Finland and PISA

1. Programme for International Student Assessment
Education and learning of the futureLessons from PISA
Andreas Schleicher
Special advisor to the Secretary-General on Education Policy
Head of the Indicators and Analysis Division, EDU

2. There is nowhere to hide
The yardstick for success is no longer improvement by national standards but the best performing education systems
3. A world of change in baseline qualificationsApproximated by percentage of persons with high school or equivalent qualfications in the age groups 55-64, 45-55, 45-44 und 25-34 years
%
1
13
1
27
1. Excluding ISCED 3C short programmes 2.Year of reference 2004
3. Including some ISCED 3Cshort programmes 3.Year of reference 2003.
4. A world of change highereducation
Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)
Cost per student
Graduate supply
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
United States
Cost per student
Finland
Japan
Graduate supply
Australia
Finland
United Kingdom
United States
Australia
United Kingdom
Finland
United States
Australia
A
A
United Kingdom
Finland
A
14. How the demand for skills has changedEconomy-wide measures of routine and non-routine task input (US)
Mean task input as percentiles ofthe 1960 task distribution
The dilemma of assessments:
The skills that are easiest to teach and test are also the ones that are easiest to digitise, automate and outsource
(Levy and Murnane)
15. Changing skill demands
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
16. Changing skill demands
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
17. 18. Education reform trajectories
The old bureaucratic system
The modern enabling system
Student inclusion
Some students learn at high levels
All students need to learn at high levels
Curriculum, instruction and assessment
Routine cognitive skills, rote learning
Learning to learn, complex ways of thinking, ways of working
Teacher quality
Few years more than secondary
High-level professional knowledge workers
Work organisation
Tayloristic, hierarchical
Flat, collegial
Accountability
Primarily to authorities
Primarily to peers and stakeholders
19. PISA 2009 in brief
PISA countries in
2000
2003
1998
2001
2006
2009
Coverage of world economy
83%
77%
81%
85%
86%
87%
Over half a million students
representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 74* countries/economies
took an internationally agreed 2-hour test
Goes beyond testing whether students can reproduce what they were taught
to assess students capacity to extrapolate from what they know and creatively apply their knowledge in novel situations
and responded to questions on
their personal background, their schools and their engagement with learning and school
Parents, principals and system leaders provided data on
school policies, practices, resourcesand institutional factors that help explain performance differences .
*Data for Costa Rica, Georgia, India, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Venezuela and Vietnam will be published in December 2011
PISA countries in
2000
2003
1998
2001
2006
2009
PISA seeks to
Support governments 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 dont yet know will arise
Provide a basis for policy dialogue and global collaboration in defining and implementing educational goals, policies and practices
Show countries what achievements are possible
Help governments set policy targets in terms of measurable goals achieved elsewhere
Gauge the pace of educational progress
Facilitate peer-learning on policy and practice .
83%
77%
81%
85%
86%
87%
PISA countries in
2000
2003
1998
2001
2006
2009
Key principles
Crowd sourcing and collaboration
PISA draws together leading expertise and institutions from participating countries to develop instruments and methodologies
guided by governments on the basis of shared policy interests
Cross-national relevance and transferability of policy experiences
Emphasis on validity across cultures, languages and systems
Frameworks built on well-structured conceptual understandingof assessment areas and contextual factors
Triangulation across different stakeholder perspectives
Systematic integration of insights from students, parents, school principals and system-leaders
Advanced methods with different grain sizes
A range of methods to adequately measure intended constructs with different grain sizes to serve different decision-making needs
Productive feedback, at appropriate levels of detail, to fuel improvement at multiple levels .
83%
77%
81%
85%
86%
87%
22. High reading performance
Average performanceof 15-year-olds in reading extrapolate and apply
17 countries perform below this line
Low reading performance
Average performanceof 15-year-olds in science extrapolate and apply
High average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
High social equity
Strong socio-economic impact on student performance
Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities
Low average performance
High social equity
2009
Durchschnittliche Schlerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik
High social equity
High social equity
2009
High social equity
High social equity
26. Contribution of various factors to salary cost per lower secondary student (US$)
TB7.2
27. High performing systems often prioritize the quality of teachers over the size of classesContribution of various factors to primary school teacher compensation costsper student as a percentage of GDP per capita
28. High performing systems often prioritize the quality of teachers over the size of classesContribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher compensation costsper student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004)
Percentage points
2009
High social equity
High social equity
2000
High social equity
High social equity
2000
High social equity
Other rapid improvers in reading:
Peru, Indonesia, Latvia, Israel and BrazilRapid improvers in mathematics:
Mexico, Brazil, Turkey, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Germany
Rapid improvers in science:
Qatar, Turkey, Portugal, Korea, Brazil, Colombia, Italy, Norway, United States, Poland
High social equity
32. Variability in student performance
Variance
33. Variability in student performance between and within schools
Variance
Performance differences between schools
Performance variation of students within schools
34. Student performance
PISA Index of socio-economic background
Advantage
Disadvantage
School performance and socio-economic background Italy
Private school
Public school in rural area
Public school in urban area
700
Advantage
Disadvantage
School performance and socio-economic background Finland
Private school
700
493
Advantage
Disadvantage
School performance and socio-economic background Finland
Private school
700
493
37. Percentage of resilient students among disadvantaged students
%
Resilient student: Comes from the bottom quarter of the socially most disadvantaged students but performs among the top quarter of students internationally (after accounting for social background)
Less than 15% resilient students among disadvantaged students
More than 30% resilient students among disadvantaged students
Between 15%-30% of resilient students among disadvantaged students
38. Reading performance and awareness of effective learning strategies
39. Student engagement with learning and school
40. Students' views of their teacher-student relations
41. Students views of how well teachers motivate them to read Index of teachers stimulation of students reading engagement based on students reports
%
42. 43. Does it all matter?
44. 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 ratiohigher education entry
School marks at age 15
PISA performance at age 15
Average performanceof 15-year-olds in reading extrapolate and apply
17 countries perform below this line
46. Relationship between test performance and economic outcomesAnnual improved GDP from raising performance by 25 PISA points
Percent addition to GDP
47. Increase average performance by 25 PISA points (Total 115 trillion $)
bn$
48. What does it all mean?
49. Tools
Standards
Curricula
Technology
Assessments
Data systems
Processes
Selection
Preparation
Recruitment/induction
Work organisation
Development
Supervision
Retention
People
TeachersPrincipals
Support personnel
Families
Practices
Instruction
Intervention
Support systems
Design, implementation and alignment of policies
Student learning
50.

