11A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
y
Seeing your education system in the mirror of OECD
systems
Canberra, 13-14 May 2010
44A
AC
TE
Atla
nta,
Feb
ruar
y 20
, 20
09Is
th
e s
ky t
he
lim
it t
o
edu
cati
on
al im
pro
vem
en
t?
There is nowhere to hideThe yardstick for success is no longer improvement by national
standards but the best practice internationally
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 – higher 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 – higher education
United States
Finland
Graduate supply
Cost
per
stu
den
t
Japan
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 – higher education
Australia
FinlandUnited Kingdom
AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited 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 – higher education
AustraliaAustriaCzech 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 – higher education
AustraliaAustriaCzech 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 – higher education
AustraliaAustriaCzech 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 – higher education
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 – higher education
AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2006Ex
pend
iture
per
stu
dent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
United States
Australia
Finland
United Kingdom A
A
A
What about international
students?
1414 E
duca
tion Indic
ato
rs
Pro
gra
mm
e20
09 e
dit
ion o
f Ed
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
Moving targetsFuture supply of college graduates
China EU US -
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
2006
2010
2015
2020
1515A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
y
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$
1616A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
y
TurkeyDenmark
SwedenNorway
SpainKorea
CanadaNew Zealand
FranceAustria
AustraliaPortugal
OECD averageFinlandPoland
GermanyItaly
IrelandHungaryBelgium
United StatesCzech Republic
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000
10,34614,23617,19717,85119,75221,28023,875
28,19336,73037,586
47,36850,27151,95455,61257,221
63,60463,756
74,21994,80496,186100,119
160,834
Public cost and benefits for a male obtaining post-secondary education
Public benefit
s
Public
costs
Net present value, USD equivalent
(numbers in orange show
negative values)
USD equivalent
1717A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
yHow 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 t
ask
inp
ut
as
perc
en
tile
s of
the 1
960
task
dis
trib
uti
on
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
1818A
AC
TE
Atla
nta,
Feb
ruar
y 20
, 20
09Is
th
e s
ky t
he
lim
it t
o
edu
cati
on
al im
pro
vem
en
t?OECD’s PISA assessment of the
knowledge and skills of 15-year-oldsCoverage of world economy 77%81%83%85%86%87%
1919A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
yStrengths and weaknesses in math
The real world The mathematical World
A real situation
A model of reality A mathematical model
Mathematical results
Real results
Understanding, structuring and simplifying the situation
Making the problem amenable to mathematical
treatment
Interpreting the mathematical results
Using relevant mathematical content to solve the problem
Validating the results
2020A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
yAverage performanceof 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply
High science performance
Low science performance
… 18 countries perform below this line
I srael
I talyPortugal Greece
Russian Federation
LuxembourgSlovak Republic,Spain,Iceland Latvia
Croatia
Sweden
DenmarkFrancePoland
Hungary
AustriaBelgiumIreland
Czech Republic SwitzerlandMacao- ChinaGermanyUnited Kingdom
Korea
J apanAustralia
Slovenia
NetherlandsLiechtenstein
New ZealandChinese Taipei
Hong Kong- China
Finland
CanadaEstonia
United States LithuaniaNorway
445
465
485
505
525
545
565
616
2626A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
y
Age 19
Age 21
Age 21
048
121620
Level 2Level 3
Level 4Level 5
Increased likelihood of postsec. 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)
Odds ratioCollege entry
School marks at age 15
PISA performance at age
15
2828A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
y
France=495
- 35 - 25 - 15 - 5 5 15 25 35
Overall science score
I dentifying scientific issues
Explaining phenomena scientifically
Using scientific evidence
Knowledge about science
Earth and space
Living systems
Physical systems
Strengths and weaknesses of countries in science relative to their overall performance
France
OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Figure 2.13
Science competencies
Science knowledge
2929A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
y
France=495 Czech Republic=512
- 35 - 25 - 15 - 5 5 15 25 35
Overall science score
I dentifying scientific issues
Explaining phenomena scientifically
Using scientific evidence
Knowledge about science
Earth and space
Living systems
