THE OECD-SWEDEN EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW Main issues and next steps OECD-Sweden Review Team Beatriz Pont, Senior Policy Analyst Graham Donaldson, Scotland Stockholm, Sweden 21 October, 2014
OECD Education Policy Reviews We provide external and independent assessments of education policy and practice, from an international perspective, to raise education outcomes Drawing on OECD knowledge and data and international best practices
We provide tailored advice in education policy: Education Policy Reviews Knowledge from international evidence Contextualization to country s needs Recommendations, considerations and specific proposals
The OECD Education Policy Review Process: Sweden OECD-Sweden Education Policy Review Starting point Analysis and Organisation of visit Country under OECD guidance Provide comments Dissemination Ed system s specific need 1. OECD previsit meeting with some stakeholders 2. OECD review team visit 10 day meetings school visits 3. OECD report Final publication Final objective Strategy for action with a long term perspective OECD review team
High performing systems combine equity with quality Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities 5
Change in mathematics performance throughout participation in PISA, 2003-2012 annualised Mathematics score-point difference associated with one calendar year 10 Annualised change in mathematics performance 8 6 4 2 0-2 -4 Israel Turkey Mexico Portugal Italy Poland Chile Germany Korea Greece Peru Estonia Switzerland Japan United States Spain Austria United Kingdom OECD average 2003 Norway Luxembourg Ireland Hungary Slovak Republic Canada France Belgium Netherlands Denmark Iceland Australia New Zealand Czech Republic Finland Sweden
Performance of Swedish students on PISA, 2000-2012 Reading Mathematics Science PISA scores 520 510 500 490 480 516 514 509 507 502 503 497 494 495 483 485 478 470 460 450 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
Percentage of top performers in mathematics in 2003 and 2012 % 40 30 2012 2003 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 20 10 0 Hong Kong-China Korea + Liechtenstein Macao-China + Japan Switzerland Belgium - Netherlands - Germany Poland + Canada - Finland - New Zealand - Australia - Austria OECD average 2003 - France Czech Republic - Luxembourg Iceland - Slovak Republic Ireland Portugal + Denmark - Italy + Norway - Hungary United States Sweden - Spain Latvia Russian Federation Turkey Greece Thailand Uruguay - Tunisia Brazil Mexico Indonesia
Percentage of 15 year olds below level 2 in 2003 and 2012 Proportion of 15 year olds that do not reach a minimum level (below level 2), PISA 2003 and 2012 0 Korea Japan Switzerland 2.5 Belgium 3.9 Netherlands -3.9 Germany -7.7 Poland 3.7 Canada 5.5 Finland 7.6 New Zealand 5.3 Australia Austria 0.7 OECD average 2003 5.7 France 4.4 Czech Republic 2.6 Luxembourg 6.5 Iceland 7.5 Slovak Republic Ireland -5.2 Portugal Denmark -7.3 Italy Norway 5.1 Hungary United States 9.8 Sweden Spain -10.2 Turkey Greece -11.2 Mexico 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Student motivation (15 year olds) to learn mathematics, 2012 PISA Fig III.3.9 Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements: Sweden OECD average I am interested in the things I learn in mathematics I do mathematics because I enjoy it I look forward to my mathematics lessons I enjoy reading about mathematics UK B 0 10 20 30 40 50 10 60 %
Student perceived self-responsibility for failure in mathematics, 15 year olds, 2012 PISA Fig III.3.6 Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following : Sweden 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 B 0 20 40 % 60 80 100 11
Student truancy reported by 15 year old students and principals 2012, PISA
14 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Teacher professional training needs, 2013, TALIS Fig II.3.3 Proportion of teachers in lower secondary education that point to a need for professional development in the following areas: Sweden 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 14 0 10 20 30 40
15 Teachers view of the way society values the teaching profession, 2013 Fig II.3.3 Percentage of teachers Percentage of lower secondary education teachers who strongly disagree, disagree, agree or strongly agree with statement: I think that the teaching profession is valued in society, TALIS 2013n 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Malaysia Singapore Korea Abu Dhabi Finland Mexico Alberta Flanders Netherlands Australia England (UK) Romania Israel United States Chile Average Norway Japan Latvia Serbia Bulgaria Denmark Poland Iceland Estonia Brazil Italy Czech Portugal Croatia Spain Sweden France Slovak
Teacher availability of and participation in mentoring activities, 2013 Percentage of lower secondary education teachers whose school principal reports that mentoring is available for all teachers in the school and the percentage of teachers who report presently having an assigned mentor, TALIS 2013
School leaders distribution of work, 2013 Proportion of time that school leaders in lower secondary education devote to selected activities throughout the school year, TALIS 2013 Admin/leadership 11% 14% 7% 4% 10% 3% 4% Sweden 51% 41% Curriculum/teaching Students 15% 18% 22% Parents/guardians Community Other
Resources: Overall funding and equity in school resource allocation and mathematics performance 8 7 Expenditure as % of GDP 6 5 4 3 Tertiary Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary Primary and lower secondary Pre-primary 2 1 0 Sweden OECD average Education combined (incl. undistributed programmes)
Governance: percentage of decisions taken in public lower secondary schools at each level of government, 2011 100 % of decisions taken 80 60 40 20 School Local Regional or Sub-regional Central or State 0 Sweden OECD average
School competition and academic performance (PISA 2012) 20
Strengths and challenges Strengths Challenges 1. Public commitment to education and to equity is high 2. Recognition of the need for change and general support for recent reforms (e.g. curriculum) 3. Efforts to develop teachers underway (ITE, i.e. first teachers and first subject teachers) 4. Emerging assessment and evaluation culture 1. Need to raise expectations of student performance and develop learning environments that are conducive to learning for all students and address high variability across system 2. Build the capacity of the teaching profession to improve teaching and learning 3. Strenghten accountability and gear evaluation and assessment arrangements to focus on continuous improvement 5. Decentralisation and autonomy can lead to examples of local good practice 4. Steer policy and focus on improvement to adapt to current governance structure.
Preliminary issues to further develop the system within the current reform efforts Consolidate the conditions to promote equity and quality across Swedish schools and municipalities. At the school level set high expectations, early interventions and use of formative assessment. Build capacity for improved teaching and learning through a long term human resource strategy. Review ITE, set standards, focus on pedagogy and leadership capacity. Steer policy to focus on improvement: Move from a culture of compliance to one of responsibility and accountability for improvement. Define and support the implementation of key priorities and follow up with evaluation 22
OECD-Sweden Education Policy Review Process: Support Sweden in Reform Efforts Sweden Final objective Starting point Ed system s specific need Analysis and organisation of visit 1. OECD previsit meeting with some stakeholders Country under OECD guidance 2. OECD review team visit 10 day meetings school visits Provide comments April 2015: OECD-Sweden Review publication 3. OECD report April Improving 2015 Schools in Sweden: An OECD Perspective (tentative title) Final publication Support policy development for improvement of Swedish education with long term perspective OECD review team
Thank you! Tack! The OECD-Sweden Review Team Beatriz Pont (beatriz.pont@oecd.org) Graham Donaldson Richard Elmore Marco Kools