Strong performers and successful reformers in education OECD EMPLOYER BRAND

Strong performers and successful reformers in education OECD EMPLOYER BRAND Playbook Hong Kong 31 January 2015 Andreas Schleicher 1

2 21 st century skills The dilemma for educators The kinds of things that are easy to teach and test are also easy to digitise, automate and outsource

3 The modern world no longer rewards people just for what they know, but for what they can do with what they know Mean task input in percentiles of 1960 task distribution 70 65 60 55 50 Routine manual Nonroutine manual Routine cognitive Nonroutine analytic Nonroutine interpersonal 45 40 35 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 2009 Source: Autor, David H. and Brendan M. Price. 2013. "The Changing Task Composition of the US Labor Market: An Update of Autor, Levy, and Murna ne (2003)." MIT Mimeograph, June.

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status 4 Most teachers value 21 st century pedagogies Fig II.3.3 Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that: 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 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after acc ounting for socio-economic status 5 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" 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 0 20 40 60 80 100

6 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, collaborative skills, global competencies 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.

7 PISA in brief Key principles Crowd sourcing and collaboration PISA draws together leading expertise and institutions from participating countries to develop instruments and methodologies guided by governments on the basis of shared policy interests Cross national relevance and transferability of policy experiences Emphasis on validity across cultures, languages and systems Frameworks built on well structured conceptual understanding of academic disciplines and contextual factors Triangulation across different stakeholder perspectives Systematic integration of insights from students, parents, school principals and system leaders Advanced methods with different grain sizes A range of methods to adequately measure constructs with different grain sizes to serve different decision making needs Productive feedback, at appropriate levels of detail, to fuel improvement at every level of the system.

8 Schooling outcomes Assessing equity and excellence

Mean score 580 570 560 550 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.2.13 540 530 520 510 500 490 480 470 460 450 440 430 420 410 Poland Belgium Germany Austria Slovenia New Zealand Denmark Czech Republic France LuxembourgLatvia Portugal Spain Slovak Republic United States Hungary Israel Greece Romania Chile 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 Low mathematics performance Bulgaria U.A.E. Kazakhstan Thailand Malaysia Mexico 12 countries perform below this line

High mathematics performance Chinese Taipei Singapore Hong Kong-China Korea Average performance of 15-year-olds in mathematics Macao-China Japan Liechtenstein Switzerland Strong socio-economic impact on student performance Poland Belgium Germany Austria Slovenia New Zealand Denmark Czech Republic France LuxembourgLatvia Portugal Spain Slovak Republic United States Hungary Israel Netherlands Estonia Finland Canada Viet Nam Australia Ireland United Kingdom Iceland Norway Italy Russian Fed. Lithuania Sweden Croatia Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Greece Romania Chile Serbia Turkey Bulgaria U.A.E. Kazakhstan Thailand Malaysia Mexico Low mathematics performance

2012 Singapore Chinese Taipei Korea Hong Kong-China Japan Macao-China Switzerland Liechtenstein Netherlands Estonia Poland Belgium Canada Finland Germany Viet Nam Strong socio-economic Denmark Austria Socially equitable New Zealand Australia impact on student Slovenia Ireland distribution of learning Czech Rep. Iceland performance 26 24 22France 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2opportunities 0 UK Luxembourg Latvia Norway Portugal Italy US Russian Fed. Spain Lithuania Slovak Rep. Sweden Hungary Croatia Israel Chile Bulgaria Romania Greece Turkey Serbia United Arab Emirates Malaysia Kazakhstan Thailand Mexico

Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Strong Israel socio-economic Italy impact on student Japan performance Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands Slovak Rep. New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Netherlands Estonia Poland Belgium Canada Finland Germany Denmark Austria Socially equitable New Zealand Australia Slovenia Ireland distribution of learning Czech Rep. Iceland France opportunities UK Luxembourg Norway Portugal Italy US Spain Sweden Hungary Chile Switzerland Israel Greece Turkey Korea Japan Mexico 2012

Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US

Portugal Spain Switzerland Belgium Korea Luxembourg Germany Greece Japan Australia United Kingdom New Zealand France Netherlands Denmark Italy Austria Czech Republic Hungary Norway Iceland Ireland Mexico Finland Sweden United States Poland Slovak Republic 15 10 5 0-5 -10 Contribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher compensation costs, per student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004) Salary as % of GDP/capita Instruction time 1/teaching time 1/class size Difference with OECD average Percentage points

Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands Slovak Rep. New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Shanghai Singapore Singapore Korea Japan Switzerland Netherlands Estonia Poland Belgium Canada Finland Germany Denmark Austria New Zealand Australia Slovenia Ireland Czech Rep. Iceland France UK Luxembourg Norway Portugal Italy US Spain Sweden Hungary Israel Chile Turkey 2003 Chile 2001 Greece Turkey Mexico 2003-2012

Changes in instructional practice PISA 2006-9 Increase percentage 10 correct 9 8 OECD Japan 7 6.5 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.8 OECD 1.7 Japan Multiple-choice - reproducing knowledge 1.7 OECD Japan Open-ended - constructing knowledge (21st century skills)

17 Fostering resilience The country where students go to class matters more than what social class students come from

18 Resilience in education PISA performance by decile of social background 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 675 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 Source: PISA 2012

19 It is not just about poor kids in poor neighbourhoods but about many kids in many neighbourhoods

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 20 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Variability in student mathematics performance between and within schools Fig II.2.7 Performance differences between schools OECD average Performance variation of students within schools OECD average Variation in student performance as % of OECD average variation B

21 Math teaching math teaching PISA = reason mathematically and understand, formulate, employ and interpret mathematical concepts, facts and procedures

Viet Nam Macao-China Shanghai-China Turkey Uruguay Greece Hong Kong-China Chinese Taipei Portugal Brazil Serbia Bulgaria Singapore Netherlands Japan Argentina Costa Rica Lithuania Tunisia New Zealand Czech Republic Israel Korea Latvia Qatar Italy United States Estonia Ireland Australia Mexico United Arab Emirates Norway Malaysia Kazakhstan United Kingdom Romania OECD average Albania Colombia Indonesia Sweden Belgium Peru Thailand Denmark Russian Federation Canada Slovak Republic Hungary Germany Croatia Luxembourg Montenegro Chile Poland Finland Austria Slovenia France Switzerland Jordan Liechtenstein Spain Iceland 22 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Focus on word problems Fig I.3.1a Formal math situated in a word problem, where it is obvious to students what mathematical knowledge and skills are needed Index of exposure to word problems

Sweden Iceland Tunisia Argentina Switzerland Brazil Luxembourg Ireland Netherlands New Zealand Costa Rica Austria Liechtenstein Malaysia Indonesia Denmark United Kingdom Uruguay Lithuania Germany Australia Chile OECD average Slovak Republic Thailand Qatar Finland Portugal Colombia Mexico Peru Czech Republic Israel Italy Belgium Hong Kong-China Poland France Spain Montenegro Greece Turkey Slovenia Viet Nam Hungary Bulgaria Kazakhstan Chinese Taipei Canada United States Estonia Romania Latvia Serbia Japan Korea Croatia Albania Russian Federation United Arab Emirates Jordan Macao-China Singapore Shanghai-China 23 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Focus on conceptual understanding Fig I.3.1b Index of exposure to formal mathematics

Czech Republic Macao-China Shanghai-China Viet Nam Uruguay Finland Costa Rica Sweden Japan Chinese Taipei Italy Israel Norway Estonia Hong Kong-China Austria Serbia Korea Croatia Latvia Slovak Republic Greece United Kingdom Ireland Luxembourg Belgium Montenegro Argentina Slovenia Bulgaria OECD average Lithuania Hungary Switzerland New Zealand Germany Turkey Denmark Russian Federation Singapore Iceland United States Spain Qatar Liechtenstein Poland Australia France Brazil Malaysia Peru Canada Chile United Arab Emirates Romania Tunisia Netherlands Portugal Colombia Albania Kazakhstan Jordan Mexico Indonesia Thailand 24 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Students' exposure to applied mathematics Fig I.3.1c Index of exposure to applied mathematics

25 Relationship between mathematics performance and students' exposure to applied mathematics Fig I.3.2 Mean score in mathematics 510 490 470 450 OECD countries All participating countries and economies 430 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 never rarely sometimes frequently Index of exposure to applied mathematics

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

27 Must haves High impact on outcomes Commitment to universal achievement Quick wins Lessons from high performers 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 impact on outcomes Low hanging fruits

