2010 e-stockholm (international compoarisons) - long - rev 1.1

11A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

Seeing your education system in the prism of international

comparisons

Stockholm, 17 May 2010

22A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

nsAgenda

1. There is nowhere to hide The yardstick for educational success is no

longer improvement by national standards but the best performing systems internationally

2. Where we are – and where we can be Where Sweden and other countries stand What the best performing countries show

can be achieved

3. How we can get there Some policy levers that emerge from

international comparisons

33A

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


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

)



United States

Finland

Graduate supply

Cost

per

stu

den

t

Sweden


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

)



Australia

FinlandUnited Kingdom


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

)




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

)




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

)




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

)




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

)




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

)



United States

Australia

Finland

United Kingdom A

A

A

What about international

students?

Sweden

1313 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

1414A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

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$

1515A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

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

1616A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns Schooling in the medieval age:

The school of the church

1717A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

Schooling in the industrial age:

Uniform learning

1818A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

Schooling in the industrial age:

Uniform learning

The challenges today:

Universal quality

Motivated and self-reliant citizens

Risk-taking entrepreneurs, converging and continuously emerging professions tied to globalising contexts and technological advance

1919A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

nsHow 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

2020A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

Skills for the 21st century

The great collaborators and orchestrators The more complex the globalised world

becomes, the more individuals and companies need various forms of co-ordination and management

The great synthesisers Conventionally, our approach to problems was

breaking them down into manageable bits and pieces, today we create value by synthesising disparate bits together

The great explainers The more content we can search and access,

the more important the filters and explainers become

2121A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

Skills for the 21st century The great versatilists

Specialists generally have deep skills and narrow scope, giving them expertise that is recognised by peers but not valued outside their domain

Generalists have broad scope but shallow skills Versatilists apply depth of skill to a progressively widening

scope of situations and experiences, gaining new competencies, building relationships, and assuming new roles.

They are capable not only of constantly adapting but also of constantly learning and growing

The great personalisers A revival of interpersonal skills, skills that have atrhophied

to some degree because of the industrial age and the Internet

The great localisers Localising the global

2222A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns Education needs to prepare students…

… to deal with more rapid change than ever before…

… for jobs that have not yet been created…… using technologies that have not yet been

invented…… to solve problems that we don’t yet know will

arise It’s about new…

Ways of thinking– involving creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving and

decision-making Ways of working

– including communication and collaboration Tools for working

– including the capacity to recognise and exploit the potential of new technologies

The capacity to live in a multi-faceted world as active and responsible citizens.

2323A

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%

2424A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

nsStrengths 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

2525A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

nsAverage 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

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

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

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

20102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050205120522053205420552056205720582059206020612062206320642065206620672068206920702071207220732074207520762077207820792080208120822083208420852086208720882089209020912092209320942095209620972098209921002101210221032104210521062107210821092110-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Relationship between test performance and economic outcomes

Annual improved GDP from raising performance by 25 PISA pointsPe

rcent

add

itio

n t

o G

DP

3030A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000 Potential increase in economic output (bn $)

Catching up with Finland (total 260 trillion $)

