View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARYAny use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey & Company is strictly prohibited
April 2011
Swedish Education
Discussion document
1
Context and objectives
▪ McKinsey has published two reports with international comparisons of different educational system’s performance
▪ The objective of today’s meeting is to discuss what additional measures can be taken to improve Sweden’s educational performance
2
Contents
▪ Introduction
▪ Sweden's starting position
▪ What do we know about “good-to-great”
▪ Discussion: Sweden’s journey
3
As an independent agent, McKinsey has published two reports about the
drivers and transformation of school system performance internationally
The McKinsey 2007 report on excellence The McKinsey 2010 report on how to get there
4
The 2007 report identified common denominators for the world’s most
high performing school systems
SOURCE: McKinsey 2007
Getting the right people to become teachers
The quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers
▪ High status of teachers▪ Mechanisms for selecting teachers for teacher training▪ Recruiting and branding strategies▪ Good starting compensation
Ensuring that the system is able to deliver the best possible instruction for every child
High performance requires every child to succeed
▪ Setting high expectations for what students should achieve▪ Funding that divert additional resources to schools in need of
improvement▪ Intervention to replace or improve leadership▪ Monitoring and intervening at the students level
Developing teachers into efficient instructors
The only way to improve outcomes is to improve instruction
▪ Defining what good instruction look like▪ Making teachers aware of weaknesses in their own practice▪ Placing coaches in schools to support teachers▪ Selecting and developing effective instructional leaders
– Getting the right teachers to become principals– Focusing each principal’s time on instructional leadership▪ Enabling teachers to learn from each other
Such as…
5
Leadership continuity is essential – the median tenure of successful new strategic leaders is six years and that of new political leaders is seven years
While ‘structure’ and ‘resource’ interventions dominate the debate, ‘process’ deserves as much attention
The 2010 report highlights nine lessons about school system improvement
SOURCE: McKinsey 2010
A system can make significant gains from wherever it starts – and these gains can be achieved in as short as six years1
Each stage of the school system improvement journey is associated with a unique set of interventions 2
A system’s context might not determine what needs to be done, but it does determine how it is done
3
Six interventions occur equally at every performance stage for all systems but manifest differently
4
5Prescribe adequacy and unleash greatness, with collaborative practice
as the engine of continuous improvement 6
The middle layer plays a crucial role in delivering and sustaining improvement – compliance, communication, collaboration, and insulation
7Ignition occurs due to socio-economic crisis, a critical report about system
performance, or the installation of a new political or strategic leader 8
9
6SOURCE: McKinsey & Company
More than 200 school systems were evaluated and 20 improved systems
identified and analyzed
Evaluated systems
Improved systems
Sustained improvers:Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Ontario (Canada), Saxony (Germany), England, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Poland, Aspire (USA), Long Beach, Ca (USA), Boston, MA (USA)
Promising starts:Armenia, Western Cape (south Africa) Chile, Minas Gerais (Brazil), Madhya Pradesh (India), Ghana, Jordan
200 school systems were evaluated based on international, national and regional assessments1
20 systems that had achieved large improvements were identified along with 575 educational reform interventions in these countries
Interventions that were common across systems at similar development stage were identified and mapped
Input data Selection and deep-dive Outcomes
1 1964 & 1978 – First International Mathematics Study (FIMS & SIMS), 1970 & 1983 – First International Science Study (FISS & SISS), 1995, 1999, 2003 & 2007 – Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2000, 2003 & 2006 – Program for international Student Assessment (PISA), 2001 & 2006 – Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), 1971-2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) US, 2005, 2007 & 2009 Index of Development of the Basic Education (IDEB) Brazil, 2006, 2007, 2008 Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) India, 2000-2010 California Academic Performance Index US
7
In the study we’ve combined the scores of different international
comparisons such as PISA and TIMSS into a universal scale by which we
classify systems as either being poor, fair, good, great or excellent
8
Contents
▪ Introduction
▪ Sweden's starting position
▪ What do we know about “good-to-great”
▪ Discussion: Sweden’s journey
9
Comparing to EU15 and EFTA, Sweden ranks in the bottom half
473Greece
483Luxembourg
485Spain
486Italy
489Austria
490Portugal
496Sweden
497France
498Ireland
500Denmark
500Norway
501Iceland
502United Kingdom
510Belgium
512Germany
518Switzerland
520Netherlands
545Finland
PISA 2009Country
Results of EU15 and EFTAScore on the universal scale
Other relevant education systemsScore on the universal scale
428Romania
434Bulgaria
481Lithuania
487Latvia
489Slovak Republic
492Czech Republic
497Hungary
497USA
501Slovenia
502Poland
515Estonia
520Australia
525New Zealand
527Canada
531Japan
541Korea
544Singapore
547Hong Kong
PISA 2009Country
SOURCE: PISA 2009, McKinsey 2010
10
Great
Good
Fair
Excellent
Sweden has come out as “good” during almost three decadesO
rigin
al S
core
(U
nive
rsal
Sca
le S
core
1 )
1 Universal Scale brings test scores onto an absolute scale across time and examination to allow for comparisons across both time and exam type. The 2009 universal scale score is apreliminary estimate. It is based on the 2009 PISA scores normalised using 2008 NAEP. It will be updated and become final once 2009 NAEP data is available.