28 Lessons from high performers 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 Universal point 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 Low impact on outcomes

29 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 Hong Kong-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 0 20 40 60 80 100 %

Boys tend to have greater beliefs Fig III.7.7 30 in their mathematics abilities than girls Difference in the mean index 0.60 Gender gap adjusted for differences in mathematics performance between boys and girls Gender gap 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Malaysia Albania Indonesia Kazakhstan Romania Portugal Peru Poland Viet Nam Turkey Slovak Republic Thailand Colombia Montenegro Spain Shanghai-China Mexico Bulgaria Tunisia Argentina Korea Macao-China Serbia Slovenia Italy Chile Hungary Brazil Chinese Taipei Greece Russian Fed. United States Ireland Uruguay Singapore Costa Rica Japan U.A.E. Jordan Croatia Canada Lithuania Israel OECD average Estonia Latvia Sweden Luxembourg Norway Czech Republic Denmark Qatar Hong Kong-China Austria New Zealand United Kingdom Australia Netherlands Belgium France Switzerland Liechtenstein Finland Germany Iceland Mean index difference (boys-girls) B

Greater self-efficacy among girls could shrink the gender gap in mathematics Fig III.7.12 31 performance, particularly among the highest-performing students Gender gap among the highest-achieving students (90th percentile) 40 Gender gap adjusted for differences in mathematics self-efficacy between boys and girls Gender gap 30 20 10 0-10 Boys do better Girls do better VS4-20 Colombia Costa Rica Peru Israel Luxembourg Chile Tunisia Slovak Republic Liechtenstein Italy Korea Spain Argentina Brazil Portugal Greece Japan Austria Uruguay Mexico Hong Kong-China Bulgaria Turkey Indonesia Hungary Viet Nam United States Romania U.A.E. Chinese Taipei Canada Ireland Belgium Kazakhstan Czech Republic OECD average Croatia France Shanghai-China Montenegro Poland Serbia Malaysia Estonia Qatar Macao-China Netherlands New Zealand Norway Lithuania Slovenia Denmark Jordan Switzerland Australia Germany Latvia Russian Fed. Sweden Singapore United Kingdom Thailand Finland Iceland Score-point difference (boys-girls) B

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Percentage of girls and boys who intend to take additional mathematics, rather than language, courses after they leave school Girls Boys Turkey Jordan * Costa Rica * Thailand Kazakhstan * Iceland Shanghai-China * Viet Nam Albania * United Arab Emirates * Qatar Malaysia * Norway Israel Cyprus Indonesia * Portugal * Colombia Japan Netherlands Croatia Latvia Uruguay Argentina Denmark Peru Mexico Tunisia Estonia Chile Liechtenstein Macao-China Poland Luxembourg France Spain Italy Sweden Belgium United States Czech Republic Chinese Taipei Singapore OECD average Slovenia Canada Greece Lithuania Bulgaria Switzerland Finland United Kingdom Slovak Republic Romania Russian Federation Austria Montenegro Brazil Ireland Germany Hong Kong-China Australia New Zealand Serbia Korea Hungary %

33 The parent factor Students whose parents have high educational expectations for them tend to report more perseverance, greater intrinsic motivation to learn mathematics, and more confidence in their own ability to solve mathematics problems than students of similar background and academic performance, whose parents hold less ambitious expectations for them.

Parents high expectations can nurture Fig III.6.11 34 students enjoyment in learning mathematics Change in the index of intrinsic motivation to learn mathematics that is associated with parents expecting the child to complete a university degree 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 Belgium (Flemish) Korea Italy Hong Kong-China Chile Portugal Hungary Croatia Macao-China Mexico Germany Mean index change

35 A continuum of support Make learning central, encourage engagement and responsibility Be acutely sensitive to individual differences Provide continual assessment with formative feedback Be demanding for every student Ensure that students feel valued and included and learning is collaborative 35

36 Lessons from high performers Low feasibility Must haves Capacity at point of delivery Coherence High impact on outcomes Commitment to universal achievement Quick wins 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 Low impact on outcomes

37 Capacity at the point of delivery Lessons from high performers Low feasibility High impact on outcomes Must haves 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 System wide career development FIN Coherence A learning system Gateways, instructional systems High feasibility Incentive structures and accountability Money pits Low hanging fruits Low impact on outcomes

