Reform November 18. Andreas Schleicher

Reform November 18 Andreas Schleicher

Student performance 570 Trends in science performance (PISA) 550 530 510 490 470 450 2006 2009 2012 2015

570 Trends in science performance (PISA) 550 530 510 490 OECD 470 450 2006 2009 2012 2015

Science performance (score points) Figure II.6.2 Money is necessary but not sufficient Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and science performance 600 Australia Germany 550 500 450 400 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 Netherlands Singapore United Kingdom Finland Iceland Austria Norw ay Denmark United States Malta Sw eden R² = 0.01 Sw itzerland Luxembourg Georgia R² = 0.41 350 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)

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 Figure II.6.23 Learning time and science performance (PISA) Score points in science per hour of learning time 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 Productivity Time in school Learning out of school 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6

Changing education can be like moving graveyards The status quo has many protectors Everyone supports reform except for their own children Even those who promote reforms often change their mind when they understand what change entails for them The frogs rarely clear the swamp The loss of privilege is pervasive because of the extent of vested interests Asymmetry of costs and benefits of educational reform Costs are certain and immediate, benefits are uncertain and long-term Lack of supportive ecosystems Lack of an education industry that pushes innovation and absorbs risks A research sector that is often disengaged from the real needs of real classrooms 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

When fast gets really fast, being slow to adapt makes education really slow Industrial systems Some students learn at high levels World class systems Student inclusion All students need to learn at high levels Routine cognitive skills Curriculum, instruction and assessment Complex ways of thinking and working Standardisation and compliance Teacher education High-level professional knowledge workers Tayloristic, industrial Work organisation Flat, collegial, entrepreneurial Primarily to authorities Accountability Primarily to peers and stakeholders

Some learn at high levels

All learn at high levels

Poverty need not be destiny: PISA math performance by decile of social background (2012) PISA mathematics performance High math performance Mathematics performance of the 10% most privileged American 15-year-olds (~Japan) Low math performance Mathematics performance of the 10% most disadvantaged American 15-year-olds (~Mexico)

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 Score points 630 Poverty need not be destiny Science learning outcomes by international deciles of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) (2015) Figure I.6.7 580 Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile 530 OECD median student 480 430 380 330 280 % of students in the bottom international deciles of ESCS

Average class size Aligning resources with needs Average class size in <9 th grade>, by quarter of school socio-economic profile 28 27 United States OECD average 26 25 24 23 22 Highly disadvantaged Disadvantaged Advantaged Highly advantaged Schools by social background

% science teachers without university major in science Aligning resources with needs Science teachers without a university major in science, by school socio-economic profile (OECD Average) 35 30 United States OECD average 25 20 15 10 5 0 Highly disadvantaged Disadvantaged Advantaged Highly advantaged Schools by social background

New Zealand Portugal Brazil Qatar Luxembourg Tunisia Jordan Australia Sweden Belgium Denmark United Arab Emirates Colombia Argentina Chinese Taipei Chile Czech Republic Turkey Netherlands Malaysia Canada Slovak Republic Austria Indonesia Romania Costa Rica Thailand Switzerland Uruguay Bulgaria Latvia Montenegro OECD average Serbia Israel France Greece Finland Peru Mexico Germany United Kingdom Norway Estonia United States Hungary Ireland Poland Viet Nam Japan Shanghai-China 1 Iceland Lithuania Italy Croatia Kazakhstan Slovenia Hong Kong-China Russian Federation Spain Liechtenstein 1 Singapore Macao-China 1 Korea Exposure to pure mathematics Students in disadvantaged schools have less exposure conceptual understanding in math More exposure 0.80 Bottom quarter (disadvantaged students) Top quarter (advantaged students) 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00-0.20-0.40-0.60-0.80 Less exposure

Years 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 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 3 OECD average 2 1 0

