11A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
Leveraging evidence for better education
policiesOECD’s Contribution to Education Development
Shanghai21 September 2011
Andreas SchleicherAdvisor of the Secretary-General on Education Policy
22A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
Turning evidence into policies
Policy objectives/
context
Evidence base
Delivery reality
• Do we understand the policy objectives • What countries care about,
what they intend to do about it and how they define success
• Do we understand the policy context and can we anticipate its future development ?
• Do we understand the strategic requirements for change?
• Are these• Technically feasible?• Politically and socially
suitable?• Robust and cost-effective?
• Do we understand the delivery challenge and delivery capacity? • Nature and size of the
barriers that systems face to deliver reform goals
• Can what works in one country by done in another by real people in real situations?
• Avoiding big time and energy traps?
• Do we understand past and present performance vis a vis the policy goals as well as the drivers of performance and their underlying system activities?
• What is added value of international comparisons?
Dimensions of evidence
National educ, social and economic context
Structures, resource alloc
and policies
Social & economic
outcomes of education
Community and school
characteristics
Student learning, teacher working
conditions
Socio-economic background of
learners
Antecedentscontextualise or
constrain ed policy
The learning environment at
school
Teaching, learning
practices and classroom
climate
Individ attitudes, engagement and
behaviour
Output and performance of
institutions
Quality of instructional
delivery
Quality and distribution of knowledge &
skills
Policy Leversshape educational
outcomes
Outputs and Outcomes
impact of learning
Individual learner
LevelA
Instructional settings
LevelB
Schools, other institutions
LevelC
Country or system
LevelD
Domain 3Domain 2Domain 1
National educ, social and economic context
Structures, resource alloc
and policies
Social & economic
outcomes of education
Community and school
characteristics
Student learning, teacher working
conditions
Socio-economic background of
learners
Antecedentscontextualise or
constrain ed policy
The learning environment at
school
Teaching, learning
practices and classroom
climate
Individ attitudes, engagement and
behaviour
Output and performance of
institutions
Quality of instructional
delivery
Quality and distribution of knowledge &
skills
Policy Leversshape educational
outcomes
Outputs and Outcomes
impact of learning
Individual learner
LevelA
Instructional settings
LevelB
Schools, other institutions
LevelC
Country or system
LevelD
Domain 3Domain 2Domain 1
Dimensions of evidence
55A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
Changing demands on education
66A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
Then Now
Learning a place Learning an activity
Prescription Informed profession
Delivered wisdom User-generated wisdom
Uniformity Embracing diversity
Conformity Ingenious
Curriculum-centred Learner-centred
Provision Outcomes
Bureaucratic look-up Devolved – look outwards
Management Leadership
Public vs private Public with private
Culture as obstacle Culture as capital
77A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
Unabated educational expansion
88 1
6 S
ep
tem
ber
2011
Counci
lKey fi
nd
ing
s fr
om
the 2
01
1 e
dit
ion o
fEd
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
1995
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
Graduate supply
Cost
per
stu
den
t
99 1
6 S
ep
tem
ber
2011
Counci
lKey fi
nd
ing
s fr
om
the 2
01
1 e
dit
ion o
fEd
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
1995
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
Graduate supply
Cost
per
stu
den
t
United States
Finland
Japan
1010 1
6 S
ep
tem
ber
2011
Counci
lKey fi
nd
ing
s fr
om
the 2
01
1 e
dit
ion o
fEd
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2000
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
United Kingdom
1111 1
6 S
ep
tem
ber
2011
Counci
lKey fi
nd
ing
s fr
om
the 2
01
1 e
dit
ion o
fEd
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2001
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
Australia
1212 1
6 S
ep
tem
ber
2011
Counci
lKey fi
nd
ing
s fr
om
the 2
01
1 e
dit
ion o
fEd
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2002
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
1313 1
6 S
ep
tem
ber
2011
Counci
lKey fi
nd
ing
s fr
om
the 2
01
1 e
dit
ion o
fEd
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2003
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
1414 1
6 S
ep
tem
ber
2011
Counci
lKey fi
nd
ing
s fr
om
the 2
01
1 e
dit
ion o
fEd
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2004
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
1515 1
6 S
ep
tem
ber
2011
Counci
lKey fi
nd
ing
s fr
om
the 2
01
1 e
dit
ion o
fEd
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2005
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
1616 1
6 S
ep
tem
ber
2011
Counci
lKey fi
nd
ing
s fr
om
the 2
