What does the U.S. need to do to catch up? Holdsworth Leadership Forum Andreas Schleicher Director for Education and Skills
The kind of things that are easy to teach are now easy to automate, digitize or outsource Mean task input in percentiles of 1960 task distribution 70 65 60 55 50 45 Routine manual Nonroutine manual Routine cognitive Nonroutine analytic Nonroutine interpersonal 40 35 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 2009
3 Digitalisation Democratizing Particularizing Empowering Concentrating Homogenizing Disempowering
Singapore Korea Finland Sweden Netherlands Flanders (Belgium) Norway Czech Republic Germany New Zealand Canada Australia Austria Denmark Estonia Slovenia OECD average Japan Northern Ireland (UK) England (UK) Slovak Republic Ireland Russian Federation Poland United States Israel Lithuania Chile Greece Turkey Skills to manage complex digital information Young adults (16-24 year-olds) Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 Older adults (55-65 year-olds) 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40
PISA in brief Over half a million students - representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 72 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 - Total of 390 minutes of assessment material and responded to questions on - their personal background, their schools, their well-being and their motivation Parents, principals, teachers and system leaders provided data on: - school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences - 89,000 parents, 93,000 teachers and 17,500 principals responded
570 550 530 510 Student performance Trends in science performance (PISA) 490 470 450 2006 2009 2012 2015
570 Trends in science performance 550 530 Mass. 510 490 OECD 470 450 2006 2009 2012 2015
Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and science performance Figure II.6.2 Science performance (score points) 600 550 500 450 400 Australia Germany Slovenia Japan Chile Czech Rep. Korea Spain Canada Ireland New Zealand Poland Israel France Italy Croatia Latvia Slovak Rep. Portugal Lithuania Costa Rica Hungary Estonia Russia Belgium Mexico Brazil Bulgaria Uruguay Thailand Chinese Montenegro Dominican Taipei Republic Colombia 11.7, 411 Turkey Georgia R² = 0.41 Netherlands Singapore United Kingdom Finland Iceland Austria Norway Denmark United States Malta Sweden R² = 0.01 Switzerland Luxembourg 350 Peru 300 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)
Learning time and science performance Figure II.6.23 PISA science score 600 550 500 450 400 350 OECD average Finland Germany Japan Estonia Macao (China) New Zealand Netherlands Switzerland Sweden Uruguay Iceland OECD average Israel Bulgaria Colombia Hong Kong (China) Singapore Chinese Taipei Korea Poland United States Russia Italy Greece Brazil Mexico Costa Rica Chile Turkey Montenegro Peru Dominican Republic Qatar Thailand B-S-J-G (China) OECD average Tunisia R² = 0.21 United Arab Emirates 300 35 40 45 50 55 60 Total learning time in and outside of school
Figure II.6.23 Learning time and science performance (PISA) Hours Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Finland Germany Switzerland Japan Estonia Sweden Netherlands New Zealand Australia Czech Republic Macao (China) United Kingdom Canada Belgium France Norway Slovenia Iceland Luxembourg Ireland Latvia Hong Kong (China) OECD average Chinese Taipei Austria Portugal Uruguay Lithuania Singapore Denmark Hungary Poland Slovak Republic Spain Croatia United States Israel Bulgaria Korea Russia Italy Greece B-S-J-G (China) Colombia Chile Mexico Brazil Costa Rica Turkey Montenegro Peru Qatar Thailand United Arab Emirates Tunisia Dominican Republic 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 Score points in science per hour of learning time
High impact on outcomes Must haves Quick wins Lessons from PISA Low feasibility Money pits Low hanging fruits High feasibility Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes Capacity at point of delivery Must haves Commitment to universal achievement Quick wins Resources where they yield most Coherence Looking outwards Incentive structures and accountability Lessons from PISA Low feasibility Money pits Gateways, instructional systems Low hanging fruits High feasibility Low impact on outcomes
