1 Overcoming school failure Paris, Andreas Schleicher Education Policy Advisor of the OECD Secretary-General
2 r In the current economic environment Labour-market entry becomes more difficult as young graduates compete with experienced workers Job prospects for less qualified deteriorate Young people with lower qualifications who become unemployed are likely to spend long time out of work In most countries over half of low-qualified unemployed 25-34-year-olds are long-term unemployed Higher risks for systems with significant workbased training Gaps in educational attainment between younger and older cohorts likely to widen.
3 1. There is nowhere to hide The yardstick for educational success is no longer improvement by national standards but the best performing systems internationally The impact of poor educational performance is growing rapidly 2. Where we are and where we can be Where countries stand in terms of limiting failure and moderating the impact of social background What the best performing countries show can be achieved 3. How we can get there Some policy levers that emerge from international comparisons
4
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 Andreas Schleicher 5 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 13 1 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 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.
6 Latin America then GDP/pop 1960 Years schooling Asia 1891 4 Sub-Saharan Africa 2304 3.3 MENA 2599 2.7 Latin America 4152 4.7 Europe 7469 7.4 Orig. OECD 11252 9.5
7 Latin America then and now GDP/pop 1960 Years schooling Growth 1960-2000 GDP/pop 2000 Asia 1891 4 4.5 13571 Sub-Saharan Africa 2304 3.3 1.4 3792 MENA 2599 2.7 2.7 8415 Latin America 4152 4.7 1.8 8063 Europe 7469 7.4 2.9 21752 Orig. OECD 11252 9.5 2.1 26147
8 Latin America then and now Why quality is the key GDP/pop 1960 Years schooling Growth 1960-2000 GDP/pop 2000 Test score Asia 1891 4 4.5 13571 480 Sub-Saharan Africa 2304 3.3 1.4 3792 360 MENA 2599 2.7 2.7 8415 412 Latin America 4152 4.7 1.8 8063 388 Europe 7469 7.4 2.9 21752 492 Orig. OECD 11252 9.5 2.1 26147 500 Hanushek 2009
9 OECD s PISA assessment of the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds Coverage of world economy 77% 81% 83% 85% 86% 87%
10 But caution: Some systems with high average performance still have high proportion of poor performers High science performance 565 Chinese Taipei Estonia Liechtenstein United Kingdom Czech Republic Macao-China Ireland France Iceland United States Norway Portugal Finland 545 Hong Kong-China Russian Federation Italy Greece Average performance of 15-year-olds in science extrapolate and apply Canada Japan New Zealand Australia 525 Netherlands Korea Slovenia Germany Switzerland Austria Belgium 505 Hungary Sweden Denmark Poland Croatia Latvia Slovak Republic, Spain, Lithuania Luxembourg 485 465 Israel 16 445 18 countries perform below this line Low science performance 6
New Zealand Andreas Schleicher Finland United Kingdom Australia Japan Canada OECD average Portugal Italy Turkey Mexico United States Korea 12 % 100 80 60 Top and bottom performers in science These students can consistently identify, explain Level and apply 6 Level scientific 5 Level knowledge, 4 Level link 3 Level 2 Below Level 1 different information sources and explanations and use evidence from these to justify decisions, demonstrate advanced scientific thinking in unfamiliar situations 40 20 0 20 These students often confuse key features of a scientific investigation, apply incorrect information, mix personal beliefs with facts in support of a position 530 563 515 527 531 534 500 474 475 424 410 489 522 40 60 Large proportion of top performers Large prop. of poor perf.