Reproducing knowledge

Creating knowledge Think for yourself and work with others

The kind of things that are easy to teach are now easy to automate, digitize or outsource 70 Mean task input in percentiles of 1960 taskdistribution 65 60 55 50 45 Routine manual Nonroutine manual Routine cognitive Nonroutine analytic Nonroutine interpersonal 40 35 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 2009

19 Digitalisation Participating Particularizing Empowering Concentrating Homogenizing Disempowering

Chinese Taipei -2 Sweden -9 France -5 Portugal Greece Singapore -2 Thailand Macao (China) -7 Brazil -2 Spain United Kingdom Bulgaria ong Kong (China) Korea -7 Belgium -4 Denmark -4 Croatia -5 Israel -10 New Zealand -4 Netherlands -3 Uruguay Hungary 4 Australia OECD average -3 ominican Republic Ireland -7 Poland -3 Costa Rica 3 Lithuania Japan -5 Mexico Russia -8 Czech Republic Italy Peru Colombia 4 Finland -6 Chile Latvia Slovak Republic B-S-J-G (China) 11 Switzerland Austria -3 Luxembourg Iceland Germany Estonia Slovenia 15-year-olds feeling bad if not connected to the Internet (PISA) % 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Boys Girls 0

Chile 39 Sweden 56 Uruguay 33 Costa Rica 31 Spain 44 Italy 40 Australia 52 Estonia 50 New Zealand 51 Hungary 43 Russia 42 Netherlands 48 Denmark 55 Slovak Republic 40 Czech Republic 43 Austria 42 Latvia 46 Singapore 45 Belgium 44 Poland 46 Iceland 51 OECD average-27 43 Ireland 48 Croatia 40 Portugal 42 Finland 48 Israel 34 Macao (China) 45 Switzerland 40 Greece 41 Hong Kong (China) 39 Mexico 30 Slovenia 37 Japan 31 Korea 20 Students are using more time online outside school on a typical school day (PISA) Minutes per day 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2015 2012 Percentage of High Internet Users (spending 2 to 6 hours on line per day), during weekdays Figure III.13.3

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

Education won the race with technology throughout history, but there is no automaticity it will do so in the future The future will be about pairing the artificial intelligence of computers with the cognitive, social and emotional skills and values of humans Industrial revolution Prosperity Digital revolution Social pain Prosperity Social pain Universal public schooling Technology Education Inspired by The race between t echnology and education Pr. Goldin & Katz (Harvard)

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

Source: Figure 4.3 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 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

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

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

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.

Making teaching not just financially, but intellectually more attractive 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 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)

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

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 Teacher self-efficacy (level) Teachers self-efficacy and professional collaboration 13.40 13.20 13.00 12.80 12.60 12.40 12.20 12.00 11.80 11.60 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 11.40 Less frequently More frequently

Student-teacher ratio OECD average Student-teacher ratios and class size Figure II.6.14 30 High student-teacher ratios and small class sizes Dominican Republic Colombia Brazil Mexico 25 R² = 0.25 20 Netherlands Peru Kosovo Chile Thailand 15 10 OECD average Switzerland Finland Belgium Denmark Malta United States Russia Poland Algeria Jordan Chinese Taipei Viet Nam B-S-G-J Macao (China) (China) Hong Kong Georgia (China) Singapore Japan CABA (Argentina) Hungary Albania Low student-teacher ratios and large class sizes Turkey 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Class size in language of instruction

Luxembourg Switzerland Austria com. (Belgium) Germany com. (Belgium) Denmark Finland Norway Slovenia Australia Spain Netherlands Ireland Portugal Canada United States Japan Korea Italy Greece Israel Poland France Hungary Estonia Czech Republic Slovak Republic Turkey Chile Latvia Mexico USD, Thousands Countries spend their money differently Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student in public institutions, lower secondary education (2015) 4 3 2 1 0-1 - 2-3 - 4 Contribution of teachers' salary Contribution of instruction time Contribution of teaching time Contribution of estimated class size Difference of salary cost of teachers per student from OECD average

Teachers' job satisfaction (level) Teachers job satisfaction and class size 13.00 12.50 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