Some students learn at high levels
All students learn at high levels
Poverty need not be destiny: PISA math performance by decile of social background PISA mathematics performance High math performance Low math performance Mathematics performance of the 10% most privileged American 15-year-olds (~Japan) Mathematics performance of the 10% most disadvantaged American 15-year-olds (~Mexico)
630 Comparing like with like Learning outcomes by international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) Figure I.6.7 580 Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile 530 OECD median student Score points 480 430 380 330 280 % of students in the bottom international deciles of ESCS Dominican Republic 40 Algeria 52 Kosovo 10 Qatar 3 FYROM 13 Tunisia 39 Montenegro 11 Jordan 21 United Arab Emirates 3 Georgia 19 Lebanon 27 Indonesia 74 Mexico 53 Peru 50 Costa Rica 38 Brazil 43 Turkey 59 Moldova 28 Thailand 55 Colombia 43 Iceland 1 Trinidad and Tobago 14 Romania 20 Israel 6 Bulgaria 13 Greece 13 Russia 5 Uruguay 39 Chile 27 Latvia 25 Lithuania 12 Slovak Republic 8 Italy 15 Norway 1 Spain 31 Hungary 16 Croatia 10 Denmark 3 OECD average 12 Sweden 3 Malta 13 United States 11 Macao (China) 22 Ireland 5 Austria 5 Portugal 28 Luxembourg 14 Hong Kong (China) 26 Czech Republic 9 Poland 16 Australia 4 United Kingdom 5 Canada 2 France 9 Korea 6 New Zealand 5 Switzerland 8 Netherlands 4 Slovenia 5 Belgium 7 Finland 2 Estonia 5 Viet Nam 76 Germany 7 Japan 8 Chinese Taipei 12 B-S-J-G (China) 52 Singapore 11
Disadvantaged schools often have more teachers Average class size in <9 th grade>, by quarter of school socio-economic profile (OECD average) Students per class 28 27.7 27 27.0 26 25.8 25 24 24.2 23 Bottom quarter Second quarter Third quarter Top quarter
but teachers in disadvantaged schools are less qualified Science teachers without a university major in science, by school socio-economic profile (OECD Average) Figure 3.5 35 33 31 29 27 25 23 21 19 17 15 31 26 25 21 Bottom quarter Second quarter Third quarter Top quarter
Does greater school autonomy go together with greater inequity? % Percentage of students in schools whose principal or the school governing board has considerable responsibility for determining teachers' salary increases 100 80 60 40 20 United Arab Emirates United States Chinese Taipei Australia Peru Dominican Republic B-S-J-G (China) Colombia Brazil Spain Germany Korea Portugal Italy Czech Republic Chile Macao (China) R² = 0.39 Hong Kong (China) % dif. 0-40 -30-20 -10 0 10 Difference betwen advantaged and disadvantaged schools in the proportion of non-science teachers who reported that the school's capacity to provide instruction is hindered by a lack of teaching staff at least to some extent Figure 3.16 No : Where school responsibility for hiring/firing teachers and setting salaries is greater, inequitable teacher sorting appears LESS frequent! 45th meeting of the PISA Governing Board
2 1 21 Square school choice with equity Engaging parents and stakeholders Manage/ consolidate school network What can policy do? Formulabased approaches to school financing Financial incentives for schools Foster collaboration /pairing among schools Admission policies, controlled choice Assistance for disadvantaged parents
Schools and communities: a virtuous relationship Schools can become partners in serving the needs of local communities, especially in disadvantaged communities Successful schools draw on the resources and support of their communities Schools engage parents and families in learning, and also draw on resources of local enterprises, community organisations, social services, and sports and cultural institutions, such as museums, theatres or libraries Schools Schools at the centre of their communities are often the most successful schools. Communities Extracurricular activities that enrich communities in sports, social care and volunteering Service learning Schools are vital to the social health of their local communities Research projects offer innovative answers to the needs of local enterprises, while enhancing entrepreneurialism among students and providing realworld experiences.
