Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
11Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es
Improving the impact of education on economic and
social outcomes
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
First READ Global ConferenceMoscow
Andreas SchleicherHead, Indicators and Analysis Division
OECD Directorate for Education
22Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es Better education or lower pay
Large and often growing earning differentials In the current economic environment…
…Opportunity costs for education decline – Dominated by lost earnings, not tuition (US is exception)
…Labour-market entry becomes more difficult– as young graduates compete with experienced workers
…Job prospects for less qualified deteriorate further…Young people with lower qualifications who become unemployed
are likely to spend a 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 work-based training…Gaps in educational attainment between younger and older
cohorts likely to widen This suggests educational participation to rise further
In systems where high tuition limits increased participation additional public spending can leverage additional participation and thus additional public benefits
Countries without significant household spending can improve participation through widening funding base .
33Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es
Average annual growth in the population with tertiary education
(1998-2006)Tu
rkey
Sp
ain
Irela
nd
Mexic
o
Slo
vak R
ep
ub
lic
Kore
a
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Can
ad
a
Port
ug
al
Czech
Rep
ub
lic
Au
str
ali
a
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Gre
ece
New
Zeala
nd
Hu
ng
ary
Sw
itzerl
an
d
Pola
nd
Fra
nce
Sw
ed
en
Au
str
ia
Belg
ium
Un
ited
Kin
gd
om
Italy
Den
mark
Neth
erl
an
ds
Fin
lan
d
Germ
an
y
Jap
an
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Overall population growth Attainment rate growth%
A1.1
AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
1995Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – college education
Graduate supply
Cost
per
stu
den
t
AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
1995Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – college education
United States
Finland
Graduate supply
Cost
per
stu
den
t
AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2000Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – college education
Australia
United States (2000)
Finland
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2001Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – college educationAustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2002Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – college educationAustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2003Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – college educationAustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2004Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – college educationAustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2005Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – college education
United States
Australia
Finland
AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
1995Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – college education
United States
AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2000Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – college education
United States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2001Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – college educationAustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
United States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2002Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – college educationAustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
United States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2003Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – college educationAustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
United States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2004Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – college educationAustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2005Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – college education
United States
1919Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es Moving targets
Future supply of high school graduates
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
China EU India US
2003
2010
2015
2020Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
China EU India US
2003
2010
2015
Future supply of high school graduates
0
2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
10 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
12 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
14 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
China EU India US
2003
2010
2015
Future supply of college graduates
2121Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es How the demand for skills has changed
Economy-wide measures of routine and non-routine task input (US)
1960 1970 1980 1990 200240
45
50
55
60
65 Routine manual
Nonroutine manual
Routine cognitive
Nonroutine analytic
Nonroutine inter-active
(Levy and Murnane)
Mean
task in
pu
t as p
erc
en
tile
s o
f t
he 1
960 t
ask d
istr
ibu
tion
The dilemma of schools:The skills that are easiest to teach and test are also the ones that are easiest to digitise, automate and outsource
2222Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es Relationship between employment and
unemployment rates for 25-64 year-olds (2007)
A6.5a
Em
plo
ym
en
t ra
te (
%)
Unemployment rate (%)
0 5 10 15 20 2530
