Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The presentation reviews international trends in the development of education systems
Citation preview
11A
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?
Is the sky the limit to educational improvement?
AACTEBenchmarking international best practice
Atlanta, February 20, 2009
Andreas SchleicherEducation Policy Advisor of the OECD Secretary-General
Email: [email protected]: Twitter: @SchleicherEDU
22A
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?The 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
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?Is the sky the limit?
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 the US 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
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
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
1515A
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?Moving targets
Future 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
1616 E
duca
tion Indic
ato
rs
Pro
gra
mm
e20
09 e
dit
ion o
f Ed
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
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$
1717 E
duca
tion Indic
ato
rs
Pro
gra
mm
e20
09 e
dit
ion o
f Ed
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
TurkeyDenmark
SwedenNorway
SpainKorea
CanadaNew Zealand
FranceAustria
AustraliaPortugal
OECD averageFinlandPoland
GermanyItaly
IrelandHungaryBelgium
United StatesCzech Republic
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000
10,34614,23617,19717,85119,75221,28023,87528,193
36,73037,586
47,36850,27151,95455,61257,221
63,60463,756
74,21994,80496,186100,119
160,834
Public cost and benefits for a male obtaining tertiary education
Public benefit
sPubli
c costs
A8.5USD equivalent
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? Schooling in the medieval age:
The school of the church
1919A
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?
Schooling in the industrial age:
Uniform learning
2020A
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?
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
2121A
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?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 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
2222A
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?
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
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?
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
2424A
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? 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.
2525A
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%
2626A
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? Deciding what to assess...
looking back at what students were expected to have learned
…or…looking ahead to how well they can extrapolate from what they have
learned and apply their knowledge and skills in novel settings.
For the PISA assessment of the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds, OECD governments chose the latter
2727A
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?Strengths 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
2828A
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?Average 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
2929A
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?
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
3232A
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?
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Potential increase in economic output (bn $)
Increase average performance by 25 PISA points (Total 115 trillion $)
bn$
3838A
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?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 science performance
Low science performance
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
3939A
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?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 science performance
Low science performance
I srael
GreecePortugal I talyRussian Federation
LuxembourgSlovak Republic SpainIcelandLatvia
Croatia
Sweden
DenmarkFrancePoland
Hungary
AustriaBelgiumIreland
Czech Republic Switzerland Macao- China
Germany United Kingdom
Korea
J apanAustralia
SloveniaNetherlands
Liechtenstein
New ZealandChinese Taipei
Hong Kong- China
Finland
CanadaEstonai
United StatesLithuania Norway
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
21222
4747P
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
4848A
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?Money 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)
4949A
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?
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
5050A
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?
High ambitions and universal
standards
Rigor, focus and coherence
Great systems attract great teachers and
provide access to best practice and quality
professional development
5151A
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?Challenge and support
Weak support
Strong support
Lowchallenge
Highchallenge
Strong performance
Systemic improvement
Poor performance
Improvements idiosyncratic
Conflict
Demoralisation
Poor performance
Stagnation
5252A
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? 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
5353A
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? 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
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
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
5656C
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
5757C
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
)How school systems support the professional
development of their teachers
Figure 3.9
Ma
lta
Slo
ve
nia
Tu
rke
y
Be
lgiu
m (
Fl.
)
No
rwa
y
Ire
lan
d
De
nm
ark
Au
str
ali
a
Bu
lga
ria
Esto
nia
Hu
ng
ary
Slo
va
k R
ep
ub
lic
Ita
ly
Ice
lan
d
Lit
hu
an
ia
TA
LIS
Ave
rag
e
Bra
zil
Sp
ain
Po
rtu
ga
l
Po
lan
d
Au
str
ia
Ma
laysia
Me
xic
o
Ko
rea
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Teacher had to pay none of the costs of the professional developmentReceived scheduled timeReceived salary supplement%
Countries are ranked in descending order of percentage of teachers having paid none of the cost of professional development Source: OECD. Table 3.5
5858C
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
)
Bu
lgari
a
Mexic
o
Italy
Pola
nd
Kore
a
Norw
ay
Port
ug
al
Sp
ain
TA
LIS
Ave..
.
Icela
nd
Bra
zil
Esto
nia
Hu
ng
ary
Belg
ium
(Fl.
)
Den
mark
Slo
ven
ia
Malt
a
Tu
rkey
Slo
vak R
ep
...