bn$

3131A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

Mex

ico

Greec

eIta

ly

Spai

n

Pola

nd

Slov

ak R

epub

lic

Denm

ark

Icel

and

Irela

nd

Austri

a

Belgi

um

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

m

New Z

eala

nd

Nethe

rland

s

Kore

a0%

200%

400%

600%

800%

1000%

1200%

Catching up with Finland(in percent of GDP)% currrent

GDP

3333A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

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

3434A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

France=495 Czech Republic=512

- 35 - 25 - 15 - 5 5 15 25 35






Earth and space

Living systems

Physical systems


Czech Republic


Scientific competencies

Scientific knowledge

3535A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

France=495 Sweden=503

- 35 - 25 - 15 - 5 5 15 25 35






Earth and space

Living systems

Physical systems


Sweden


Scientific competencies

Scientific knowledge

3636A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

nsAverage performanceof 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply

Low average performance

Large socio-economic disparities

High average performance



High social equity


High social equity

Strong socio-economic impact on

student performance

Socially equitable distribution of

learning opportunities



I srael

I talyPortugal Greece

Russian Federation

LuxembourgSlovak Republic,Spain,Iceland Latvia

Croatia

Sweden

DenmarkFrancePoland

Hungary


Czech Republic SwitzerlandMacao- ChinaGermanyUnited Kingdom

Korea

J apanAustralia

Slovenia

NetherlandsLiechtenstein


Hong Kong- China

Finland

CanadaEstonia

United States LithuaniaNorway

445

465

485

505

525

545

565

616

3737A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

nsDurchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik






High social equity


High social equity


student performance





I srael

GreecePortugal I talyRussian Federation

LuxembourgSlovak Republic SpainIcelandLatvia

Croatia

Sweden

DenmarkFrancePoland

Hungary


Czech Republic Switzerland Macao- China

Germany United Kingdom

Korea

J apanAustralia

SloveniaNetherlands

Liechtenstein


Hong Kong- China

Finland

CanadaEstonai

United StatesLithuania Norway

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

21222

4545P

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

4747A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

nsMoney 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)

4848A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

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

4949A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

High ambitions and universal

standards

Rigor, focus and coherence

Great systems attract great teachers and

provide access to best practice and quality

professional development

5050A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

nsChallenge and support

Weak support

Strong support

Lowchallenge

Highchallenge

Strong performance

Systemic improvement

Poor performance

Improvements idiosyncratic

Conflict

Demoralisation

Poor performance

Stagnation

5151A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

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

5252A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

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

5454C

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

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

5555C

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

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

5757A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

Teaching special learning needs

students

ICT teach-ing skills

Student discipline

and behav-iour prob-

lems

Instruc-tional prac-

tices

Subject field

Student counselling

Content and per-formance

standards

Student assessment

practices

Teaching in a multicul-tural set-

ting

Classroom manage-

ment

School manage-ment and

administra-tion

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Areas are ranked in descending order of the international average where teachers report a high level of need for development. Source: OECD. Table 3.2

%

It’s not just about more of the sameFor what type of professional development

do teachers report a high level of need?

5858A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

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

6060A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

nsPooled 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

6161A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

nsSome teachers are left alone

Teachers who received no appraisal or feedback and teachers in schools that had no school evaluation in the previous five years

Figure 5.3

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

ub

lic

Lit

hu

an

ia

Ma

laysia

Bu

lga

ria

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

No appraisal or feedback No school evaluation%

Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of teachers who have received no appraisal or feedback.Source: OECD. Table 5.1 and 5.3

6363A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

nsPerception of teachers of the impact of appraisal and

feedback in their school

Mal

aysia

Bulga

ria

Polan

dItal

y

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Hunga

ry

Mex

ico

Slove

nia

Turk

ey

Lith

uani

a

TALI

S Ave

rage

Esto

nia

Brazil

Portu

gal

Icel

and

Mal

ta

Austr

ia

Korea

Spain

Denm

ark

Austr

alia

Irel

and

Norway

Belgi

um (F

l.)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

%

Countries are ranked in descending order of percentage of teachers reporting to receive increased monetary or non-monetary rewards for an improvement in the quality of their teaching. Source: OECD. Table 5.9.

Figure 5.7

6464A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

Creating a knowledge-rich profession in which schools and teachers have the authority to act, the necessary

knowledge to do so wisely, and access to effective support systems

The tradition of education systems

has been “knowledge poor”

The future of education systems is “knowledge

rich”

National prescription

Professional judgement

Informed professional judgement, the teacher

as a “knowledge worker”

Informed prescription

Uninformed professional judgement, teachers working in isolation

Uninformed prescription,

teachers implement curricula

6565A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

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

6666A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

nsDurchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik






High social equity


High social equity


student 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

6767A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

nsThe 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

6868A

nd

rea

s S

chle

ich

er

Sto

ckh

olm

, 1

7 M

ay

20

10

See

ing

scho

ol s

yste

ms

thro

ugh

the

pris

m o

f in

tern

atio

nal

co

mpa

riso

ns

Thank you !

www.oecd.org; www.pisa.oecd.org– All national and international publications– The complete micro-level database

email: [email protected] Twitter: @SchleicherEDU

…and remember:

Without data, you are just another person with an opinion