OECD 2006 Poland 2000 Poland 2003 Poland 2006 Andreas Schleicher 13 Poland raised its reading performance by 28 PISA points, equivalent to ¾ of a school year % 90 Below Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 70 50 30 10 In 2003, performance variation among schools Between 2000 and 2003 had fallen from 51% to showed the secondlargest increase in 16% of the variation of student performance reading (17 points) and a further 11 point increase But did this lead to since 2003 genuine improvements of school performance? 10 30 Most of that increase resulted from smaller proportions at the bottom level (23% in 2000, and three-quarters in vocational tracks, 17%in 2003) Did this harm the better performers? OECD (2007), Learning for tomorrow s world: First results from PISA 2006, Table 6.1a
14 Germany Sources of performance variance Failure an issue of school or student performance? Czech Republic Austria Hungary Netherlands Belgium Japan Italy Greece Slovak Republic Turkey Switzerland Korea Luxembourg United States Portugal Mexico United Kingdom New Zealand Australia Canada Ireland Denmark Spain Poland Sweden Norway Iceland Finland 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 OECD (2007), Learning for tomorrow s world: First results from PISA 2006, Table 4.1a
Germany Czech Republic Austria Hungary Netherlands Belgium Japan Italy Greece Slovak Republic Turkey Switzerland Korea Luxembourg United States Portugal Mexico United Kingdom New Zealand Australia Canada Ireland Denmark Spain Poland Sweden Norway Iceland Finland Andreas Schleicher 15 100 Sources of performance variance Failure an issue of school or student performance? 80 60 Variation of performance within schools 40 20 0-20 -40-60 Variation of performance between schools -80 OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow s world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 4.1a
16 High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance High science performance 565 Chinese Taipei Estonia Liechtenstein United Kingdom Czech Republic Macao-China Ireland France Iceland United States Norway Portugal Finland 545 Hong Kong-China Russian Federation Italy Greece Average performance of 15-year-olds in science extrapolate High social equity and apply High average performance Canada Japan New Zealand Australia 525 Netherlands Korea Slovenia Germany Switzerland Austria Belgium 505 Hungary Sweden Denmark Poland Croatia Latvia Slovak Republic, Spain, Lithuania Luxembourg 485 Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities 465 Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities 16 Israel 445 Low science performance Low average performance High social equity 6
17 High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Strong socioeconomic impact on student performance France United States Slovak Republic Luxembourg High science performance Chinese Taipei New Zealand Estonia Australia Netherlands Liechtenstein Slovenia 520 Germany United Kingdom Czech Republic Switzerland Belgium Austria Ireland Hungary Sweden Lithuania 560 540 500 Poland Denmark Croatia Latvia Spain Durchschnittliche High average performance Schülerleistungen im High social equity Bereich Mathematik Hong Kong-China Finland Canada Japan Korea Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Iceland Norway Macao-China Portugal 480 Russian Federation Italy Greece Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities 460 Low Israel average performance High social equity 22 440 Low science performance 12 2
Student performance 19 School performance and socio-economic background Germany Student performance and students socio-economic background within schools School performance and schools socio-economic background 700 Schools proportional to size 500 300-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 Disadvantage PISA Index of socio-economic background Advantage
20 Student performance School performance and socio-economic background Germany Student performance and students socio-economic background within schools School performance and schools socio-economic background 700 Schools proportional to size 500 300 Universal policies Increasing educational performance of all children through reforms applied equally across the school system, e.g. Altering content or pace of curriculum Improving instructional techniques Changing the learning environment in schools and classrooms Standards and accountability Teacher professional development -3-2 -1 0 1 2 3 Disadvantage PISA Index of socio-economic background Advantage
21 Student performance School performance and socio-economic background Germany 700 Student performance and students socio-economic background within schools School performance and schools socio-economic background Compensatory policies Providing additional economic resources to students from disadvantaged backgrounds Schools Different proportional to to socio-economically size targeted policies, efforts are directed to ameliorating economic circumstances, rather than providing specialised curriculum or additional educational resources 500 300-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 Disadvantage PISA Index of socio-economic background Advantage
22 Student performance School performance and socio-economic background Germany 700 500 Student performance and students socio-economic background within schools School performance and schools socio-economic background Socio-economically targeted policies Providing a specialised curriculum or additional educational resources to students from disadvantaged backgrounds Schools proportional to size Students are often also identified through other risk factors, e.g. immigration, ethnicity, lowincome community 300-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 Disadvantage PISA Index of socio-economic background Advantage