A commitment to education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve

51. Universal educational standards and personalisation as the approach to heterogeneity in the student bodyas opposed to a belief that students have different destinations to be met with different expectations, and selection/stratification as the approach to heterogeneity

Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom

Lessons from PISA on successful education systems
52. Schools transferring students due to low achievement or behavioural problems: 33%, and where students are grouped by ability for all subjects: 38%
Schools transferring students due to low achievement or behavioural problems: 15%, and where students are grouped by ability for all subjects: 8%
Grade repetition: 7%
Students out of modal starting ages: 7%
How school systems select and group students for schools, grades and programmes
Grade repetition: 29%
Students out of modal starting ages: 11%
High vertical differentiation
Lowvertical differentiation
Low horizontal differentiation at the school level
High horizontal differentiation at the school level
High horizontal differentiation at the school level
Low horizontal differentiation at the school level
Number of programmes: 1.1
First age of selection: 15.8
Selective schools: 17%
Lowhorizontaldifferentiation at thesystemlevel
Australia, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Iceland,NewZealand, Norway,Poland, Sweden, United States, United Kingdom, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Russian Federation
Jordan
Spain, Argentina, Brazil,Tunisia, Uruguay
Chile, Colombia, Peru
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan,Korea, Slovenia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Dubai (UAE), Hong Kong-China, Montenegro, Shanghai-China, Thailand
Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, Romania, Chinese Taipei
Luxembourg, Macao-China, Panama
Medium horizontaldifferentiation at thesystemlevel
Mexico, Portugal
Highhorizontaldifferentiation at thesystemlevel
Austria,
Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovak Republic,Croatia, Liechtenstein, Singapore
Turkey, Bulgaria, Serbia
Belgium, Germany, Trinidad and Tobago
Netherlands, Switzerland
2009
High social equity
Early selection and institutional differentiation
High degree of stratification
Low degree of stratification
High social equity
54.

Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the system and aligned with high stakes gateways and instructional systems

55. Well established delivery chain through which curricular goals translate into instructional systems, instructional practices and student learning (intended, implemented and achieved) 56. High level of metacognitive content of instruction Lessons from PISA on successful education systems
57.

Capacity at the point of delivery

58. Attracting, developing and retaining high quality teachers and school leaders and a work organisation in which they can use their potential 59. Instructionalleadership and human resource management in schools 60. Keeping teaching an attractive profession 61. System-wide career developmentLessons from PISA on successful education systems
62.

Incentives, accountability, knowledge management

63. Aligned incentive structuresForstudents

How gateways affect the strength, direction, clarity and nature of the incentives operating on students at each stage of their education

64. Degree to which students have incentives to take tough courses and study hard 65. Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing wellFor teachers

Make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation

66. Improve their own performance and the performance of their colleagues 67. Pursue professional development opportunities that lead to stronger pedagogical practices 68. A balance between vertical and lateral accountability 69. Effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread innovation communication within the system and with stakeholders around it 70. A capable centre with authority and legitimacy to act Lessons from PISA on successful education systems
71. How school systems are governed
Schools competing with other schools: 73%
Private schools: 8%
Private schools: 52%
Less school choice
More school choice
Less school autonomy in curriculum and assessment
Establishing student assessment policies: 61%
Choosing which textbooks are used: 55%
Determining course content: 14%
Greece, Mexico, Portugal, Turkey, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kazakhstan, Jordan, Montenegro, Qatar, Serbia, Tunisia, Uruguay
_
More school autonomy in curriculum and assessment
Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, Panama, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Peru, Romania, Russian Federation, Shanghai-China, Singapore, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago
Australia, Belgium, Chile, Ireland, Korea, Netherlands, Dubai (UAE), Hong Kong-China, Indonesia, Macao-China, Chinese Taipei
72. How school systems use student assessments
Private schools: 8%
Private schools: 52%
Infrequent use of achievement data for benchmarking and information purposes identified below
Frequent use of achievement data for benchmarking and information purposes identified below
Deciding which courses are offered: 18%
Infrequent use of achievement data for decision making
Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, Belgium, Germany
Hungary, Norway, Turkey, Montenegro, Tunisia, Slovenia
Denmark, Italy, Japan, Argentina, Macao-China, Chinese Taipei, Spain, Uruguay
Australia, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Estonia, Iceland, Israel, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, Albania, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, Croatia, Dubai (UAE), Hong Kong-China, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Panama, Peru, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Shanghai-China, Singapore, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Serbia
Frequentuse of achievement data for decision making
Deciding which courses are offered: 87%
73. How much autonomy individual schools have over resource allocation
74. Local responsibility and system-level prescription
Trend in OECD countries
System-level prescription
Tayloristic work organisation
The past
The industrial model, detailed prescription of what schools do
The future
Every school an effective school
Current trend
Building capacity
Schools leading reform
Teachers as knowledge workers
75. School autonomy, accountability and student performanceImpact of school autonomy on performance in systems with and without accountability arrangements
PISA score in reading
76. Public and private schools
%
Score point difference
Private schoolsperform better
Public schoolsperform better
77. Lessons from PISA on successful education systems

Investing resources where they can make most of a difference

78. Alignment of resources with key challenges (e.g. attracting the most talented teachers to the most challenging classrooms) 79. Effective spending choices that prioritise high quality teachers over smaller classes