Physical systems
Strengths and weaknesses of countries in science relative to their overall performance
Czech Republic
OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Figure 2.13
Scientific competencies
Scientific knowledge
3030A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
y
France=495 Australia=526
- 35 - 25 - 15 - 5 5 15 25 35
Overall science score
I dentifying scientific issues
Explaining phenomena scientifically
Using scientific evidence
Knowledge about science
Earth and space
Living systems
Physical systems
Strengths and weaknesses of countries in science relative to their overall performance
Australia
OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Figure 2.13
Scientific competencies
Scientific knowledge
4040P
ISA
OE
CD
Pro
gram
me
for
Inte
rnat
iona
l Stu
dent
Ass
essm
ent
Brie
fing
of C
ounc
il
14 N
ovem
ber
2007
How to get thereSome policy levers that emerge from
international comparisons
4141A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
yMoney matters - but other things do too
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
495
410
488
f(x) = 0.000612701270434404 x + 462.612736410929R² = 0.190354458948511
Scienceperformance
Cumulative expenditure (US$ converted using PPPs)
4242A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
y
Port
ug
al
Sp
ain
Sw
itze
rlan
d
Tu
rkey
Belg
ium
Kore
a
Lu
xem
bou
rg
Germ
an
y
Gre
ece
Jap
an
Au
stra
lia
Un
ited
Kin
gd
om
New
Zeala
nd
Fra
nce
Neth
erl
an
ds
Den
mark
Italy
Au
stri
a
Cze
ch
Rep
ub
lic
Hu
ng
ary
Norw
ay
Icela
nd
Irela
nd
Mexic
o
Fin
lan
d
Sw
ed
en
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Pola
nd
Slo
vak R
ep
ub
lic
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Salary as % of GDP/capita Instruction time 1/teaching time 1/class sizePort
ug
al
Sp
ain
Sw
itze
rlan
d
Tu
rkey
Belg
ium
Kore
a
Lu
xem
bou
rg
Germ
an
y
Gre
ece
Jap
an
Au
stra
lia
Un
ited
Kin
gd
om
New
Zeala
nd
Fra
nce
Neth
erl
an
ds
Den
mark
Italy
Au
stri
a
Cze
ch
Rep
ub
lic
Hu
ng
ary
Norw
ay
Icela
nd
Irela
nd
Mexic
o
Fin
lan
d
Sw
ed
en
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Pola
nd
Slo
vak R
ep
ub
lic
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Difference with OECD average
Spending choices on secondary schoolsContribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher compensation costs
per student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004)
Percentage points
4343A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
y High ambitions and universal
standards
Rigor, focus and coherence
Great systems attract great teachers and
provide access to best practice and quality
professional development
4444A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
yChallenge and support
Weak support
Strong support
Lowchallenge
Highchallenge
Strong performance
Systemic improvement
Poor performance
Improvements idiosyncratic
Conflict
Demoralisation
Poor performance
Stagnation
4545A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
y
Human capital
International Best Practice• Principals who are trained,
empowered, accountable and provide instructional leadership
• Attracting, recruiting and providing excellent training for prospective teachers from the top third of the graduate distribution
• Incentives, rules and funding encourage a fair distribution of teaching talent
The past
• Principals who manage ‘a building’, who have little training and preparation and are accountable but not empowered
• Attracting and recruiting teachers from the bottom third of the graduate distribution and offering training which does not relate to real classrooms• The best teachers are in the most advantaged communities
4646A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
y
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
4848C
rea
ting
Effe
ctiv
e T
ea
chin
g
an
d L
ea
rnin
g E
nvi
ron
me
nts
O
EC
D T
ea
chin
g a
nd
Le
arn
ing
In
tern
atio
na
l Stu
dy
(TA
LIS
)
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Individual and col-
laborative research
Qualifica-tion pro-grammes
Informal dialogue to
improve teaching
Reading professional
literature
Courses and workshops
Professional develop-
ment net-work
Mentoring and peer
observation
Observation visits to
other schools
Education conferences
and semi-nars
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Chart Title%
Fuente: OCDE. Tablas 3.2 y 3.8
Figure
3.15
Relatively few teachers participate in the kinds of professional development which they find has the largest impact on their work
Comparison of teachers participating in professional development activities and teachers reporting
moderate or high level impact by types of activity
4949C
rea
ting
Effe
ctiv
e T
ea
chin
g
an
d L
ea
rnin
g E
nvi
ron
me
nts
O
EC
D T
ea
chin
g a
nd
Le
arn
ing
In
tern
atio
na
l Stu
dy
(TA
LIS
)
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Impa
ct
Parti
cipa
tion
Individual and col-
laborative research
Qualifica-tion pro-grammes
Informal dialogue to
improve teaching
Reading professional