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
TIMSS
Maths:Maths:Science:Science:
PRILSReading:
PISA
Maths:Science:Reading:
SISSScience:Science:
198557 (487)60 (496)
1995
540 (496)
553 (526)
561 (512)2001
2003
509 (516)514 (512)506 (506)
2003
499 (488)
525 (491)
549 (519)2006
2006
502 (522)507 (508)503 (509)
2007
503 (497)491 (490)525 (482)511 (487)
2009
494 (505)497 (499)495 (485)
2000
510 (499)516 (506)512 (503)
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
496489513503503511
491
Universal scale score1
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
2500
Poor
11
Since others are improving, Sweden’s relative position is falling
Singapore
581Japan
581Korea
569Hong Kong
550Belgium-Flemish
540Sweden
534Slovak Republic
529Netherlands
527Hungary
527Bulgaria
524Russia
509Australia
501New Zealand
498Norway
494Slovenia
493Scotland
492United States
609
Latvia
474Romania
472
488
468Cyprus
418Iran
Lithuania
Singapore
589Korea
586Hong Kong
570Japan
537Belgium-Flemish
536Netherlands
529Hungary
508Russia
508Slovak Republic
505Latvia
505Australia
504United States
502Lithuania
499Sweden
498Scotland
494New Zealand
493Slovenia
605
Bulgaria
475Romania
461
476
459Cyprus
411Iran
Norway
-41
1995 2003
Taipei
597Korea
593Singapore
572Hong Kong
570Japan
517Hungary
513England
512Russia
508US
506Lithuania
504Czech rep
501Slovenia
499Armenia
496Australia
491
488Malta
487Scotland
486Serbia
480
Sweden
474Malaysia
469Norway
465Cyprus
598
Italy
2007
Example: TIMSS Mathematics, grade 8
SOURCE: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
-8
12
While the system as a whole is “stuck in good” the student outcome
variation between schools has increased
Student reading outcome variation between schools in Sweden, PISA 2009, percent1
OECD Average 2009: 41.7%
OECD Average 2009: 41.7%
1 The values are shown as percent of the total variation in OECD. A low value means a low variation, e.g., student outcome is not dependent on whichschool the student attends
SOURCE: PISA 2009; Skolverket
▪ Variations between schools have more than doubled since 2000
▪ About 70% of the variation is explained by differences in social background – an increase compared to 2003 and 2006
6,9
2009
17,0
9,1
2003 2006
4,2
2000
21,7
7,9
8,5
5,8
9,0
14,82,7
4,8
+155%
Variation between schools explained by social background
13
The gap in results between children of low educated parents and children
of well educated parents seems to increase from year 3 to year 9
12
20
32
10
24
37
Low educated
welleducated
mid educated
Year 3
Year 9Share of students failing national test in math 2010
Percent
SOURCE: Skolverket
12
20
32
10
24
37
welleducated
mid educated
Low educated
14
This variation is not only due to socio-economic differences, indicating large improvement potential through process changes
1 Score = Share of “Godkänt” * 1 + Share of “Väl Godkänt” * 2 + Share of “Mycket Väl Godkänt” * 3
Stockholm school results from national test in mathematics
Weighted average score1 and socio-economic compensation
Schools selected for deep dive comparison
Abrahamsberg
0,5
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
Socio-economic compensationSEK per STUDENT
50.0005.000 45.00040.00035.00030.00025.00020.00015.00010.0000
Sofia skola
Vällingbyskolan
Bäckahagen
15
Contents
▪ Introduction
▪ Sweden's starting position
▪ What do we know about “good-to-great”
▪ Discussion: Sweden’s journey
16
A system can make significant gains from wherever it starts –and these gains can be achieved in as short as six years
Lesson I
17
Our sample represents a continuum of improvement from
poor to fair to good to great
SOURCE: TIMSS, PISA, NAEP, national and provincial assessments; McKinsey & Company interventions database
Poor2
Fair2
Good2
Great
1985 1990 2000 20101995 2005
Ontario, Canada
Saxony, Germany
England
Slovenia
Poland
Latvia
Lithuania
Singapore
Hong Kong
South Korea
Long Beach, CA, USA
Boston/MA, USA
Aspire Public Schools (USA)
Armenia
Minas Gerais, Brazil
Madhya Pradesh, India
Systems
Systems with
Special Assumptions
Chile
Western Cape, SA
Ghana
Jordan
18
Systems at all performance levels can improve
outcomes substantially in as short as six years
Chile Latvia Hong Kong
2006
2000
+75% SYE2 +65% SYE2 +25% SYE2
SOURCE: PISA, McKinsey & Company interventions database
Saxony
+75% SYE2
Poor GoodFair GreatInitialPerformance
PISA scores, average1; 2000–06
1 Average across math, science, and reading PISA scores2 One school-year-equivalent (SYE) corresponds to 38 points on the PISA scale
533
497
460
412
542525
485
440
19
Chinese
Singapore narrowed the achievement gap between its ethnic groups
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100OverallIndian
Malay
20060504030201009998979695949392919089881987
SOURCE: Singapore Ministry of Education
% of pupils who sat the Primary School Leaving Exam and achieved eligibility for secondary school by ethnicity
20
42
24
17
+25
200820062004
42
33
23
+19
200820062004
43
36
30
+13
200820062004
44
54
45
-1