Parents interest in their child's activities at school and well-being (average) More likely Students who say their parents are interested in their school activities are 2.5 times more likely 1.9 times more likely As likely 1.4 times less likely Twice less likely Less likely Wanting top grades at school Being very satisfied with life Feeling lonely at school Being not satisfied with life
Attendance at pre-primary school by schools socio-economic profile 5 Number of years in pre-primary education among students attending socio-economically Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools 4 Years 3 2 OECD average 1 0 Sweden Estonia Russia Latvia Bulgaria Iceland Norway Hungary Denmark Finland Singapore Israel Belgium Hong Kong (China) Spain Slovak Republic Uruguay France Macao (China) Brazil B-S-J-G (China) Japan Germany Czech Republic Lithuania Slovenia Thailand Austria Croatia Italy Chinese Taipei OECD average Poland Peru Korea Mexico Luxembourg Greece Montenegro Dominican Republic New Zealand United Kingdom United States Switzerland Costa Rica Qatar United Arab Emirates Colombia Australia Canada Chile Ireland Tunisia Portugal Turkey
Bureaucratic Look-up
Devolved Look-outward
Professionalism Public confidence in profession and professionals Professional preparation and learning Collective ownership of professional practice Decisions made in accordance with the body of knowledge o the profession Acceptance of professional responsibility in the name of the profession and accountability towards the profession
Policy levers to teacher professionalism Policy levers to teacher professionalism Autonomy: Teachers decisionmaking power over their work (teaching content, course offerings, discipline practices) Peer networks: Opportunities for exchange and support needed to maintain high standards of teaching (participation in induction, mentoring, networks, feedback from direct observations) Teacher professionalism Knowledge base for teaching (initial education and incentives for professional development)
Teacher professional collaboration Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report doing the following activities at least once per month 100 90 80 Percentage of teachers 70 60 50 40 30 20 Exchange and co-ordination United States 10 0 iscuss individual students Share resources Team conferences Collaborate for common standards Team teaching Collaborative PD Joint activities Classroom observations (OECD countries) Professional collaboration
Teachers self-efficacy and professional collaboration 13.40 Teacher self-efficacy (level) 13.20 13.00 12.80 12.60 12.40 12.20 12.00 11.80 11.60 11.40 Teach jointly as a team in the same class Observe other teachers classes and provide feedback Engage in joint activities across different classes Take part in collaborative professional learning Less frequently Never Once a year or less 2-4 times a year 5-10 times a year 1-3 times a month Once a week or more More frequently
Student-teacher ratios and class size Figure II.6.14 Student-teacher ratio 30 25 20 15 10 High student-teacher ratios and small class sizes OECD average Switzerland Finland Belgium Denmark Malta Netherlands United States Russia Poland OECD average Peru Kosovo Hungary Albania Dominican Republic Algeria Jordan Chile Hong Kong (China) Singapore Colombia Brazil Mexico Chinese Taipei Viet Nam Macao (China) Georgia Japan Thailand R² = 0.25 B-S-G-J (China) CABA (Argentina) Low student-teacher ratios and large class sizes Turkey 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Class size in language of instruction
Teachers job satisfaction and class size 13.00 12.50 Teachers' job satisfaction (level) 12.00 11.50 11.00 10.50 10.00 15 or less 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36 or more Class size (number of students)
Teacher job satisfaction and professionalism Fig II.3.3 70 60 50 40 30 Low professionalism High professionalism 20 10 0 Perceptions of teachers status Satisfaction with the profession Satisfaction with the work environment Teachers self-efficacy
Prescription
Ownership of professional practice Powerful learning environments are constantly creating synergies and finding new ways to enhance professional, social and cultural capital with others. They do that with families and communities, with higher education, with other schools and learning environments, and with businesses.
Some lessons from high performers Rigor, focus and coherence Remain true to the disciplines but aim at interdisciplinary learning and the capacity of students to see problems through multiple lenses Balance knowledge of disciplines and knowledge about disciplines Focus on areas with the highest transfer value Requiring a theory of action for how this transfer value occurs Authenticity Thematic, problem-based, project-based, co-creation in conversation Some things are caught not taught Immersive learning propositions
What teachers say and what teachers do
95% of teachers: My role as a teacher is to facilitate students own inquiry
82%: Students learn best by findings solutions on their own
85%: Thinking and reasoning is more important than curriculum content
Prevalence of memorisation rehearsal, routine exercises, drill and practice and/or repetition Prevalence of elaboration reasoning, deep learning, intrinsic motivation, critical thinking, creativity, non-routine problems -2.00-1.50-1.00-0.50 0.00 United Kingdom Netherlands Spain Norway United States Singapore Canada Shanghai-China Sweden France Korea Japan Germany Poland Switzerland High Low Low High 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Memorisation is less useful as problems become more difficult (OECD average) Greater success 1.00 Odds ratio Easy problem R² = 0.81 Less 0.70 success Source: Figure 4.3 Difficult problem 300 400 500 600 700 800 Difficulty of mathematics item on the PISA scale