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status 38 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 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 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 Percentage of teachers Slovak Republic Above-average performers in PISA

39 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 2012 45 40 Singapore Share of mathematics top performers 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Poland 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 Korea Flanders (Belgium) Japan R 2 = 0.24 r= 0.49 Netherlands Alberta (Canada) Finland Mexico 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percentage of teachers who agree that teaching is valued in society

Average 100 90 Exchange and co-ordination Professional collaboration 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Discuss individual students Share resources Team conferences Collaborate for common standards Team teaching Collaborative PD Joint activities Percentage of teachers Classroom observations 40 Teacher co-operation Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report doing the following activities at least once per month

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after acc ounting for socio-economic status 41 Drivers of job satisfaction Fig II.3.3 The more frequently that teachers report participating in collaborative practices with their colleagues, the higher their level of self-efficacy. The same is true for job satisfaction.

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after acc ounting for socio-economic status 42 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 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 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after acc ounting for socio-economic status 43 Impact of professional development Fig II.3.3 Regardless of the content, over 3/4 of teachers report that the professional development in which they have participated has had a positive impact on their teaching.

44 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Teachers feedback : direct classroom observations Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 Percentage of teachers Bulgaria Poland United States Romania Alberta (Canada) Croatia Czech Republic Abu Dhabi (UAE) Flanders (Belgium) Serbia Slovak Republic Japan Israel Average Singapore Latvia Brazil Mexico Malaysia Sweden Estonia England (UK) Norway Finland Portugal Denmark Korea Chile Italy Netherlands France Spain Iceland Australia Principals School Management Other teachers

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after acc ounting for socio-economic status 45 Teachers and feedback Fig II.3.3 On average across TALIS countries, Just above half of the teachers report receiving feedback on their teaching from one or two sources...and only one in 5 receive feedback from three sources.

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status 46 Feedback and change in behavior Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report a "moderate" or "large" positive change in the following issues after they received feedback on their work 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Fig II.3.3 Confidence as a teacher Motivation Job satisfaction Knowledge and understanding of main subject field(s) Teaching practices Student assessments to improve student learning Classroom management practices Methods for teaching students with special needs Public recognition Job responsibilities Role in school development initiatives Amount of professional development Likelihood of career advancement Salary and/or financial bonus Average Average Personal Pedagogical Professional

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, 47 Consequences after accounting of for feedback socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that: Average Average A development or training plan is established to improve their work as a teacher A mentor is appointed to help teachers improve his/her teaching Teacher appraisal and feedback have little impact upon the way teachers teach in the classroom The best performing teachers in this school receive the greatest recognition If a teacher is consistently underperforming, he/she would be dismissed 0 20 40 60 80

Luxembourg Jordan Thailand Turkey Shanghai-China Israel Colombia Peru Chile Netherlands Mexico Germany Viet Nam Russian Fed. Uruguay Norway Kazakhstan Indonesia Belgium Italy Malaysia Australia Brazil Iceland U.A.E. Singapore New Zealand Korea Switzerland Estonia Macao-China Costa Rica OECD average Sweden Argentina Tunisia Austria Qatar Ireland Chinese Taipei France Denmark United Kingdom Hong Kong-China Albania Japan Canada Slovak Republic Latvia Greece United States Czech Republic Croatia Finland Montenegro Romania Hungary Lithuania Slovenia Spain Serbia Portugal Bulgaria Poland 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0-0.5-1 -1.5 Teacher shortage Fig IV.3.5 Mean index Top quarter of this index Bottom quarter of this index Mean index

49 Adequate resources to address disadvantage 1.5 A shortage of qualified teachers is more of concern in disadvantaged schools Difference between socio economically disadvantaged and socio economically advantaged schools 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 Disadvantaged schools reported more teacher shortage 0.1-0.1-0.3 Advantaged schools reported more teacher shortage -0.5 Korea Estonia Israel Latvia Slovenia Italy Poland Singapore Argentina Netherlands Portugal Colombia France Finland Tunisia Macao-China Spain Greece Switzerland Norway Russian Fed. Japan Austria Montenegro Croatia Canada OECD average Germany Denmark Hungary United Kingdom Luxembourg Hong Kong-China Belgium Iceland Viet Nam Ireland United States Chile Czech Republic Serbia Turkey Mexico Indonesia Uruguay Shanghai-China Slovak Republic Sweden Brazil New Zealand Australia Chinese Taipei Mean index difference