40
50
60
70
80
90
AustraliaAustria
BelgiumCanada
Czech RepublicDenmark
FinlandFrance
GermanyGreece
Hungary
IcelandIreland
ItalyJapanKorea
LuxembourgMexico
Netherlands
New ZealandPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpain
SwedenSwitzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United StatesOECD averageEU19 averageBrazilEstonia
Israel
Slovenia
Tertiary education
2323Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es Relationship between employment and
unemployment rates for 25-64 year-olds (2007)
A6.5a
Em
plo
ym
en
t ra
te (
%)
Unemployment rate (%)
0 5 10 15 20 2530
40
50
60
70
80
90
AustraliaAustria
BelgiumCanadaCzech Republic
Denmark
FinlandFranceGermany
GreeceHungary
Iceland
IrelandItalyJapan
KoreaLuxembourgMexico
Netherlands
New ZealandNorway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak RepublicSpain
SwedenSwitzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United StatesOECD averageEU19 averageBrazilEstonia
Israel
Slovenia
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
2424Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es Relationship between employment and
unemployment rates for 25-64 year-olds (2007)
A6.5a
Em
plo
ym
en
t ra
te (
%)
Unemployment rate (%)
0 5 10 15 20 2530
40
50
60
70
80
90
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
FinlandFranceGermany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
KoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United StatesOECD averageEU19 average
Brazil
Estonia
Israel
Slovenia
Below upper secondary
2525Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es
DenmarkSwedenNorway
New ZealandFranceTurkey
GermanyAustralia
SpainAustria
BelgiumFinlandCanada
OECD averageKorea
IrelandHungary
PolandCzech RepublicUnited States
ItalyPortugal
-250,000 -150,000 -50,000 50,000 150,000 250,000 350,000 450,000
7,34218,802
23,30640,036
40,26041,090
48,02448,714
55,69560,51963,414
64,66469,235
82,00785,586
104,410127,691
146,539146,673
169,945173,889
186,307
Direct cost Gross earnings benefits Income tax effect Social contribution effect
Transfers effect Unemployment effect Net present value in USD equivalent
USD equivalentA8.3
Components of the private net present value for a male with higher education
Net present value in
USD equivalent
35K$56K$ 367K$105K$27K$ 26K$ 170K$
2626Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es
Upper secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education
Tertiary Education
Public cost and benefits for a male obtaining upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education and tertiary education
Public benefit
s
Public
costs
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000
10,34614,23617,19717,85119,75221,28023,87528,19336,73037,586
47,36850,27151,95455,61257,22163,60463,756
74,21994,80496,186100,119
160,834
Net present value, USD equivalent(numbers in orange show
negative values)
A8.5USD equivalent
TurkeyDenmarkSwedenNorway
SpainKorea
CanadaNew Zealand
FranceAustria
AustraliaPortugal
OECD averageFinlandPoland
GermanyItaly
IrelandHungaryBelgium
United StatesCzech Republic
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000
2,10935,524
28,76823,350
9,6524,272
14,59911,242
27130,613
11,75523,857
14,05618,058
3,71113,959
5,32512,474
5,06512,314
32,2575,086
2727Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es Supply and demand for young individuals
(25-34 year-olds) to skilled jobs, 1998-2006
-15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15%-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Israel
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
OECD average
Poland Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
SpainSweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States
A1.5 Percentage point change in the proportion of 25-34 year-olds with tertiary education in skilled jobs between 2006 and 1998
Diff
ere
nce in
th
e p
rop
ort
ion
of
25-3
4 y
ear-
old
s a
nd
45-5
4 y
ear-
old
coh
ort
wit
h b
elo
w
tert
iary
ed
ucati
on
in
skille
d job
s
Slowing demand for
higher educated
individuals; Preference
towards older individuals
(experience) over younger with below
tertiary education
Increasing demand for higher
educated individuals;
Employers have fewer choices and
must take younger, less
educated workers to fill skilled
positions
Increasing demand for higher educated
individuals; Demand tends to be satisfied by existing
pool of individuals with tertiary education
Slowing demand for higher educated
individuals; Preference
towards younger individuals over older with below
tertiary education
old
er
Ad
van
tag
e f
or
low
er-
ed
ucate
d
you
ng
er
Slowing Demand for higher-educated Growing
2828Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es
OECD AverageSlovak RepublicPortugalFinlandBelgiumSwitzerlandSpainPolandNorwayNetherlandsSwedenDenmarkIreland
Czech RepublicGreeceTurkeyGermany
United StatesKoreaItalyCanadaNew Zealand
40
30
20
10 0
10
Health Political interest
Marginal effects of education on self-reported health and political interest
10 0
10
20
30
40
A9.1Yellow and blue bars show non statistically significant countries
ALL 2003WVS 2005
ESS 2004
ESS 2006
ISSP 2004/6WVS 2005
ESS 2004
ESS 2006
Moving from below upper secondary to
upper secondary
Moving from upper secondary
to tertiary
2929Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es
Cumulative expenditure on educational institutions per student over primary and secondary studies
(2006) Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student multiplied by the
theoretical duration of studies, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs
Lu
xe
mb
ou
rgS
wit
ze
rla
nd
No
rwa
yIc
ela
nd
Un
ite
d S
tate
sD
en
ma
rkA
ustr
iaIt
aly
Un
ite
d K
in..