Elaboration strategies are more useful as problems become more difficult (OECD average) Greater success Odds ratio 1.50 R² = 0.82 Difficult problem Less success 0.80 Easy problem 300 400 500 600 700 800 Difficulty of mathematics item on the PISA scale Source: Figure 6.2
Higher science 0.6 Correlations between the responsibilities for school governance¹ and science performance School principal Teachers School governing board Local or regional education authority National education authority 0.4 0.2 0.0-0.2-0.4-0.6 Lower -0.8 science performanc e Resources Curriculum Disciplinary policies Assessment policies Admissions policies Resources Curriculum Disciplinary policies Assessment policies Admissions policies Resources Curriculum Disciplinary policies Assessment policies Admissions policies Resources Curriculum Disciplinary policies Assessment policies Admissions policies Resources Curriculum Disciplinary policies Assessment policies Admissions policies Source: OECD, PISA 2015 Database. PISA Figure II.4.8
Fig II.3.3 Teachers perception of the value of teaching 100 90 Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that teaching profession is a valued profession in society 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Singapore Korea Finland Alberta (Canada) Flanders (Belgium) Shanghai (China) New Zealand Russia Netherlands Australia England (UK) United States Average Norway Japan Latvia Denmark Poland Iceland Estonia Czech Republic Portugal Sweden France Percentage of teachers
Countries 4 where teachers believe their profession is valued show 6 higher levels of excellence in learning outcomes (PISA) 45 40 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 2012 Singapore Share of mathematics top performers 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Korea Flanders (Belgium) Japan Netherlands Poland Alberta (Canada) Estonia Australia Finland France Czech Republic Slovak Republic England (United Kingdom) Italy Iceland Portugal Norway Israel Sweden Denmark Spain Latvia United States Croatia Serbia Bulgaria Romania Brazil Chile Mexico 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percentage of teachers who agree that teaching is valued in society
The past was divided Teachers and content divided by subjects and student destinations Schools designed to keep students inside, and the rest of the world outside
The future is integrated Integrated: Emphasising integration of subjects, integration of students and integration of learning contexts Connected: with real-world contexts, and permeable to the rich resources in the community Less subject-based, more project-based
Learning a place Schools as technological islands, that is technology was deployed mostly to support existing practices for efficiency gains
Learning an activity Technologies liberating learning from past conventions and connect learners in new and powerful ways. The past was interactive, the future is participative
Technology can amplify innovative teaching Well beyond textbooks, in multiple formats, with little time and space constraints Expand access to content Support new pedagogie s As tools for inquirybased pedagogies with learners as active participants Collaboratio n for knowledge Feedback Collaborative platforms for teachers to share and enrich teaching materials creation Make it faster and more granular
Technology in schools and digital skills still don t square Relationship between students skills in reading and computer use at school (average across OECD countries) Score points 520 510 500 Digital reading skills of 15-year-olds 490 480 470 460 450-2 -1 0 1 2 No technology use OECD Intensive technology use average Source: Figure 6.5
Standardisation and Conformity Standardisation and compliance lead students to be e ducated in batches of age, following the same standar d curriculum, all assessed at the same time.
Ingenious Building instruction from student passions and capacities, helping students personalise their learning and assessme nt in ways that foster engagement and talents.
Yes No % If I am more innovative in my teaching I will be rewarded (country average)
Ideosyncratic policy
Alignment of policies
Industrial systems System transformations World class systems Student inclusion Some students learn at high levels (sorting) All students need to learn at high levels Routine cognitive skills Standardisation and compliance Curriculum, instruction and assessment Complex ways of thinking, complex ways of doing, collective capacity Teacher quality High-level professional knowledge workers Tayloristic, hierarchical Work organisation Flat, collegial Primarily to authorities Accountability Primarily to peers and stakeholders
What is holding change back? You can lose an election but you don t win one over education Complexity and length of reform trajectory that extend electoral cycles A substantial gap between the time when the cost of reform is incurred, and the time when benefits materialise Asymmetry of costs and benefits of educational reform Reform is easy to derail by vocal interest groups Costs are certain, benefits not The frogs rarely clear the swamp The loss of privilege is pervasive simply because of the extent of vested interests in maintaining the status quo.
What can policy do? Strive for consensus without compromising drive for improvement Acknowledge divergent interests and provide mechanisms for institutionalized consultation Build effective partnerships Engage teachers not just in implementation of reform but in their design Build incentives that spread and scale good ideas Policy experimentation can help build consensus on implementation and can prove powerful in testing out policy initiatives and by virtue of their temporary nature and limited scope overcoming fears and resistance by specific groups of stakeholders Back reforms with sustainable capacity Time implementation carefully
Thank you Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/pisa All publications The complete micro-level database Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org Twitter: SchleicherOECD Wechat: AndreasSchleicher