200820062004
75
88
80
2004
-5
20082006
Pass rates, grade 3Lowest wealthPercent
Pass rates, grade 32nd lowest wealthPercent
Pass rates, grade 33rd lowest wealthPercent
Pass rates, grade 31
2nd highest wealthPercent
SOURCE: WCED Learner Assessment Studies, Final Reports, 2002-2008
Pass rates, grade 31
Highest wealthPercent
Western Cape narrowed the literacy inequality gap in four years: among 3rd
graders, the bottom three quintiles have caught up to the second richest
1 Interviewees in WCED attributed some of the drop in the two highest wealth quintiles to shifts upwards in wealth categories of learners from 2006
21
Each stage of the school system improvement journey is associated with a unique set of interventions, from poor to fair to good to great to excellent
Lesson II
22SOURCE: McKinsey & Company interventions database
Common
across all
journeys
Poor to fair Fair to good Good to great Great to excellent
Shaping the professional
Intervention
cluster1
▪ Raising calibre of
entering teachers and
principals– Recruiting programs– Pre-service training– Certification
requirements
▪ Raising calibre of
existing teachers and
principals– In-service training
programs– Coaching on practice– Career tracks– Teacher and
community forums
▪ School-based decision-
making– Self-evaluation– Independent and
specialized schools
Improving through peers
and innovation
▪ Cultivating peer-led learning
for teachers and principals– Collaborative practice– Decentralizing pedagogical
rights to schools & teachers– Rotation and secondment
programs
▪ Creating additional support
mechanisms for professionals– Release professionals from
admin burden by providing additional administrative staff
▪ System-sponsored
experimentation/innovation
across schools– Providing additional funding
for innovation– Sharing innovation from front-
line to all schools
Achieving the basics of
literacy and numeracy
Getting the foundations in
place
▪ Providing motivation and
scaffolding for low skill
teachers– Scripted teaching materials– Coaching on curriculum– Instructional time on task– School visits by center– Incentives for high
performance
▪ Getting all schools to a
minimum quality level– Outcome targets– Additional support for low
performing schools– School infrastructure
improvement– Provision of textbooks
▪ Getting students in seats– Expand school seats– Fulfil students’ basic needs
to raise attendance
▪ Data and accountability
foundation– Transparency to schools
and/or public on school performance
– School inspections and inspections institutions
▪ Financial and organizational
foundation– Optimization of school and
teacher volumes– Decentralizing financial and
administrative rights– Increasing funding – Funding allocation model– Organizational redesign
▪ Pedagogical foundation – School model/ streaming– Language of instruction
Theme
Improvementjourney
Six interventions: [1] Revising curriculum and standards; [2] Reviewing reward and remunerations structure; [3] Building technical skills
of teachers and principals, often through group or cascaded training; [4] Assessing student learning; [5] Utilizing student data to guide
delivery, and [ 6] Establishing policy documents and education laws
1 Total number of interventions in each phase: poor to fair, n=103, fair to good, n=226; good to great, n=150; great to excellent, n=94
A unique ‘intervention cluster’ exists for each improvement journey,
with six interventions common across all journeys
23
Good to great journeys emphasize shaping the professional
Theme Intervention types
▪ Recruiting▪ Preparation and induction
Raising calibre of entering teachers and principals
▪ Professional development ▪ Coaching on practice▪ Career pathways▪ Teacher forums
Raising calibre of existing teachers and principals
▪ Self-evaluation▪ Curriculum flexibility
School-based decision-making
Systems included
Aspire (2003+)Boston (2006+)England (1995+)Hong Kong (1989–99)Long Beach (2005+)Latvia (2001+)
Lithuania (2001+)Poland (2003+)Saxony (2000–05)Singapore (1988–98)Slovenia (2006+)South Korea (1983–98)
SOURCE: McKinsey & Company
24
Good to Great example: Ontario’s proficiency levels show consistent
improvement at both 3rd and 6th grades
54
50
02009-10
2006-07
2004-05
52
2002-03
2000-01
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
02009-10
2006-07
2004-05
2002-03
2000-01
Proportion of 3rd grade students proficient in reading, writing, and mathematics
Proportion of 6th grade students proficient in reading, writing, and mathematics
SOURCE: Ontario Education Quality and Accountability Office; IELD Ontario Case Study Report 2007
In 2003, a new Premier and education team entered office in Ontario and launched school system reforms
Education reforms Education reforms
Mathematics
Writing
Reading
25
The engine of sustained and continuous improvement from ‘good’
performance onwards is collaborative professional practice
Collaborative practice is school professionals working with
each other to improve their practice