23 Student performance School performance and socio-economic background Germany Student performance and students socio-economic background within schools School performance and schools socio-economic background Performance targeted policies 700 500 Schools Providing additional economic resources to proportional students to based size on their academic performance Early intervention programmes Remedial and recovery programmes Performance-based tracking or streaming 300-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 Disadvantage PISA Index of socio-economic background Advantage
Student performance 25 School performance and socio-economic background United States Student performance and students socio-economic background within schools School performance and schools socio-economic background 700 Schools proportional to size 500 300-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 Disadvantage PISA Index of socio-economic background Advantage
Student performance 26 School performance and socio-economic background Norway Student performance and students socio-economic background within schools School performance and schools socio-economic background 700 Schools proportional to size 500 300-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 Disadvantage PISA Index of socio-economic background Advantage
Student performance 27 School performance and socio-economic background Finland Student performance and students socio-economic background within schools School performance and schools socio-economic background 700 Schools proportional to size 500 300-3 -2-1 0 1 2 3 Disadvantage PISA Index of socio-economic background Advantage
31 High expectations and universal standards Rigor, focus and coherence Great systems attract great teachers and provide access to best practice and quality professional development
32 Challenge and support Strong support Poor performance Improvements idiosyncratic Strong performance Systemic improvement Low challenge High challenge Poor performance Stagnation Conflict Demoralisation Weak support
33 Human capital International Best Practice Principals who are trained, empowered, accountable and provide instructional leadership The past Principals who manage a building, who have little training and preparation and are accountable but not empowered Attracting, recruiting and providing excellent training for prospective teachers from the top third of the graduate distribution Attracting and recruiting teachers from the bottom third of the graduate distribution and offering training which does not relate to real classrooms Incentives, rules and funding encourage a fair distribution of teaching talent The best teachers are in the most advantaged communities
34 Human capital (cont ) International Best Practice Expectations of teachers are clear; consistent quality, strong professional ethic and excellent professional development focused on classroom practice Teachers and the system expect every child to succeed and intervene preventatively to ensure this The past Seniority and tenure matter more than performance; patchy professional development; wide variation in quality Wide achievement gaps, just beginning to narrow but systemic and professional barriers to transformation remain in place
35 High ambitions Devolved responsibility, the school as the centre of action Accountability and intervention in inverse proportion to success Access to best practice and quality professional development
36 School autonomy, standards-based examinations and science performance School autonomy in selecting teachers for hire 70 PISA score in science 60 50 40 41 30 20 10 Yes 0 No School autonomy in selecting teachers for hire Yes No Standards based external examinations
37 Score point difference in science Pooled international dataset, effects of selected school/system factors on science performance after accounting for all other factors in the model 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 Approx. one school year Measured effect Gross School principal s positive evaluation of quality of Schools with more educational materials competing schools (gross only) (gross only) Schools with greater autonomy (resources) (gross and net) School activities to promote One additional science hour learning of self-study (gross or and homework net) One additional hour of (gross and net) science learning at school School (gross results and net) posted publicly Academically (gross selective and net) schools (gross and net) but no system-wide effect Schools practicing ability One grouping additional (gross hour and of net) outof-school additional lessons 10% of Each School (gross public principal s funding and net) perception (gross that only) lack of Effect after accounting qualified teachers hinders instruction for the socio-economic Net (gross only) background of students, schools and countries OECD (2007), PISA 2006 Science Competencies from Tomorrow s World, Table 6.1a
38 Strong ambitions Integrated educational opportunities Accountability Devolved responsibility, the school as the centre of action From prescribed forms of teaching and assessment towards personalised learning Access to best practice and quality professional development
39 High average performance Large socio-economic disparities New Zealand Netherlands High science performance Germany Czech Republic United Kingdom Belgium Austria Switzerland Strong socioeconomic impact on Poland Sweden 500 Ireland Hungary student performance France Denmark Slovak Republic United States Spain Luxembourg Portugal 560 540 520 480 Greece Durchschnittliche Finland High average performance Schülerleistungen im High social equity Bereich Mathematik Canada Australia Japan Korea Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Iceland Norway Italy Early selection and institutional differentiation Low average performance High degree of stratification Large Low degree socio-economic of stratification disparities 460 440 Low average performance High social equity Low science performance
