Education and learning of the future

1 Programme for Education and learning of the future Lessons from Special advisor to the Secretary-General on Education Policy Head of the Indicators and Analysis Division, EDU

2 There is nowhere to hide The yardstick for success is no longer improvement by national standards but the best performing education systems

3 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 1990s 1980s 1970s 1960s 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 United States Czech Republic Estonia Germany Switzerland Denmark Canada Norway Sweden Russian Federation4 Austria3 Slovenia Israel Slovak Republic New Zealand Hungary Finland United Kingdom3 Netherlands Luxembourg EU19 average OECD average France Australia Iceland Belgium Poland Ireland Korea Chile2 Greece Italy Spain Turkey Portugal Mexico Brazil2 % 1 13 1 27 1. Excluding ISCED 3C short programmes 2. Year of reference 2004 3. Including some ISCED 3C short programmes 3. Year of reference 2003.

Australia Austria Czech Republic Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden United Kingdom United States Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) A world of change higher education 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 Cost per student 0 Graduate supply 1995 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Tertiary type A graduation rate

Australia Austria Czech Republic Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden United Kingdom United States Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) A world of change higher education 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 Cost per student 0 Finland Graduate supply 1995 Japan United States 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Tertiary type A graduation rate

Australia Austria Czech Republic Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden United Kingdom United States Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) A world of change higher education 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 2000 United Kingdom Australia Finland 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Tertiary type A graduation rate

Australia Austria Czech Republic Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden United Kingdom United States Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) A world of change higher education 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 2001 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Tertiary type A graduation rate

Australia Austria Czech Republic Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden United Kingdom United States Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) A world of change higher education 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 2002 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Tertiary type A graduation rate

Australia Austria Czech Republic Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden United Kingdom United States Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) A world of change higher education 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 2003 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Tertiary type A graduation rate

Australia Austria Czech Republic Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden United Kingdom United States Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) A world of change higher education 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 2004 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Tertiary type A graduation rate

Australia Austria Czech Republic Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden United Kingdom United States Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) A world of change higher education 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 2005 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Tertiary type A graduation rate

Australia Austria Czech Republic Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden United Kingdom United States Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD) A world of change higher education 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 2006 United Kingdom United States Australia Finland 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Tertiary type A graduation rate

14 How the demand for skills has changed Economy-wide measures of routine and non-routine task input (US) 2009 edition of Education at a Glance Education Indicators Programme Mean task input as percentiles of the 1960 task distribution 65 60 55 50 45 40 Routine manual Nonroutine manual Routine cognitive Nonroutine analytic Nonroutine interactive 1960 1970 1980 The dilemma 1990 of assessments: 2002 The skills that are easiest to teach and test are (Levy and Murnane) also the ones that are easiest to digitise, automate and outsource

15 Changing skill demands 2009 edition of Education at a Glance Education Indicators Programme The great collaborators and orchestrators The more complex the globalised world becomes, the more individuals and companies need various forms of co-ordination and management The great synthesisers Conventionally, our approach to problems was breaking them down into manageable bits and pieces, today we create value by synthesising disparate bits together The great explainers The more content we can search and access, the more important the filters and explainers become

16 Changing skill demands 2009 edition of Education at a Glance Education Indicators Programme The great versatilists Specialists generally have deep skills and narrow scope, giving them expertise that is recognised by peers but not valued outside their domain Generalists have broad scope but shallow skills Versatilists apply depth of skill to a progressively widening scope of situations and experiences, gaining new competencies, building relationships, and assuming new roles. They are capable not only of constantly adapting but also of constantly learning and growing The great personalisers A revival of interpersonal skills, skills that have atrhophied to some degree because of the industrial age and the Internet The great localisers Localising the global

17 The past The future Learning a place Learning an activity Prescription Informed profession Delivered wisdom User-generated wisdom Uniformity Embracing diversity Conformity Ingenious Curriculum-centred Learner-centred Provision Outcomes

19 2009 in brief countries in 2001 2003 2006 2009 1998 2000 Over half Coverage a million of students world economy 77% 81% 83% 85% 86% 87% representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 74 * 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 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. * Data for Costa Rica, Georgia, India, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Venezuela and Vietnam will be published in December 2011

21 2009 in brief countries in 2001 2003 2006 2009 1998 2000 Key principles Crowd Coverage sourcing and of collaboration world economy 77% 81% 83% 85% 86% 87% 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 assessment areas 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 intended constructs with different grain sizes to serve different decision-making needs Productive feedback, at appropriate levels of detail, to fuel improvement at multiple levels.