Study groups, professional learning communities using research and data
Teachers visiting each other's class rooms
Teachers doing demonstration lessons together and joint-lesson-planning
Teachers mentoring and coaching each other and working with specialist coaches and principals on instructional practice
Schools, subject groups, or system developing a consensus model of good practice
Teacher and leaders reviewing student performance data together and jointly developing solutions
Examples
Boston, MA, USA
Hong Kong
Ontario, Canada
Aspire Public Schools, USA
SOURCE: system interviews, McKinsey analysis
����
����
����
����
����
����
26
Capability building vs. formal accountability Share of professional development & training interventions relative to accountability interventions
The balance of capability-building and accountability shifts as systems
improve their performance
SOURCE: McKinsey & Company interventions database
100% =
Great to Excellent
32
Good to Great
54
Fair to Good
51
Poor to Fair
26
Accountability
Professional development and training
4550
2233
50 55 67 78
27
Lesson III
While ‘structure’ and ‘resource’interventions dominate the debate, ‘process’ deserves as much attention
28
Process is the most prevalent intervention type
relative to structure and resource
Intervention type
Structures –organizational, financial, and instructional configuration/ shape of the system
Processes –practices, activities, rights and responsibilities in the system
Resources –Level and allocation of financial and human resources to fuel the system
Share of all interventions(Percent,100% = 573)
70
15
15
SOURCE: McKinsey & Company interventions database
Focus of process intervention
Share oftotal process interventions (Percent,100% = 400)
Total processreforms 100
Policy & strategy
Learning Model
Total deliveryinterventions
ProfessionalDevelopment 26
Management& leadership 12
Communications 8
Change Authorities& Responsibilities 11
AccountabilityDelivery
Content
Policy 13
15
72
15
29
A system’s context might not determine what needs to be done, but it does determine how it is done
Lesson IV
30
Data
Persuade Mandate
Language of instruction
Professional development expectations
US systemsSingapore
SingaporeHong Kong
LithuaniaPoland
1 In all subjects, except the mother tongue, from Primary 1 onwards
“When there is time pressure todeliver results, and the stakeholder environment is fractious, sometimes agreeing to a number is the best way to get people focused”
“There is no shame in transparency…we are here for the kids”
“We have never used targets. Focusing on targets can lead to shortcuts in teaching practice”
“No good for our students could ever come from making school data public and embarrassing our educators”
One of the most important contextual decisions we encountered is when to
mandate or persuade change
SOURCE: McKinsey & Company
31
Leadership continuity is essential
Lesson V
32
Strategic leader
Political leader
Years of tenure
Median of strategic leaders in our samplesystems
US urban superintendent average
England education secretary
SOURCE: McKinsey & Company interventions database
16
2.8
6
16 7
2
The median tenures of leaders in the systems we studied was six years for
strategic leaders and seven for political leaders
Median of political leaders in our samplesystems
33
Leadership continuity is essential – the median tenure of successful new strategic leaders is six years and that of new political leaders is seven years
While ‘structure’ and ‘resource’ interventions dominate the debate, ‘process’ deserves as much attention
Our research highlights nine lessons about school system improvement
A system can make significant gains from wherever it starts – and these gains can be achieved in as short as six years1
Each stage of the school system improvement journey is associated with a unique set of interventions 2
A system’s context might not determine what needs to be done, but it does determine how it is done
3
Six interventions occur equally at every performance stage for all systems but manifest differently
4
5Prescribe adequacy and unleash greatness, with collaborative practice
as the engine of continuous improvement 6
The middle layer plays a crucial role in delivering and sustaining improvement – compliance, communication, collaboration, and insulation
7Ignition occurs due to socio-economic crisis, a critical report about system
performance, or the installation of a new political or strategic leader 8
9
34
Contents
▪ Introduction
▪ Sweden's starting position
▪ What do we know about “good-to-great”
▪ Discussion: Sweden’s journey
35
To understand the educational reforms in Sweden we interviewed teachers,
principals and key stakeholders of the Swedish school systemOrganization Interviewees Sample questions
Schools:AbrahamsbergsskolanBäckahagens skolaVällingbyskolan
▪ 3 principals▪ 6 teachers
What is a normal week like? – how much joint planning, coaching, pro-fessional development?