40 Resilience to social disadvantage Resilience: the ability of some individuals to show positive adaptation despite encountering significant adversity. Positive Adaptation: academic success Adversity: socio-economic disadvantage Resilient students: Students who score on a country s top tertile in science and whose socio-economic background is within the country s bottom tertile Disadvantaged students: Students whose socio-economic background is within the country s bottom tertile
Luxembourg Switzerland Austria Belgium Germany Netherlands Sweden Denmark United States Estonia Slovenia OECD average Spain Portugal Greece France Norway Croatia United Kingdom New Zealand Canada Italy Australia Russian Federation Latvia Ireland Hong Kong-China Korea Romania Israel Serbia Macao-China Montenegro Jordan Andreas Schleicher 41 Natives are not overrepresented among resilient students everywhere % of native students among 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 % of native students among disadvantaged students % of native students among resilient students % of native students among disadvantaged low achievers
Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD average Partners Argentina Azerbaijan Brazil Bulgaria Chile Colombia Croatia Estonia Hong Kong-China Indonesia Israel Jordan Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lithuania Macao-China Montenegro Romania Russian Federation Serbia Slovenia Chinese Taipei Thailand Tunisia Uruguay Andreas Schleicher Odd ratios for resilient 45 Instrumental motivation and resilience Increased likelihood of being resilient associated with one unit on the PISA index of instrumental motivation to learn science 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0
Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD Average Partners Argentina Azerbaijan Brazil Bulgaria Chile Colombia Croatia Estonia Hong Kong-China Indonesia Israel Jordan Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lithuania Macao-China Montenegro Romania Russian Federation Serbia Slovenia Chinese Taipei Thailand Tunisia Uruguay Andreas Schleicher Change in PISA science score 46 Instrumental motivation is associated with higher performance across all students 30 Overall relationship 20 10 0-10 -20-30
Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD Average Partners Argentina Azerbaijan Brazil Bulgaria Chile Colombia Croatia Estonia Hong Kong-China Indonesia Israel Jordan Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lithuania Macao-China Montenegro Romania Russian Federation Serbia Slovenia Chinese Taipei Thailand Tunisia Uruguay Andreas Schleicher Change in PISA science score 47 10 8 equally Differential effect for disadvantaged students 6 4 2 0-2 -4-6 -8-10 -12
Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD average Partners Argentina Azerbaijan Brazil Bulgaria Chile Colombia Croatia Estonia Hong Kong-China Indonesia Israel Jordan Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lithuania Macao-China Montenegro Romania Russian Federation Serbia Slovenia Chinese Taipei Thailand Tunisia Uruguay Andreas Schleicher Odd ratios for resilience 49 Participation in science courses 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD Average Partners Argentina Azerbaijan Brazil Bulgaria Chile Colombia Croatia Estonia Hong Kong-China Indonesia Israel Jordan Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lithuania Macao-China Montenegro Romania Russian Federation Serbia Slovenia Chinese Taipei Thailand Tunisia Uruguay Andreas Schleicher Change in PISA science score 50 Attending a compulsory course is associated with higher performance across all students 80 70 Overall relationship 60 50 40 30 20 10 0-10 -20-30
51 Change in PISA science score Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States OECD Average Partners Argentina Azerbaijan Brazil Bulgaria Chile Colombia Croatia Estonia Hong Kong-China Indonesia Israel Jordan Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lithuania Macao-China Montenegro Romania Russian Federation Serbia Slovenia Chinese Taipei Thailand Tunisia Uruguay and more so for disadvantaged students 40 Differential effect for disadvantaged students 30 20 10 0-10 -20-30
52 Some conclusions on resilience No gender gap in resilience Language and immigrant background are associated with resilience only marginally and only in few countries Resilient students are more motivated, more engaged and more self-confident than their disadvantaged lowachieving peers Holding student demographics, school characteristics and other approaches to learning constant, the more confident students are, the greater are their odds of being resilient Motivation is also associated with student resilience in many countries, even if the relationship is weaker.
53 Some conclusions on resilience Learning time is one of the strongest predictors of resilience even after accounting for student demographics, school characteristics and other factors that are considered to be closely related with performance Schools can play an important role in promoting resilience by developing activities, classroom practices and modes of instruction that foster disadvantaged students motivation and confidence in their abilities and even more so by providing opportunities for disadvantaged students to spend more time learning science at school.