.Ir
ela
nd
Sw
ed
en
Slo
ve
nia
Au
str
ali
aB
elg
ium
Fra
nce
Jap
an
Ge
rma
ny
Ne
the
rla
nd
sS
pa
inF
inla
nd
Ko
rea
Po
rtu
ga
lN
ew
Ze
ala
nd
Isra
el
Cze
ch
Re
pu
...
Hu
ng
ary
Esto
nia
Po
lan
dS
lova
k R
ep
u..
.M
exic
oC
hil
eB
razil
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
Primary education Lower secondaryUpper secondary education All secondary educationOECD average (Primary and secondary)
In e
qu
iva
len
t U
SD
usi
ng
PPPs
B1.4
OECD average (primary and secondary)
3030Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es
Be
lg
iu
m
Fra
nce
No
rw
ay
Ch
ile
Ge
rm
an
y
Isra
el
Sw
itze
rla
nd
Au
stria
Ita
ly
Au
stra
lia
Ja
pa
n
Po
rtu
ga
l
De
nm
ark
Sw
ed
en
Un
ite
d S
ta
te
s
Ne
th
erla
nd
s
Me
xico
Fin
la
nd
Sp
ain
Ca
na
da
Ice
la
nd
Po
la
nd
Un
ite
d K
in
gd
om
Cze
ch
R
ep
ub
lic
Slo
va
k R
ep
ub
lic
Ire
la
nd
Ko
re
a
Bra
zil
Hu
ng
ary
Esto
nia
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
Change in expenditureChange in the number of students (in full-time equivalents)Change in expenditure per student
Public expenditure only.Public institutions only.Some levels of education are included with others.
Changes in student numbers and expenditurePrimary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education
Index of change between 2000 and 2006 (2000=100, 2006 constant prices)In
dex o
f ch
ange (
20
00
=1
00
)
B1.7a
3131Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es
Po
rtu
ga
l
Sp
ain
Sw
itze
rla
nd
Be
lgiu
m (
Fl.)
Ko
rea
Be
lgiu
m (
Fr.
)
Gre
ece
Lu
xe
mb
ou
rg
De
nm
ark
Jap
an
Ge
rma
ny
Fra
nce
Un
ite
d K
ing
do
m
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
d
Tu
rke
y
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Ita
ly
Au
stri
a
Au
stra
lia
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
lic
Ice
lan
d
Fin
lan
d
Ire
lan
d
Hu
ng
ary
No
rwa
y
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Po
lan
d
Slo
va
k R
ep
ub
lic
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Salary as % of GDP/capita Instruction time 1/ Teaching time 1/ Estimated class sizePo
rtu
ga
l
Sp
ain
Sw
itze
rla
nd
Be
lgiu
m (
Fl.)
Ko
rea
Be
lgiu
m (
Fr.