What are the biggest changes in your work during the last 20 years?
Unions:Lärarnas RiksförbundLärarförbundetSkolledarföbundet
▪ Anders Almgren(vice ordf Lärarnas Riksförbund)
▪ Anders Johansson (ombudsman Lärarförbundet)
▪ Lars Flodin (ordf Skolledarförb.)
What do you perceive as weaknesses in the Swedish school system?
What are the biggest changes to the school system during the last 20 years?
Municipalities:Stockholm citySwedish association of local authorities and regions
▪ Thomas Persson(utbildningsdirektör Stockholm city)
▪ Joakim Feldt (project manager SKL)
What is your strategy on professional development of your teachers and principals?
Teacher education experts:Högskoleverket
▪ Jana Hejzlar(utvärderingsavdelningen, Högskoleverket)
What has been the major changes to the teacher education?
Skolverket (agency of education)
▪ Helene Ängmo (tf GD)▪ Katarina Håkansson (chef
kvalitetsutvecklingsavdelningen)▪ Anders Palm (head of
mathematics development)
What are your KPI:swhen assessing Swedish schools?
What has been your main focus in de-veloping the Swedish school system?
36
Most reforms have been of structural or financial character and
few reforms have directly targeted the ongoing
processes in the classroom
SOURCE: Skolverket – Vad påverkar resultaten i svensk skola, interviews
1991 1994
NOT EXHAUSTIVE
2000
Independent school reform and voucher system
1992 1993
Removal of designated grants to municipals
New curriculum (LPO -94)
Wärnersson-pengarna
Documentation of individual development plans compulsory
2006 2010 2011
New teacher education
Reform of upper secondary school
Course based upper secondary school introduced
Year
Individual wages for teachers
1996
The agency of school development is formed
2003 2008
The School inspection becomes a separate agency
Structural/financial reforms
Process reforms
Freedom of choice reform
New Curriculum (LGR -11)
New school law
Teacher certificate
Municipals new heads of schools
Trial of removing national time schedules
New gradesystemintroduced
1998
Curriculum forpre-school
Inspection responsi-bility for Skolverket
Newteacher education
2001
Maths and natural science development
Practical training program
The teacher package
Upcoming
reforms:
Temporary Student’s health init.
Piloting of summer schools
National tests from year 3
Grades from year 6
37
The Swedish reform focus since 2006 and forward
SOURCE: MckKinsey 2007, McKinsey 2010; Skolverket; Interviews
Sweden
Poor to fair Fair to good Good to great Great to excellentImprovement
journey
Theme
� Revising curriculum and standards
� Reviewing reward and remuneration structure
� Building technical skills of teachers and principals
Achieving the basics of literacy
and numeracy
Getting the foundations in
place
Shaping the professional Improving through peers and
innovation
Intervention
cluster
▪ Providing motivation and
scaffolding for low skill
teachers
– Scripted teaching materials– Coaching on curriculum– Instructional time on task– School visits by center– Incentives for high
performance▪ Getting all schools to a
minimum quality level
– Outcome targets– Additional support for low
performing schools– School infrastructure
improvement– Provision of textbooks
▪ Getting students in seats
– Expand school seats– Fulfill students basic needs to
raise attendance
▪ Data and accountability
foundation
– Transparency to schools and/or public on school performance
– School inspections and inspections institutions
▪ Functional and
organizational foundation
– Optimization of school and teacher volumes
– Decentralizing financial and administrative rights
– Increasing funding– Funding allocation model– Organizational redesign
▪ Pedagogical foundation
– School model/streaming– Language of instruction
▪ Raising caliber of entering
teachers and principals
– Recruiting programs– Pre-service training– Certification requirements
▪ Raising caliber of existing
teachers and principals
– In-service training programs
– Coaching on practice– Career tracks– Teacher forums and
collaborative planning▪ School-based decision
making
– Self-evaluation– Independent and
specialized schools
▪ Cultivating peer-led learning
for teachers and principals
– Collaborative practice– Decentralizing pedagogical
rights to schools and teachers
– Rotation and secondmentprograms
▪ Creating additional support
mechanisms for
professionals
– Release professionals from admin burden by providing additional administrative staff
▪ System-sponsored
experimentation/innovation
across schools
– Providing additional funding for innovation
– Sharing innovation from front-line to all schools
Common
across all
journeys
Intervention is a major recent reform focus
Intervention not part of current reforms
� Assessing student learning
� Utilizing student data to guide delivery
� Establishing policy documents and education laws
38
Assessing Sweden’s performance in areas of good-to-great-interventions
we find a number of measures lagging behind
SOURCE: McKinsey analysis
Area of intervention lagging behind