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

51 51 Align autonomy with accountability Lessons from high performers The question is not how many charter schools you have but how you enable every teacher to assume charter like autonomy 51

52 52 Countries that grant schools autonomy over curricula and assessments tend to perform better in mathematics Lessons from high performers Mathematics performance (score points) 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 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 Qatar 300-1.5-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Index of school responsibility for curriculum and assessment (index points) 52 Source: PISA 2012

Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with standardised math policies Fig IV.1.16 School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's extent of implementing a standardised math policy (e.g. curriculum and instructional materials) Score points 485 480 475 470 465 460 455 Less school autonomy Standardised math policy No standardised math policy More school autonomy

Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more collaboration Fig IV.1.17 School autonomy for resource allocation x System's level of teachers participating in school management Across all participating countries and economies 485 Score points 480 475 470 465 460 455 Less school autonomy Teachers participate in management Teachers don't participate in management More school autonomy

55 Quality assurance and school improvement Fig IV.4.14 Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that their schools have the following for quality assurance and improvement: Hong Kong-China 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 0 20 40 60 80 100 %

56 Lessons from high performers Low feasibility Must haves High impact on outcomes Commitment to universal achievement Quick wins 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 High feasibility Incentive structures and accountability Money pits Low hanging fruits Low impact on outcomes

Countries with better performance in mathematics tend to allocate educational resources more equitably Fig IV.1.11 700 Adjusted by per capita GDP Mathematics performance (score points) 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 30% of the variation in math performance across OECD countries is explained by the degree of similarity of educational resources between advantaged and disadvantaged schools 1.5 Mexico Costa Rica Peru Less equity Chinese Taipei Viet Nam Korea Singapore R² = 0.19 Hong Kong-China Estonia Japan Poland Switzerland Slovenia Canada Latvia Finland Macao-China Belgium Germany New Zealand Ireland Iceland France Slovak UK Rep. Austria Australia Denmark Romania Croatia USA Turkey Sweden Israel Spain Hungary Greece Bulgaria Portugal Thailand Italy Norway Serbia Chile Malaysia Uruguay Kazakhstan Brazil Jordan Indonesia UAE Montenegro Colombia Argentina Tunisia Luxembourg 1 Qatar Shanghai-China 0.5 Equity in resource allocation (index points) OECD countries tend to allocate at least an equal, if not a larger, number of teachers per student to disadvantaged schools; but disadvantaged schools tend to have great difficulty in attracting qualified teachers. 0 Greater equity -0.5

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, 58 What after teachers accounting do beyond for socio-economic teaching status Fig II.3.3 Average number of 60-minute hours teachers report spending on the following tasks in an average week Finland Malaysia School management Flanders (Belgium) Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) Communication with parents Italy Israel Malaysia All other tasks Sweden Malaysia Japan Extracurricular activities Finland Korea Student counselling Finland Malaysia Team work Finland Korea Finland Malaysia Singapore Portugal Administrative work Marking Finland Japan Croatia 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Number of hours Planning

59 Must haves High impact on outcomes Commitment to universal achievement Quick wins Lessons from high performers Capacity at point of delivery Low feasibility A learning system Resources where they yield most Gateways, instructional An outward orientation to keep the system learning, technology, international benchmarks systems as the eyes and Coherence ears of the system A learning system Recognising challenges and potential future threats to current success, learning from them, designing responses and implementing these Incentive structures and accountability High feasibility Money pits Low hanging fruits Low impact on outcomes

60 Must haves High impact on outcomes Commitment to universal achievement Quick wins Lessons from high performers 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 Low impact on outcomes

61 Must haves High impact on outcomes Commitment to universal achievement Quick wins Lessons from high performers 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 impact on outcomes Low hanging fruits

62 Lessons from high performers Average school systems Some students learn at high levels High performers in PISA All students learn at high levels Uniformity Embracing diversity Curriculum centred Learner centred Learning a place Learning an activity Prescription Informed profession

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

64 64 Thank you Lessons from high performers Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org All publications The complete micro level database Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org Twitter: SchleicherEDU and remember: Without data, you are just another person with an opinion 64