Irela
nd
Au
str
ali
a
Au
str
ia
Mala
ysia
Lit
hu
an
ia
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Paid no cost Paid some cost Paid all cost
Countries are ranked in descending order of percentage of teachers having paid all of the cost of development they tookSource: OECD. Table 3.5a
Days of development
The teachers who paid most also did most professional development
Figure
3.10
5959A
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?
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
%
Figure 3.6
It’s not just about more of the sameFor what type of professional development
do teachers report a high level of need?
6060A
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?
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
6161A
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?Local 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
6363A
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?Some 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
6464A
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?Does appraisal and feedback
make a difference for teaching?
Figure 5.6
Mala
ysia
Mexic
o
Bu
lgari
a
Bra
zil
Pola
nd
Slo
ven
ia
Lit
hu
an
ia
Italy
Tu
rkey
TA
LIS
Avera
ge
Slo
vak R
ep
ub
lic
Kore
a
Port
ug
al
Hu
ng
ary
Malt
a
Esto
nia
Irela
nd
Icela
nd
Norw
ay
Au
str
ali
a
Sp
ain
Belg
ium
(Fl.
)
Au
str
ia
Den
mark
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
A development or training plan for teachers to improve their teaching
Emphasis placed by teachers on improving student test scores in their teaching
Teaching of students with special learning needs
Teaching of students in a multicultural setting%
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of teachers who have received no ap-praisal or feedback.Source: OECD. Table 5.1 and 5.3
Percentage of teachers reporting that appraisal and feedback led to a moderate or large change in the following:
6666A
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?Perception 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
6767A
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?
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
6868A
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?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 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
6969A
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?Country profiles of beliefs about the nature of
teaching and learning Country mean of ipsative scores
Ice
lan
d
Au
str
ia
Au
str
ali
a
De
nm
ark
Esto
nia
Be
lgiu
m (
Fl.
)
Ma
lta
Ko
rea
Slo
ve
nia
Slo
va
k R
ep
ub
lic
No
rwa
y
Po
lan
d
Tu
rke
y
Hu
ng
ary
Me
xic
o
Ire
lan
d
Lit
hu
an
ia
Bra
zil
Po
rtu
ga
l
Sp
ain
Bu
lga
ria
Ma
laysia
Ita
ly
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Direct transmission be-liefs
Ipsa-tive means
Countries are ranked by the strength of preference among teachers in each country between direct transmission beliefs about teaching and constructivist beliefs about teaching. So, teachers in Iceland show the strongest preference for constructivist beliefs, over direct transmission beliefs.Source: OECD, TALIS Database. Figur
e 4.2
7070A
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?Country profiles of classroom teaching
practices Country mean of ipsative scores
Den
mark
Norw
ay
Icela
nd
Mala
ysia
Tu
rkey
Pola
nd
Mexic
o
Bra
zil
Au
str
ia
Au
str
ali
a
Kore
a
Slo
vak R
ep
ub
lic
Esto
nia
Sp
ain
Slo
ven
ia
Belg
ium
(Fl.
)
Lit
hu
an
ia
Port
ug
al
Italy
Bu
lgari
a
Malt
a
Hu
ng
ary
Irela
nd
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Structuring teaching practices Student-oriented teaching practices
Enhanced teaching activities
Ipsative means
Countries are ranked by the relative frequency with which they engage in structuring teaching practices, student-oriented teaching practices and enhanced activities. So, teachers in Denmark adopt the different practices to a fairly similar degree, while teachers in Ireland use structuring teaching practices much more than they do either student-oriented practices and enhanced activities.Source: OECD, TALIS Database.
Figure 4.4
7171A
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?Country profiles of cooperation among staff
Country mean of ipsative scoresS
lova
k R
ep
ub
lic
Tu
rke
y
Po
lan
d
Lit
hu
an
ia
Ko
rea
Esto
nia
Hu
ng
ary
Me
xic
o
Ita
ly
De
nm
ark
No
rwa
y
Bu
lga
ria
Ma
laysia
Po
rtu
ga
l
Ire
lan
d
Au
str
ia
Bra
zil
Ma
lta
Ice
lan
d
Au
str
ali
a
Slo
ve
nia
Be
lgiu
m (
Fl.
)
Sp
ain
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Exchange and coordination for teaching Professional collaborationIpsative means
Figure 4.7
Countries are ranked in ascending order of the degree to which teachers engage in exchange and coordination for teaching more than professional collaboration. For example, for teachers in the Slovak Republic both types of cooperation are reported almost equally frequently, while teachers in Spain report a more common practice of exchange and coordination for teaching over professional collaboration.Source: OECD, TALIS Database.
7272A
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?
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
7373A
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?Paradigm shifts
The 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
7474A
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?
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