National average
Performance Journey: Good-to-great Theme: Shaping the professional
Performance level
Raising caliber of
entering teachers
and principals
Cluster Interventions
HighLow
▪ Recruiting programsA
▪ Pre-service training▪ Certification requirements
School based
decision-making
Raising caliber of
existing teachers
and principals
Common across all interventions
▪ In-service training programsB
▪ Teacher collaborative practiceC
▪ Coaching on practiceD
▪ Career tracksE
▪ Self-evaluation▪ Independent and specialized schools
▪ Revising curriculum and standards▪ Reviewing reward and remuneration structure▪ Building technical skills of teachers and principals
▪ Assessing student learning▪ Utilizing student data to guide deliveryF
▪ Establishing policy documents and education laws
39
Sweden has few candidates per seat for teachers education
Candidates per seat
1.879
9.816
526
194
1.136
340
233
996
2.841
1.964
397
568
Seats
SOURCE: Skolverket, OECD, Education at a glance 2007
Recruiting programs
National screening
Interviews (university
Assesmenttests
(university)
Group work (university)
Recruitment by school
On competition of their teacher training candidates are recruited by individual schools
Check suitability for teaching: Group exercises and teaching demonstrations test communications and interpersonal skills
Check suitability for teaching: Interviews look for motivation to teach, motivation to learn, communication skills and emotional intelligence
Check overall academic ability and literacy – Tests evaluate the ability to process information think critically and synthesise data, Applicants should be in the top 20% of their cohort
Check for strong intrinsics:300-question multiple choice assessment testing numeracy,literacy and problem solving
Only 1 in 10
applicants is
accepted to become
a teacher*
Best practice – Finland Sweden
Teacher 1,6
Economist
Lawyer
2,1
10,0
5,0
Psychologist
Nurse 3,1
Sociologist
Physiotherapist 7,7
MD 8,0
5,2
Weighted average 2.6
A
40
The teacher profession has not sufficiently high status
Successful positioning of the teacher profession1. Working with children2. Intellectual stimulation3. Salary and career progression
Best practice – England Sweden
Recruiting programs
▪ In a survey from 2006 uppersecondary school teacherranks as the 44th and primary/lowersecondary school teacher 52nd most attractive professions
SOURCE: Profession status and gender Gothenburg University
Late 90’s: 92nd most popular
occupation among 25-35 year
2005: The most popular
1. Ambassadör 2. Läkare 3. Domare4. Professor 5. Advokat 6. Pilot 7. VD 8. Forskare 9. Civilingenjör 10. Statsråd 11. Idrottsproffs 12. Civilekonom 13. Veterinär 14. Datakonsult 15. Filmproducent 16. Tandläkare 17. Aktiemäklare 18. Riksdagsledamot 19. Ingenjör 20. Psykolog 21. Programledare
TV 22. Skattedirektör 23. Revisor 24. Webbdesigner 25. Journalist
51. Skolkurator 52. Grundskolelärare53. Reseledare 54. Akupunktör 55. Elektriker 56. Fackliga ombudsmän 57. Byggnadsarbetare 58. Kriminalvårdare59. Snickare 60. Frisör 61. Socialsekreterare 62. Trädgårdsmästare 63. Dansare 64. Bibliotekarie 65. Förskolelärare 66. Lokförare 67. Kosmetolog 68. Bilmontör 69. Bagare 70. Bilreparatör71. Lantbrukare72. Barnskötare73. Skräddare/ sömmerska74. Kontorssekreterare75. Metallarbetare
26. Personalchef 27. Författare28. Officer 29. Dataoperatör 30. Reklamare (AD)31. Skådespelare 32. Präst 33. Apotekare 34. Polis 35. Banktjänsteman36. Brandman37. Sociolog 38. Meteorolog 39. Fotomodell 40. Flygvärdinna41. Barnmorska 42. Miljövårdsinspektör 43. Guldsmed 44. Gymnasielärare
45. Kock46. Sjukgymnast 47. Rockmusiker48. Sjuksköterska 49. Kronofogde 50. Konstnär
A
41
In-service training programs for teachers tend to lack clear priority and classroom focus
Best practice - Aspire (USA), Shanghai (China)
In-service training programs
Sweden
▪ 5-7 “professional development days”per year for which some contentis planned by the municipalityand some by the principal
▪ Professional development often ad-hoc – based on requests from individual teachers
▪ A lot of professional development is used by the center to inform or review plans or initiatives or to build administrative skills such as handling IT-systems for absence reporting
▪ Training in classroom settings is non-existent
▪ Teachers often required to compensate for their overtime on professional development days
B
SOURCE: Interviews, Research report Högskolan i Kristianstad
In-service training programs are:▪ Data driven
▪ Continuous and integrated withother process developmentsuch as coaching and planning
▪ Classroom centered
▪ Collaborative
42
Case study 2: Top-performers take professional
development inside the classroom and make it routine
Peer observation Peer observation
All teachers in All teachers in Shanghai are Shanghai are required to visit required to visit and observe at and observe at least eight lessons least eight lessons by colleagues by colleagues each termeach term
Lesson studyLesson study