literature
Courses and workshops
Professional develop-
ment net-work
Mentoring and peer
observation
Observation visits to
other schools
Education conferences
and semi-nars
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Fuente: OCDE. Tablas 3.2 y 3.8
Figure
3.15
Relatively few teachers participate in the kinds of professional development which they find has the largest impact on their work
Comparison of teachers participating in professional development activities and teachers reporting
moderate or high level impact by types of activity
5151A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
y 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
5252A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
yLocal responsibility and national
prescription
National prescription
Schools leading reform
Schools todayThe industrial
model, detailed prescription of
what schools do
Schools tomorrow?
Building capacity
Finland todayEvery school an effective school
Towards system-wide sustainable reform
5353A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
yPooled international dataset, effects of selected
school/system factors on science performance after accounting for all other factors in the model
OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies from Tomorrow’s World, Table 6.1a
Gross Net30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Approx. one school year
Sco
re p
oin
t d
iffe
ren
ce in
sci
en
ce
Schools practicing ability grouping (gross and net)
Academically selective schools (gross and net)
but no system-wide effect
School results posted publicly (gross and net)
One additional hour of science learning at
school (gross and net)
One additional hour of out-of-school lessons
(gross and net)
One additional hour of self-study or homework
(gross and net)
School activities to promote science
learning(gross and net)
Schools with greater autonomy (resources)
(gross and net)
Each additional 10% of public funding(gross only)
Schools with more competing schools
(gross only)
School principal’s perception that lack of
qualified teachers hinders instruction
(gross only)
School principal’s positive evaluation of quality of educational
materials(gross only)
Measured effect
Effect after accounting for the socio-economic
background of students, schools and countries
5555A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
y 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
5656A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
yDurchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik
Low average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
High average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
Low average performance
High social equity
High average performance
High social equity
Strong socio-economic impact on
student performance
Socially equitable distribution of
learning opportunities
High science performance
Low science performanceTurkey
AustraliaJ apan
Finland
CanadaNew Zealand
Korea
Czech Republic United KingdomAustria
Germany
Netherlands
SwitzerlandI relandBelgium
PolandSwedenHungary
IcelandFrance Denmark
United States SpainLuxembourg NorwaySlovak Republic
I talyGreecePortugal
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
21222
Early selection and institutional differentiation
High degree of stratification
Low degree of stratification
6
5858A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
yOECD Skills Strategy
How do we identify and assess essential skills for strong, sustainable and balanced growth and what are the factors driving the evolution of skill demand?
Is the right mix of skills being taught
and learned and can employers find
workers with the skills they need?
Are skills developed in effective, equitable, efficient and sustainable ways?
How can governments build
strong coalitions with the business sector and social
investors and find sustainable
approaches to who should pay for
what, when, where and how much?
Pillar 1 (EDU and ELS)
Pillar 2(ELS)
Pillar 3(EDU)
Pillar 4(EDU and
LEED)
6363A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
y PIAAC will…
in each country interview 5000 adults aged 16-65 in their homes and test their skills
collect information on the antecedents, outcomes and contexts of skill development and use
… in order to… provide a comprehensive assessment
of the human capital stock– For high performers, show to what extent they are able to apply their skills
to solve challenging problems requiring mastery of technology – For those with low literacy, show to what extent their problem is with
performing basic reading functions or with understanding and application
show to what extent skills held by individuals are actually used at work and identify the role skills play in improving labour market prospects of at-risk populations
improve understanding of the labour market and social returns to education and training
help governments better understand how education and training systems can nurture these skills .