22 Shanghai-China High reading performance Singapore New Zealand Japan Australia Belgium Poland, Switzerland United States Germany, Sweden France, Ireland Hungary, United Kingdom Macao-China Slovenia Slovak Republic, Czech Republic Luxembourg, Israel Austria Dubai (UAE) Korea Finland Hong Kong-China 540,000 Canada 520,000 Netherlands Norway, Estonia Iceland Liechtenstein Chinese Taipei Denmark Portugal Italy Latvia Greece Spain Croatia 500,000 480,000 Lithuania Turkey 460,000 Russian Federation Chile Average performance of 15-year-olds in reading extrapolate and apply 55 45 Serbia 440,000 35 17 countries perform below this line Low reading performance 25

23 High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High reading performance Average performance of 15-year-olds in science extrapolate High social equity and apply High average performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance High social equity Low reading performance

24 Australia 2009 Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities 55 45 High reading performance 2009 Low reading performance 35 Durchschnittliche High average performance Schülerleistungen im High social equity Bereich Mathematik Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance High social equity 25 1

25 Australia Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High reading performance 2009 Low reading performance Durchschnittliche High average performance Schülerleistungen im High social equity Bereich Mathematik Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance High social equity

30 Australia Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High reading performance 2000 Low reading performance Durchschnittliche High average performance Schülerleistungen im High social equity Bereich Mathematik Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance High social equity

31 Australia Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High reading performance 2000 Low reading performance Durchschnittliche High average performance Schülerleistungen im High social equity Bereich Mathematik Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance High social equity

34 School performance and socio-economic background Italy Score 700 493 Private school Public school in rural area Public school in urban area Student performance 200-2 -1 0 1 2 Disadvantage Index of socio-economic background Advantage

35 School performance and socio-economic background Finland Score 700 493 Private school Public school in rural area Public school in urban area Student performance 300 2 1 0 1 2 Disadvantage Index of socio-economic background Advantage

37 Shanghai-China Hong Kong-China Korea Macao-China Singapore Finland Japan Turkey Canada Portugal Chinese Taipei Poland New Zealand Spain Liechtenstein Estonia Netherlands Italy Switzerland Latvia Australia OECD average France Belgium Ireland Iceland Mexico United States Greece Thailand Croatia Tunisia Norway Hungary Sweden Slovenia Indonesia Denmark Chile United Kingdom Israel Colombia Germany Brazil Czech Republic Slovak Republic Luxembourg Lithuania Austria Russian Federation Trinidad and Tobago Uruguay Serbia Jordan Albania Argentina Dubai (UAE) Romania Bulgaria Panama Montenegro Kazakhstan Peru Azerbaijan Qatar Kyrgyzstan % 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Percentage of resilient students among disadvantaged students Resilient student: Comes from the bottom quarter of the socially most disadvantaged students but performs among the top quarter of students internationally (after accounting for social background) Less than 15% resilient students among disadvantaged students More than 30% resilient students among disadvantaged students Between 15%-30% of resilient students among disadvantaged students

39 Student engagement with learning and school

40 Students' views of their teacherstudent relations OECD average I get along well with most of my teachers. Most of my teachers are interested in my well-being. Finland Most of my teachers really listen to what I have to say. If I need extra help, I will receive it from my teachers. 0 50 100

41 Students views of how well teachers motivate them to read Index of teachers stimulation of students reading engagement based on students reports Finland The teacher asks students to explain the meaning of a text The teacher asks questions that challenge students to get a better understanding of a text The teacher gives students enough time to think about their answers OECD average The teacher recommends a book or author to read The teacher encourages students to express their opinion about a text The teacher helps students relate the stories they read to their lives The teacher shows students how the information in texts builds on what they already know % 0 25 50 75 100

42 What students know and can do 7 December 2010 Policies and practices Learning climate Discipline Policy Teacher behaviour Parental pressure Teacher student relationships Dealing with heterogeneity R System R School E Equity Grade repetition Prevalence of tracking Expulsions Ability grouping (all subjects) Standards /accountability Nat. examination

43 Does it all matter? What students know and can do 7 December 2010

44 Increased likelihood of postsec. particip. at age 19/21 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) Odds ratio higher education 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 entry Age 19 Age 21 Age 21 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

45 High reading performance Singapore New Zealand Japan Australia Belgium Poland, Switzerland United States Germany, Sweden France, Ireland Hungary, United Kingdom Macao-China Slovenia Slovak Republic, Czech Republic Luxembourg, Israel Austria Dubai (UAE) 560,000 Shanghai-China Korea Finland Hong Kong-China 540,000 Canada 520,000 Netherlands Norway, Estonia Iceland Liechtenstein Chinese Taipei Denmark Portugal Italy Latvia Greece Spain Croatia 500,000 480,000 Lithuania Turkey 460,000 Russian Federation Average performance of 15-year-olds in reading extrapolate and apply Chile 55 45 Serbia 17 countries perform below this line 440,000 Low reading performance 35 25