Teachers in both Teachers in both Shanghai and Shanghai and Japan work in Japan work in teams to analyze teams to analyze and develop and develop model lessonsmodel lessons
Demonstration Demonstration
lessons lessons
Teachers Teachers demonstrate demonstrate excellent practice excellent practice to a wider group of to a wider group of instructors, instructors, followed by followed by discussion and discussion and feedback sessionsfeedback sessions
Professional development in Shanghai and Japan
In service training programs
B
42
Case study 2: Top-performers take professional
development inside the classroom and make it routine
Peer observation Peer observation
All teachers in All teachers in Shanghai are Shanghai are required to visit required to visit and observe at and observe at least eight lessons least eight lessons by colleagues by colleagues each termeach term
Lesson studyLesson study
Teachers in both Teachers in both Shanghai and Shanghai and Japan work in Japan work in teams to analyze teams to analyze and develop and develop model lessonsmodel lessons
Demonstration Demonstration
lessons lessons
Teachers Teachers demonstrate demonstrate excellent practice excellent practice to a wider group of to a wider group of instructors, instructors, followed by followed by discussion and discussion and feedback sessionsfeedback sessions
Professional development in Shanghai and Japan
In service training programs
B
43
Best practice – Boston (USA), Ontario (Canada)
Collaborative planning
Sweden
Teacher
”We never have time to talk about the standard teaching in the teams anymore. The time is taken up by practical issues concerning culture days, students with
social problems, and evaluations or some plan we should give input on.”
Teacher
” At this school it is only the math teachers that use the same tests but no
one plan lessons jointly”
~7.5 % of the teachers’ time (between 07.00
and 17.00) are used for planning of
lessons, little, if any, of this time is used in
collaboration
Planning of lessons is not prioritized and oftendone without input from colleagues
C
SOURCE: Interviews, Research report Högskolan i Kristianstad, McKinsey 2010
45
The core of collaborative practice is intentional instruction
SOURCE: Interviews
Teachers analyse student data to understand needs
Teachers work together to plan lessons and student support
Teachers build a shared range of effective instructional strategies
Intentional instructionAssess
impact
Share methods and impact
Analyze student data
Plan instruction
Teach
Teacher assesses impact on student learning
Teacher uses the planned lesson and strategies
“Were are precise but not prescriptive…we are trying to cultivate intentional teaching,
where a teacher can tell you why she is using a particular strategy for a particular student need” – Student Achievement Officer
44
Case study 1: developing collaborative planningBASED ON BOSTON EXPERIENCE
We made the time for it
Effective teacher collaboration
We used real and
meaningful data
We interjected expertise
We taught teachers
how to collaborate
• Boston scheduled Common Planning Time,
• Built it into the school schedule (who meets, how fits in day, etc)
• This took significant leadership time (principal, teacher leader, coach)
• It was someone’s role to prepare analysis beyond a single class (e.g. 4th grade math trends) – principal, analyst, teacher leader
• Helped teachers prioritise what data to use (e.g. student achievement data)
• Sought to create data-rich school environments (e.g. data in teacher lounges)
• It had to be facilitated and modelled by a capable principal, coach, teacher leader, or administrator…it was a new behaviour!
• Session agendas were linked to a school improvement objectives (e.g. improving math)
• Built root cause problem solving skills
• Followed up on strategies from one meeting to next
• Teachers came across issues for which solutions were not apparent
• Encourage teacher research if teachers have experience and skills to do it,
• Otherwise the administration, coach, or principal may need to source and interject expertise
“We found that In-school collaborative practice required greater support, not less”
Collaborative planning
C
44
Case study 1: developing collaborative planningBASED ON BOSTON EXPERIENCE
We made the time for it
Effective teacher collaboration
We used real and
meaningful data
We interjected
expertise
We taught teachers
how to collaborate
• Boston scheduled Common Planning Time,
• Built it into the school schedule (who meets, how fits in day, etc)
• This took significant leadership time (principal, teacher leader, coach)
• It was someone’s role to prepare analysis beyond a single class (e.g. 4th grade math trends) – principal, analyst, teacher leader
• Helped teachers prioritize what data to use (e.g. student achievement data)
• Sought to create data-rich school environments (e.g. data in teacher lounges)
• It had to be facilitated and modelled by a capable principal, coach, teacher leader, or administrator…it was a new behaviour!
