening To mix students of different Four ages Regrouping pedagogic and formative assessment learners repertoires To mix different A prominent abilities dimensions and place strengths for student voice & agency To widen pedagogical options, including peer teaching To allow for deeper learning To create flexibility for more individual choices To accelerate learning To use out-of-school learning in effective & innovative ways Rescheduling learning To gain the benefits of collaborative planning, work, and shared professional development strategies To open up pedagogical options To give extra attention to groups of learners

35 Lessons from high performers Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status 35 Most teachers value 21 st century pedagogies Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that: Fig II.3.3 United States Average My role as a teacher is to facilitate students' own inquiry Students should be allowed to think of solutions to practical problems themselves before the teacher shows them how they are solved Thinking and reasoning processes are more important than specific curriculum content Students learn best by finding solutions to problems on their own

36 Lessons from high performers Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after acc ounting for socio-economic status 36 but teaching practices do not always reflect that Fig II.3.3 Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report using the following teaching practices "frequently" or "in all or nearly all lessons" United States Average Present a summary of recently learned content Check students' exercise books or homework Refer to a problem from everyday life or work to demonstrate why new knowledge is useful Let students practice similar tasks until teacher knows that every student has understood the subject matter Students work in small groups to come up with a joint solution to a problem or task Give different work to the students who have difficulties learning and/or to those who can advance faster Students use ICT for projects or class work Students work on projects that require at least one week to complete

37 Lessons from high performers 37 Changes in instructional practice PISA Increase percentag e 10correct 9 8 OECD Japan OECD 1.7 Japan Multiple-choice - reproducing knowledge 1.7 OECD Japan Open-ended - constructing knowledge (21st century skills)

38 What it all means Average performers Some students learn at high levels Student inclusion Top performers All students need to learn at high levels Routine cognitive skills, rote learning Curriculum, instruction and assessment Learning to learn, complex ways of thinking, ways of working Teacher quality Few years more than secondary High-level professional knowledge workers Work organisation Tayloristic, hierarchical Flat, collegial Accountability Primarily to authorities Primarily to peers and stakeholders

39 Thank you oecdeducationtoday.blogspot.com oecdmybrochure.org/edu Follow us on 39