01
1 e
dit
ion o
fEd
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2006
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
1717 1
6 S
ep
tem
ber
2011
Counci
lKey fi
nd
ing
s fr
om
the 2
01
1 e
dit
ion o
fEd
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2007
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
1818 1
6 S
ep
tem
ber
2011
Counci
lKey fi
nd
ing
s fr
om
the 2
01
1 e
dit
ion o
fEd
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2008 Ex
pend
itur
e pe
r st
uden
t at
ter
tiary
leve
l (U
SD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
Finland
1919 1
6 S
ep
tem
ber
2011
Counci
lKey fi
nd
ing
s fr
om
the 2
01
1 e
dit
ion o
fEd
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
The composition of the global talent pool has changed…
Countries’ share in the population with tertiary education, for 25-34 and 55-64 year-old age groups, percentage (2009)
55-64-year-old population 25-34-year-old population
About 39 million people who attained tertiary level
About 81 million people who attained tertiary level
2020 1
6 S
ep
tem
ber
2011
Counci
lKey fi
nd
ing
s fr
om
the 2
01
1 e
dit
ion o
fEd
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
United States, 35.8
Japan, 12.4
China, 6.9Germany, 6.3
United Kingdom, 5.3
Canada, 4.2
France, 3.5
Brazil, 3.5
Spain, 2.1Italy, 1.9
Mexico, 1.8
Australia, 1.7
Korea, 1.6other, 12.9
55-64-year-old population
United States, 20.5
Japan, 10.9
China, 18.3
Germany, 3.1United Kingdom, 4.4
Canada, 3.1France, 4.1
Brazil, 4.5
Spain, 3.5
Italy, 2.0
Mexico, 3.9
Australia, 1.6
Korea, 5.7
other, 14.5
25-34-year-old population
The composition of the global talent pool has changed…
Countries’ share in the population with tertiary education, for 25-34 and 55-64 year-old age groups, percentage (2009)
2121 1
6 S
ep
tem
ber
2011
Counci
lKey fi
nd
ing
s fr
om
the 2
01
1 e
dit
ion o
fEd
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
…and will continue to changeShare of new entrants into tertiary education in 2009 (OECD and G20
countries)
China, 36.6%
United States, 12.9%
Russian Federa-tion, 10.0%
Indonesia, 4.9%Japan, 4.2%Turkey, 3.7%
United Kingdom, 3.3%
Mexico, 3.1%Korea, 3.1%
Argentina, 2.7%Germany, 2.5%
Poland, 2.1%
Spain, 1.6%Italy, 1.4%
Australia, 1.3%Chile, 1.3%
Netherlands, 0.5%
Other countries, 4.8%
OtherPortugal 0.5%Czech Republic 0.4%Israel 0.4%Sweden 0.4%Belgium 0.4%Hungary 0.4%Austria 0.4%New Zealand 0.3%Switzerland 0.3%Slovak Republic 0.3%Denmark 0.2%Norway 0.2%Ireland 0.2%Finland 0.2%Slovenia 0.1%Estonia 0.1%Iceland 0.0%
National educ, social and economic context
Structures, resource alloc
and policies
Social & economic
outcomes of education
Community and school
characteristics
Student learning, teacher working
conditions
Socio-economic background of
learners
Antecedentscontextualise or
constrain ed policy
The learning environment at
school
Teaching, learning
practices and classroom
climate
Individ attitudes, engagement and
behaviour
Output and performance of
institutions
Quality of instructional
delivery
Quality and distribution of knowledge &
skills
Policy Leversshape educational
outcomes
Outputs and Outcomes
impact of learning
Individual learner
LevelA
Instructional settings
LevelB
Schools, other institutions
LevelC
Country or system
LevelD
Domain 3Domain 2Domain 1
Dimensions of evidence
National educ, social and economic context
Structures, resource alloc
and policies
Social & economic
outcomes of education
Community and school
characteristics
Student learning, teacher working
conditions
Socio-economic background of
learners
Antecedentscontextualise or
constrain ed policy
The learning environment at
school
Teaching, learning
practices and classroom
climate
Individ attitudes, engagement and
behaviour
Output and performance of
institutions
Quality of instructional
delivery
Quality and distribution of knowledge &
skills
Policy Leversshape educational
outcomes
Outputs and Outcomes
impact of learning
Individual learner
LevelA
Instructional settings
LevelB
Schools, other institutions
LevelC
Country or system
LevelD
Domain 3Domain 2Domain 1
Dimensions of evidence
2525A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
The increase in the number of knowledge workers has not led to a decrease in their pay
…which is what happened to low-skilled workers
2626A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
DenmarkSwedenTurkey
New ZealandNorway
SpainAustralia
NetherlandsBelgiumFinland
JapanFrance
GermanyAustria
OECD AverageCanada
United KingdomPoland
SloveniaHungary
Czech RepublicIreland
KoreaItaly
United StatesPortugal
-400,000 -200,000 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000
55,946 62,481
64,177 74,457
92,320 95,320
100,520 112,928
115,464 135,515 143,018
144,133 147,769
173,522 175,067
175,670 207,653
215,125 225,663 230,098
240,449 253,947
300,868 311,966
323,808 373,851
Foregone earnings Income tax effect Social contribution effectTransfers effect Grosss earnings benefits Unemployment effectNet Present value
USD equivalentC hart A9.3
Components of the private net present value for a man with higher education (2007 or latest available
year)
Net present value in USD equ.