Impact of international Assessments Andreas Schleicher 16 September 2009 54 Does it matter? To what extent knowledge and skills matter for the success of individuals and economies
55 Increased likelihood of tertiary particip. at age 19/21 associated with PISA reading proficiency at age 15 (Canada) after accounting for school engagement, gender, mother tongue, place of residence, parental, education and family income (reference group PISA Level 1) Increased chance of successful tertiary participation 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Age 19 Age 21 Age 21 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
56 Economic impact Programmes to improve cognitive skills through schools take time to implement and to have their impact on students. Assume that it will take 20 years to implement reform The impact of improved skills will not be realised until the students with greater skills move into the labour force Assume that improved PISA performance will result in improved skill-based of 2.5% of the labour-force each year The economy will respond over time, making use of the new higher skills to the same extent as observed today in better performing systems Estimate the total gains over the lifetime of the generation born this year.
Percent addition to GDP 57 Relationship between test performance and economic outcomes Annual improved GDP from raising performance by 25 PISA points 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2110
61 High science performance Chinese Taipei Estonia Liechtenstein United Kingdom Czech Republic Macao-China Ireland France Iceland United States Norway Portugal Finland 560 Hong Kong-China Canada Japan Australia New Zealand Netherlands Slovenia Korea Switzerland Germany 510 Austria Belgium Hungary Sweden Croatia Poland Denmark Slovak Republic, Spain, Latvia Lithuania Russian Luxembourg Federation Italy Greece Average performance of 15-year-olds in science extrapolate and apply 460 Israel Thailand Montenegro Brazil Turkey Jordan Romania 410 Mexico Indonesia Argentina Colombia Tunisia Azerbaijan 360 Qatar 16 Kyrgyzstan 310 Low science performance
United States Mexico Turkey Germany Italy Japan France Spain United Kingdom Poland Canada Greece Korea Australia Portugal Belgium Netherlands Norway Sweden Austria Czech Republic Switzerland Hungary Denmark Ireland Slovak Republic New Zealand Luxembourg Finland Iceland Andreas Schleicher 62 Raise everyone to minimum of 400 PISA points 14000 bn$ 12000 (aggregate gain across OECD countries $200 trillion) 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0
Mexico Turkey Greece Portugal Italy Luxembourg United States Spain Poland Germany Norway Hungary Slovak Republic Belgium France Denmark Austria Sweden Iceland Switzerland Czech Republic Ireland United Kingdom New Zealand Australia Netherlands Japan Canada Korea Finland Andreas Schleicher 63 Raise everyone to minimum of 400 PISA points % currrent GDP 1200% (aggregate gain across OECD countries $200 trillion) 1000% 800% 600% 400% 200% 0%
Council, 18 September 2008 Education at a Glance 64 Some conclusions The higher economic outcomes that improved student performance entails dwarf the dimensions of economic cycles Even if the estimated impacts of skills were twice as large as the true underlying causal impact on growth, the resulting present value of successful school reform still far exceeds any conceivable costs of improvement.
65 Money matters - but other things do too Science performance 575 Finland 550 525 500 450 Japan New Zealand Australia Korea Netherlands Czech Republic Germany Switzerland One caution: United Kingdom Austria Belgium Hungary Ireland Sweden Poland Denmark France United States Slovak Republic Spain Iceland Norway Greece Portugal Italy Although better education results in more money, 475 More money does not automatically result in better education. 425 400 Turkey Mexico y = 0.0006x + 462 R² = 0.1904 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 Cumulative expenditure (US$ converted using PPPs)
Portugal Spain Switzerland Turkey 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 Andreas Schleicher 66 Spending choices on secondary schools Contribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher compensation costs per student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004) Percentage points 15 Salary as % of GDP/capita Instruction time 1/teaching time 1/class size Difference with OECD average 10 5 0-5 -10
67 www.oecd.org; www.pisa.oecd.org All national and international publications The complete micro-level database email: pisa@oecd.org Thank you! Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org and remember: Without data, you are just another person with an opinion