)
Gre
ece
Lu
xe
mb
ou
rg
De
nm
ark
Jap
an
Ge
rma
ny
Fra
nce
Un
ite
d K
ing
do
m
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
d
Tu
rke
y
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Ita
ly
Au
stri
a
Au
stra
lia
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
lic
Ice
lan
d
Fin
lan
d
Ire
lan
d
Hu
ng
ary
No
rwa
y
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Po
lan
d
Slo
va
k R
ep
ub
lic
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Difference with OECD average
Contribution of various factors to salary cost per upper secondary student
as a percentage of GDP per capita (2006)Percentage points
B7.1
3232Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es Teachers who received no appraisal or feedback and
teachers in schools that had no school evaluation in the previous five years (2007-08)
Ita
ly
Sp
ain
Po
rtu
ga
l
Ire
lan
d
Bra
zil
Ice
lan
d
No
rwa
y
Au
str
ia
Au
str
ali
a
Be
lgiu
m (
Fl.
)
Ma
lta
Tu
rke
y
Me
xic
o
De
nm
ark
Po
lan
d
Ko
rea
Slo
ve
nia
Hu
ng
ary
Esto
nia
Slo
va
k R
ep
u..
.
Lit
hu
an
ia
Ma
laysia
Bu
lga
ria
0
10
20
30
40
50
60No appraisal or feedback No school evaluation%
D5.1
3333Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es Perception of teachers of the impact of appraisal and
feedback in their school (2007-08)
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
Teachers who would receive increased monetary or non-monetary rewards if they improve the quality of their teaching
Teachers who would receive increased monetary or non-monetary rewards if they are more innovative in their teaching
Teachers whose school principal takes steps to alter the monetary rewards of a persistently underperforming teacher
Teachers will be dismissed because of sustained poor performance in teacher's school%
D5.2
3434Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es
Low policy value
High policy value
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low-hanging fruits
Quick wins
Examine individual, institutional and systemic factors associated with
high performance
Establish the relative standing of countries in terms of quality and
equity in basic school subjects
Extending the range of competencies through which quality is assessed (including ICT)
Measuring growth in learning
A real-time assessment environment that bridges the gap
between formative and summative assessment .
Monitor educational progress
Assuming that every new skill domain is orthogonal
to all others
Specific goals for PISA 2006: an experimental computer-based
assessment of science competencies 2009: assessing digital literacy / electronic
texts 2012: Assessing (collaborative) problem-
solving, assessing dynamic competencies, moving towards electronic delivery of all assessment domains .
• Computer-delivered dynamic assessment task • Adaptive assessment• Feeding student solution strategies
back to learners and teachers
3535Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es
High ambitions and universal
standards
Rigor, focus and coherence
Great systems attract great teachers and
provide access to best practice and
quality professional development
3636Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es Challenge and support
Weak support
Strong support
Lowchallenge
Highchallenge
Strong performance
Systemic improvement
Poor performance
Improvements idiosyncratic
Conflict
Demoralisation
Poor performance
Stagnation
3737Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es
High ambitions
Access to best practice and quality
professional development
Accountability and intervention in inverse proportion
to success
Devolved responsibility,
the school as the centre of action
3838Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es
No
Yes
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
No
Yes
0
41
46
63
Standards based external
examinations School autonomyin selecting teachers for hire
PISA score in science
School autonomy, standards-based examinations and science performance
School autonomy in selecting teachers for hire
3939Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es
Strong ambitions
Access to best practice and quality
professional development
Accountability
Devolvedresponsibility,
the school as the centre of action
Integrated educational
opportunities
From prescribed forms of teaching and assessment
towards personalised
learning
4040Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es Paradigm shifts
Prescription Informed profession
Uniformity Embracing diversity
Demarcation Collaboration
Provision Outcomes
Bureaucratic – look up Devolved – look outwards
Talk equity Deliver equity
Hit & miss Universal high standards
Received wisdom Data and best practice
The old bureaucratic education system
The modern enabling education system
4141Fi
rst
REA
D
Glo
bal C
onfe
ren
ceIm
pro
vin
g t
he im
pact
of
ed
uca
tion
on
eco
nom
ic a
nd s
oci
al ou
tcom
es
Thank you !
www.oecd.org– All national and international publications– The complete micro-level database
Email: [email protected]
…and remember:
Without data, you are just another person with an opinion