2727A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
Taxpayers are getting a good return too
2828A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
TurkeyDenmark
SpainSweden
New ZealandNorwayFranceJapan
CanadaCzech Republic
ItalyAustralia
IrelandKorea
PortugalAustria
OECD AveragePoland
NetherlandsUnited Kingdom
FinlandSloveniaHungaryBelgium
GermanyUnited States
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000
21,724
28,621
29,58237,542
46,482
43,41963,701
67,411
79,77481,307
82,93284,532
85,91789,034
89,46489,705
91,036
94,12595,030
95,322
100,177155,664
166,872167,241
168,649
193,584
Public benefits Public costs
Chart A9.5 In equivalent USD
Public cost and benefits for a man obtaining tertiary education (2007 or latest available year)
Net present value
2929A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
More than money
3131A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
Low skills and social outcomes
Odds are adjusted for age, gender, pand immigration status.
Level 5 Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 11.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6Has fair to poor health
Does not volunteer for charity or non-profit organizations
Poor understanding of po-litical issues facing coun-try
Poor level of general trust
Higher propensity of be-lieving people try to take of advantage of others
Lower propensity to reciprocate
Poor political efficacyPIAAC skill level
Odds ratios
3232P
IAA
CO
EC
D P
rogr
amm
e fo
r th
e in
tern
atio
nal
asse
ssm
ent o
f adu
lt co
mpe
tenc
ies
Lisb
on C
ounc
il1
5 S
ep
tem
be
r 2
011
An
dre
as
Sch
leic
he
rLearning goes beyond school
Cross-sectional skill-age profiles for youths by education and work status
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
Age
Mean skill score
Youth in education
Youth in education and work
Youth in work
Not in education, not
in work
National educ, social and economic context
Structures, resource alloc
and policies
Social & economic
outcomes of education
Community and school
characteristics
Student learning, teacher working
conditions
Socio-economic background of
learners
Antecedentscontextualise or
constrain ed policy
The learning environment at
school
Teaching, learning
practices and classroom
climate
Individ attitudes, engagement and
behaviour
Output and performance of
institutions
Quality of instructional
delivery
Quality and distribution of knowledge &
skills
Policy Leversshape educational
outcomes
Outputs and Outcomes
impact of learning
Individual learner
LevelA
Instructional settings
LevelB
Schools, other institutions
LevelC
Country or system
LevelD
Domain 3Domain 2Domain 1
Dimensions of evidence
3434A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
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
National educ, social and economic context
Structures, resource alloc
and policies
Social & economic
outcomes of education
Community and school
characteristics
Student learning, teacher working
conditions
Socio-economic background of
learners
Antecedentscontextualise or
constrain ed policy
The learning environment at
school
Teaching, learning
practices and classroom
climate
Individ attitudes, engagement and
behaviour
Output and performance of
institutions
Quality of instructional
delivery
Quality and distribution of knowledge &
skills
Policy Leversshape educational
outcomes
Outputs and Outcomes
impact of learning
Individual learner
LevelA
Instructional settings
LevelB
Schools, other institutions
LevelC
Country or system
LevelD
Domain 3Domain 2Domain 1
Dimensions of evidence
National educ, social and economic context
Structures, resource alloc
and policies
Social & economic
outcomes of education
Community and school
characteristics
Student learning, teacher working
conditions
Socio-economic background of
learners
Antecedentscontextualise or
constrain ed policy
The learning environment at
school
Teaching, learning
practices and classroom
climate
Individ attitudes, engagement and
behaviour
Output and performance of
institutions
Quality and distribution of knowledge &
skills
Policy Leversshape educational
outcomes
Outputs and Outcomes
impact of learning
Individual learner
LevelA
Instructional settings
LevelB
Schools, other institutions
LevelC
Country or system
LevelD
Domain 3Domain 2Domain 1
Dimensions of evidence
Quality of instructional
delivery
3939A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
Quality as the key to success
4343A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
OECD’s PISA assessment of the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds
Coverage of world economy 77%81%83%85%86%87%
4444A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
Average performanceof 15-year-olds in reading – extrapolate and apply
High reading performance
Low reading performance … 17 countries perform below this line
1525354555440.000
460.000
480.000
500.000
520.000
540.000
560.000
Shanghai-China
KoreaFinlandHong Kong-China
Singapore CanadaNew Zealand
JapanAustralia
NetherlandsBelgiumNorway, EstoniaSwitzerlandPoland,IcelandUnited States LiechtensteinSwedenGermany,
IrelandFrance, Chinese TaipeiDenmarkUnited KingdomHungary,Portugal
Macao-China ItalyLatvia
Slovenia GreeceSpain
Czech RepublicSlovak Republic, CroatiaIsraelLuxembourg,
Austria LithuaniaTurkey
Dubai (UAE) Russian Federation
Chile
Serbia
4545A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
Average performanceof 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply
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 reading performance
Low reading performance
4646A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
Durchschnittliche 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 reading performance
Low reading performance
AustraliaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUKUS
2009
1525354555
2009
4747A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
Durchschnittliche 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 reading performance
Low reading performance
AustraliaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUKUS
2009
4848A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
Durchschnittliche 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 reading performance
Low reading performance
AustraliaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUKUS
2000
4949A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
Durchschnittliche 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 reading performance
Low reading performance
AustraliaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUKUS
2000
Other rapid improvers in reading:Peru, Indonesia, Latvia, Israel and Brazil
Rapid improvers in mathematics:Mexico, Brazil, Turkey, Greece, Portugal, Italy
and GermanyRapid improvers in science:
Qatar, Turkey, Portugal, Korea, Brazil, Colombia, Italy, Norway, United States, Poland
5050A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
-2 -1 0 1 2350
643
Score
School performance and socio-economic background Shanghai
Stu
dent
perf
orm
ance
AdvantagePISA Index of socio-economic background
Disadvantage
National educ, social and economic context
Structures, resource alloc
and policies
Social & economic
outcomes of education
Community and school
characteristics
Student learning, teacher working
conditions
Socio-economic background of
learners
Antecedentscontextualise or
constrain ed policy
The learning environment at
school
Teaching, learning
practices and classroom
climate
Individ attitudes, engagement and
behaviour
Output and performance of
institutions
Quality and distribution of knowledge &
skills
Policy Leversshape educational
outcomes
Outputs and Outcomes
impact of learning
Individual learner
LevelA
Instructional settings
LevelB
Schools, other institutions
LevelC
Country or system
LevelD
Domain 3Domain 2Domain 1
Dimensions for educational benchmarking
Quality of instructional
delivery
5454P
ISA
OE
CD
Pro
gram
me
for
Inte
rnat
iona
l Stu
dent
Ass
essm
ent
See
ing
Japa
nese
sch
ools
thro
ugh
the
pris
m o
f PIS
A
•Principled•Strategic partnership
•Negotiated•Pragmatic .
•Top-down•Antagonistic .
•Leading•Evidence-driven•Achieving high reliability and innovation .
• Enabling• Incentivising
.
•World class performance.
•Continuous learning and innovation .
Good Great
•Accommodating•Evidence-based•Adopting best . practice
•Regulating .•Capacity-building
•Transparency .•Spreading best practice
• Implementing•Accepting evidence•Adopting minimum standards
•Prescribing .• Justifying
• Tackling underperformance
Adequate GoodPoor Adequate
Main focus of policy
Role of government
Role of professions
Nature of relationship between government
and professions
Phases of development
Main outcomes
• Improvement in outcomes
•Reduction of public anxiety.
•Steady improvement
•Growing public satisfaction .
•Consistent quality•Public engagement and co-production .
Using evidence for development
5555A
ndre
as S
chle
iche
rS
hang
hai,
22 S
epte
mbe
r 20
11L
ev
era
gin
g e
vid
en
ce
fo
r b
ett
er
ed
uc
ati
on
po
lic
ies
Thank you !
www.oecd.org; www.pisa.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