6464A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
y
Reasonable potential for policy
High potential policy impact
…
Low feasibility/costly High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low-hanging fruits
Quick wins
Adult competencies and their as well as
economic and social outcomes
Equity and intergenerational mobility
What levels of skills do individuals and countries demonstrate, and how
do these relate to educational attainment?
How well do education and training systems deliver in generating the required
competenciesImproving the labour-market prospects of those at
risk
aggregate individual
x
Capitalising on technology-rich environments
Ageing and skills
The competitive advantages of OECD countries in the global competition for jobs
• Where does initial education leave us in terms of skill supply with their different forms of organisation of the education and training system?
• Has the rapid growth in educational attainment translated into better foundation skills?
• How do the results compare to those observed in earlier schooling (PISA)? How do people gain and lose skills as they grow older?
• How will changes in the age structure of populations and aspects such as educational attainment feed through to the future talent pool?
• How well can adults solve problems in technology-rich environments? How does this relate to the incidence and intensity of using information technology in and outside work
• What can we learn about the impact of age on skills and skill utilisation, how has this changed over recent decades and the policy levers associated with this (separating biological effects of aging from differences in the experiences of cohorts over time)?
• To what extent can and do skills play a role in levelling the playing field, both in terms of providing high quality education to all and giving access to higher education to those who are able and motivated to continue their schooling, irrespective of their social background?
• Further analysis on intergenerational mobility will also be possible with the JRA measurement of what people do in their jobs
• Description of the population with low skills, or special population groups such as immigrants, and interrelationships with labour-market outcomes.
• What is the role of skills in explaining differences in labour-market outcomes between immigrant and native-born workers? Do skill differences depend on where human capital was acquired? Do immigrants receive different returns to these skills than observationally similar native-born workers?
• Is education or skills mismatch mostly confined to youth early on in their professional careers and subsequently diminishes? Is mismatch important and does it translate into large earnings penalties? Have education and training systems in OECD countries shown sufficient adaptability in the face of changing skill demands or are skills mismatches endemic? How do task-based learning (JRA) and job-related training relate to the length of the working life? (but keep in mind that labour-market outcomes and training are snapshots in time whereas the measured skills are accumulated over the lifespan)
• Labour force skills and the price of these skills are crucial to understand in the perspective of increasing global competition for jobs higher up in the skill hierarchy. PIAAC can tell us more about which cognitive and non-cognitive skills are important in particular.
• PIAAC can provide systematic insights into the risks and rewards for skills in the labour market, for individuals and economies, as well as for specific subgroups such as immigrants
(Skip examples)
6565A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
yOutcomes
A Skills Strategy for OECD countries An integrated work programme on skills across
the entire organisation A regularly published OECD Skills Outlook that,
with a combination of comparative analysis and country studies, will:
Trace the development of skills, through their utilisation in labour markets, how they feed into better jobs, higher productivity, and ultimately better economic and social outcomes
Customise policy insights from comparative analysis and peer learning so that they are useful in national policy contexts
Provide a catalyst for policy discourse on national skill strategies
Contribute to building strategic partnerships for successful policy implementation .
7070A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
yThe old bureaucratic system The modern enabling system
Hit and miss Universal high standards
Uniformity Embracing diversity
Provision Outcomes
Bureaucratic look-up Devolved – look outwards
Talk equity Deliver equity
Prescription Informed profession
Conformity Ingenious
Curriculum-centred Learner-centred
Interactive Participative
Individualised Community-centred
Delivered wisdom User-generated wisdom
Management Leadership
Public vs private Public with private
Culture as obstacle Culture as capital
7171A
nd
rea
s S
chle
ich
er
Ca
nb
err
a,
13
-14
Ma
y 2
01
0O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
y
Thank you !