• Session agendas were linked to a school improvement objectives (e.g. improving math)
• Built root cause problem solving skills
• Followed up on strategies from one meeting to next
• Teachers came across issues for which solutions were not apparent
• Encourage teacher research if teachers have experience and skills to do it,
• Otherwise the administration, coach, or principal may need to source and interject expertise
“We found that In-school collaborative practice required greater support, not less”
Collaborative planning
C
45
The core of collaborative practice is intentional instruction
SOURCE: Interviews
Teachers analyze student data to understand needs
Teachers work together to plan lessons and student support
Teachers build a shared range of effective instructional strategies
Intentional instructionAssess
impact
Share methods and impact
Analyze student data
Plan instruction
Teach
Teacher assesses impact on student learning
Teacher uses the planned lesson and strategies
“Were are precise but not prescriptive…we are trying to cultivate intentional teaching, where a teacher can tell you why she is using a particular strategy for a particular student need” – Student Achievement Officer
Collaborative planning
C
46
Coaching for in-service teachers is limited
▪ Expert teachers in priority areas are assignedto four or five schools
▪ Expert teachers on average work with three teachers on any given day
▪ Every process, spanning over three weeks, is based on the principle of see one (the expert teacher runs a demonstration class), share one (the teacher and the expert teacher co-teaches one class), do one (the expert teacher sits in on a class coaching the teacher)
▪ Expert teachers also instruct principals on coaching
▪ Great care is taken to ensure that the teacher remains empowered throughout the process and no individual information is provided by the expert teacher to the principal
Best practice – Long Beach, Ca, USA
Coaching on practice
Sweden
”I try to visit a class of each teacher once per semester but there has been no time
for that so far this year”
Principal (mid march 2011)
Teacher
”After you’ve passed teacher education you rarely, if ever, have another teacher sit through one of
your lessons to give feedback”
80%Successful principals use
80% of their time to develop
and strengthen the work in
the classroom
~1 % of the teachers’ time (between
07.00 and 17.00) are used for
professional development or
coaching and mentoring
D
SOURCE: Interviews
47
The career tracks for teachers are not transparent
and clearly defined
Career Tracks
Junior Teacher
Classroom Teacher(37%1)
Senior Teacher
(50%)
Methodist(12%)
Expert(1%)
▪Coach other teachers in the school
▪Coach other teachers in the district
▪Coach other teachers at national level
▪Contribute to writing national curriculum
1 Includes Junior teachers. Percentages as of 1995/19962 Lithuanian Teachers Qualification Institute. Nomination comes from principal and then approved by municipality first.
Principal’s decision
Principal and municipality decision
Municipality decision
Teachers qualification institutes decision
”I’m not interested in becoming principal. I became a teacher to teach not to be an
administrator.”
Teacher
Sweden Best practice – Lithuania
Teacher
”As a teacher there is basically two career paths, either you become an administrator
(principal) or you go into academia”
▪ Some municipalities are working to developcareer pathways by creating central positions such as development teachers, teacher coaches, teacher researchers etc. positionsare however limited (~50 positions for ~10,000 teachers in Stockholm municipality)
▪ Team leaders and subject developers exist on many schools but wage differentiation is limited at most and recruiting not transparent
SOURCE: Interviews,
E
48
Data is seldom used to guide delivery and identify best practice
Innovation – Teachers need to feel that they’re allowed to experimentIdentification – There need to be mechanisms in place that connect methods to results so good practice can be identifiedCommunication – There needs to be mechanisms in place that spreads good practice quick and efficiently
InnovationTeachers are allowed and encouraged toexperiment
Identification & CommunicationData of results of student groups is connected to individual teachers. Teachers performing high results over time are identified and their methods studied
Identified successful methods are codified with the support of centrally employed developers, piloted on other schools and rolled out system wide if proven successful
InnovationTeachers are allowed and encouraged toexperiment with methods
Identification & communicationResponsibility of identifying and communicating succesful methods not clearly defined� Skolverket is only supposed to support development
work of the municipalities, not to lead it, except when specific knowledge development projects are defined by the ministry. For these projects communication is done ad-hoc for each project through web-sites, books, conferences
� Municipalities (Stockholm): “We single out practices we think is good but we do not actually know what results we can expect from them”. ~100 teachers (out of 10 000 in Stockholm) are directly involved in the didactical method-networks where good practice is spread.
� National association for local authorities and regions have 8 people employed for their whole school development section
� Academia make research on didactical methods but research is not systematic and responsibilities often spread out among many universities (with the exception of NCM – National Center for Mathematics education)
Sweden Long beach
MAP2D
example
Using data to guide delivery
F
49
Synthesis
▪ Sweden is stuck in ”good” performance, losing relative position due to other countries improving
▪ The ”good-to-great journey” has been undertaken successfully by several other systems
▪ Looking at Sweden’s interventions it is still an open question to whether or not Sweden is on the path to great – is there more to do?
50
�Given the gap between Sweden’s performance and aspirations, what have been the barriers to improvement?
�How confident are we that recent and upcoming initiatives will be sufficient to result in a significant improvement of Sweden’s performance within five years time?
�What should we do?
Discussion questions
Recommended