47 Increase average performance by 25 points (Total 115 trillion $) bn$ 14000 Potential increase in economic output (bn $) 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 United States Japan Germany United Kingdom France Italy Mexico Spain Korea Canada Turkey Australia Poland Netherlands Belgium Sweden Greece Czech Republic Austria Norway Switzerland Portugal Hungary Denmark Finland Ireland New Zealand Slovak Republic Luxembourg Iceland

48 What does it all mean?

49 Tools Standards Processes Curricula Selection People Preparation Technology Teachers Practices Principals Assessments Instruction Support Student Intervention personnel Data learning Support Families systems systems Design, Recruitment/induction implementation and Work alignment organisation of policies Development Supervision Retention

50 A commitment to education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve Universal educational standards and personalisation as the approach to heterogeneity in the student body as opposed to a belief that students have different destinations to be met with different expectations, and selection/stratification as the approach to heterogeneity Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom Lessons from on successful education systems

52 High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Early selection and institutional differentiation Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High degree of stratification Low degree of stratification High reading performance 2009 Low reading performance Durchschnittliche High average performance Schülerleistungen im High social equity Bereich Mathematik Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Low average performance High social equity

53 Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the system and aligned with high stakes gateways and instructional systems Well established delivery chain through which curricular goals translate into instructional systems, instructional practices and student learning (intended, implemented and achieved) Lessons from instruction on successful education systems High level of metacognitive content of

54 Capacity at the point of delivery Attracting, developing and retaining high quality teachers and school leaders and a work organisation in which they can use their Lessons from potential on successful education systems Instructional leadership and human resource management in schools Keeping teaching an attractive profession System-wide career development

55 Incentives, accountability, knowledge management Aligned incentive structures For students 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 Lessons from on successful education systems Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing well For teachers 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 A balance between vertical and lateral 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

59 Local responsibility and system-level prescription Trend in OECD countries System-level prescription Tayloristic work organisation The past Current trend The industrial Building capacity model, detailed prescription of what schools do The future Every school an effective school Schools leading reform Teachers as knowledge workers

60 School autonomy, accountability and student performance Impact of school autonomy on performance in systems with and without score in reading 500 490 accountability arrangements 495 480 School autonomy in resource allocation Schools with more autonomy Schools with less autonomy Systems with more accountability Systems with less accountability System s accountability arrangements

62 Lessons from on successful education systems Investing resources where they can make most of a difference Alignment of resources with key challenges (e.g. attracting the most talented teachers to the most challenging classrooms) Effective spending choices that prioritise high quality teachers over smaller classes

63 A learning system Lessons from on successful education systems An outward orientation of the system to keep the system learning, international benchmarks as the eyes and ears of the system Recognising challenges and potential future threats to current success, learning from them, designing responses and implementing these

64 Coherence of policies and practices Alignment of policies across all aspects of the system Coherence of policies over sustained periods of time Consistency of implementation Fidelity of implementation (without excessive control) Lessons from on successful education systems

65 Reform trajectories The past bureaucratic system Some students learn at high levels Routine cognitive skills, rote learning Student inclusion Curriculum, instruction and assessment Teacher quality The future enabling system All students need to learn at high levels Learning to learn, complex ways of thinking, ways of working Few years more than secondary Tayloristic, hierarchical Work organisation High-level professional knowledge workers Flat, collegial Primarily to authorities Accountability Primarily to peers and stakeholders

66 Beyond schooling

67 Parental support at the beginning of 60 50 primary school Score point difference between students whose parents often do (weekly or daily) and those who do not: "talk about what they had done" 40 30 20 10 0-10 Score point difference Lithuania Germany Denmark Croatia Hong Kong-China Korea Macao-China Portugal Hungary New Zealand Chile Italy Panama Qatar

68 Performance difference between students who had attended preprimary school for more than one year and those who did not Score point difference Israel Singapore Belgium Qatar Macao-China Italy France Hong Kong-China Switzerland Denmark United Kingdom Liechtenstein Dubai (UAE) Greece Kyrgyzstan Uruguay Argentina Shanghai-China Germany Spain New Zealand Australia Slovak Republic Sweden Brazil Hungary Luxembourg Mexico Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Canada OECD average Chinese Taipei Indonesia Poland Iceland Kazakhstan Panama Romania Czech Republic Japan Tunisia Peru Austria Jordan Bulgaria Norway Albania Azerbaijan Russian Federation Colombia Portugal Chile United States Lithuania Turkey Serbia Montenegro Netherlands Ireland Slovenia Croatia Finland Korea Latvia Estonia 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Beyond schooling Observed performance advantage Performance advantage after accounting for socio-economic factors

69 Find out more about at OECD www.pisa.oecd.org All national and international publications The complete micro-level database Thank you! U.S. White House www.data.gov Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org and remember: Without data, you are just another person with an opinion