Teachers skills Numeracy test scores of tertiary graduates and teachers Japan Finland Flanders (Belgium) Germany Norway Netherlands Austria Czech Republic Sweden Australia France Northern Ireland (UK) Denmark England/N. Ireland (UK) England (UK) Korea Ireland Canada United States Estonia Poland Spain Numeracy score 215 235 255 275 295 315 335 355 375

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 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

Share of mathematics top performers Countries 4 where teachers believe their profession is valued show 7 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 35 30 Korea 25 Japan Flanders (Belgium) 20 15 10 5 0 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

Bureaucratic Look-up

Devolved Look-outward

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 Higher science 0.6 Correlations between the responsibilities for school governance and learning outcomes 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 Source: OECD, PISA 2015 Database. PISA Figure II.4.8

Netherlands Czech Republic England (UK) Latvia Flemish comm. Iceland Estonia Australia New Zealand Slovenia Scotland (UK) Chile Austria Ireland Slovak Republic Lithuania EU23 average Sweden OECD average Italy Hungary Denmark French comm. Russian Federation Japan Israel Germany Luxembourg Mexico United States Canada Korea Portugal Norway France Spain Switzerland Greece Turkey Finland Who decides? Percentage of decisions taken at each level of government in public lower secondary education (2017) % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 School Local Regional or Sub-regional Central or State Multiple levels

Percentage of students in schools whose principal or the school governing board has considerable responsibility for determining teachers' salary increases School autonomy and equity % 100 Macao (China) 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 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 Where school responsibility for hiring teachers and setting salaries is greater, teacher allocation tends to be more equitable

Turkey Singapore Viet Nam Japan Tunisia Italy Chinese Taipei Thailand Greece Switzerland Czech Republic United States Estonia Uruguay France Austria CABA (Argentina) Kosovo Mexico Hong Kong (China) Indonesia Luxembourg Sweden Hungary Malta Dominican Republic Latvia OECD average B-S-J-G (China) Portugal Slovenia Spain United Kingdom Slovak Republic Norway Australia Croatia Denmark Peru Jordan Costa Rica Colombia Chile Netherlands Korea New Zealand Canada Lithuania Ireland Georgia Trinidad and Tobago FYROM Germany Finland Lebanon Belgium Poland Brazil United Arab Emirates Qatar Score-point difference Science performance in public and private schools Figure II.4.14 After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status 60 Students in public schools perform better 40 20 0-20 -40-60 -80 Students in private schools perform better -100

Countries that invest more public funds in privately managed schools tend to have less of a difference between the socio-economic profiles of publicly and privately managed schools % public funding for privately managed schools 100 80 60 40 Netherlands Luxembourg Korea Finland Slovak Republic Germany Ireland Denmark Israel Japan Italy Sweden Belgium Hungary Estonia Czech Republic Australia Portugal Switzerland Canada Slovenia Spain Chile Poland 20 0 United Kingdom New Zealand United States Greece Mexico -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Difference between the socio-economic profile of publicly and privately managed schools (priv. - pub.)

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

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

Making reform happen Knowledge is only as valuable as our capacity to act on it, and the road of educational reform is littered with good ideas that were poorly implemented

Making reform happen Setting the direction People are more likely to accept changes that are not solely in their own interests if they understand the reasons for these changes and can see the role they should play within the broad strategy. Engaging the profession Educational leaders are rarely successful with reform unless they build a shared understanding and collective ownership for change, and unless they build capacity and create the right policy climate, with accountability measures designed to encourage innovation rather than compliance Building capacity Often the resource implications of reform are underestimated in scope, nature and timing. The main shortcoming is often not a lack of financial resources, but a dearth of human capacity at every level of the system. Looking outward

oe.cd/worldclass In conclusion Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org Universal high quality education is an attainable goal, and our task is not to make the impossible possible, but to make the possible attainable. It is entirely within our means to deliver a future for millions of learners who currently don t have one

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