best in class 2018 a global perspective
TRANSCRIPT
Raising excellence and
equity in education
Best in Class 2018 – a global perspective
Andreas SchleicherDirector for Education and Skills
SingaporeJapan
EstoniaChinese Tapei FinlandMacao (China)
CanadaViet Nam
Hong Kong (China)B-S-J-G (China) KoreaNew ZealandSlovenia
AustraliaUnited KingdomGermany
Netherlands
SwitzerlandIreland
Belgium DenmarkPolandPortugal NorwayUnited StatesAustriaFranceSweden
Czech Rep.Spain Latvia
RussiaLuxembourg Italy
Hungary LithuaniaCroatia IcelandIsraelMalta
Slovak Rep.
GreeceChile
Bulgaria
United Arab EmiratesUruguay
Romania
Moldova Turkey
Trinidad and Tobago ThailandCosta Rica QatarColombia MexicoMontenegroJordan
Indonesia BrazilPeru
Lebanon
Tunisia
FYROMKosovo
Algeria
Dominican Rep. (332)
350
400
450
500
550
Mean
scie
nce p
erf
orm
an
ce
Hig
her
perf
om
an
ce
Science performance and equity in PISA (2015)
Some countries
combine excellence
with equity
More equityMore equity
Low math performance
High math performance
Mathematics performanceof the 10% most disadvantaged
American 15-year-olds (~Mexico)
Mathematics performanceof the 10% most privileged
American 15-year-olds (~Japan)
Poverty need not be destiny: PISA math performance by decile of social background
PIS
A m
ath
em
atics p
erf
orm
an
ce
Lessons fro
m P
ISA
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Lessons fro
m P
ISA
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentive structures and accountability
Resources where they yield most
Looking outwardsCoherence
Spending per student from the age of 6 to
15 and science performance
Figure II.6.2
Luxembourg
SwitzerlandNorwayAustria
Singapore
United States
United Kingdom
Malta
Sweden
Belgium
Iceland
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
JapanSlovenia
Australia
Germany
IrelandFranceItaly
Portugal
New Zealand
Korea Spain
PolandIsrael
Estonia
Czech Rep.
LatviaSlovak Rep.
Russia
CroatiaLithuania
HungaryCosta Rica
Chinese Taipei
Chile
Brazil
Turkey
UruguayBulgaria
Mexico
Thailand MontenegroColombia
Dominican Republic
Peru
Georgia
11.7, 411
R² = 0.01
R² = 0.41
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Sc
ien
ce
pe
rfo
rma
nc
e (
sc
ore
po
ints
)
Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)
45th meeting of the PISA Governing Board
Disadvantaged schools often have more teachers…Figure 3.1
24.2
25.8
27.0
27.7
23
24
25
26
27
28
Bottom quarter Second quarter Third quarter Top quarter
Students per class
Average class size in <9th grade>, by quarter of school socio-economic profile(OECD average)
45th meeting of the PISA Governing Board
…but teachers in disadvantaged schools are less qualified…
Figure 3.5
69
74 75
79
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
Bottom quarter Second quarter Third quarter Top quarter
%
Science teachers with a university major in science, by school socio-economic profile (OECD Average)
45th meeting of the PISA Governing Board
… and less experienced
Figure 3.7
15.6
16.716.6 16.7
14.0
14.5
15.0
15.5
16.0
16.5
17.0
Bottom quarter Second quarter Third quarter Top quarter
Years of experience
Average teacher experience, by quarter of school socio-economic profile (Average-18)
45th meeting of the PISA Governing Board
…and principals report more often a lack of teachers
Figure 3.3
35.1
31.1 29.9
21.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Bottom quarter Second quarter Third quarter Top quarter
%
Principals' views on lack of teaching staff, by quarter of school socio-economic profile(OECD Average)
Differences in educational resourcesbetween advantaged and disadvantaged schools
Figure I.6.14
-3
-2
-2
-1
-1
0
1
1
CA
BA
(A
rge
ntina
)M
exic
oP
eru
Ma
ca
o (
Ch
ina)
Un
ite
d A
rab
Em
ira
tes
Leb
ano
nJo
rda
nC
olo
mbia
Bra
zil
Ind
on
esia
Tu
rke
yS
pa
inD
om
inic
an R
epu
blic
Geo
rgia
Uru
gu
ay
Th
aila
nd
B-S
-J-G
(C
hin
a)
Au
str
alia
Ja
pan
Ch
ileL
uxe
mb
ourg
Ru
ssia
Po
rtug
al
Ma
lta
Italy
Ne
w Z
ea
land
Cro
atia
Ire
lan
dA
lge
ria
No
rwa
yIs
rae
lD
en
mark
Sw
ed
en
Un
ite
d S
tate
sM
old
ova
Be
lgiu
mS
love
nia
OE
CD
ave
rage
Hu
nga
ryC
hin
ese
Taip
ei
Vie
t N
am
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Sin
gap
ore
Tu
nis
iaG
ree
ce
Trin
idad
an
d T
ob
ago
Ca
nad
aR
om
ania
Qata
rM
onte
ne
gro
Ko
so
vo
Ne
the
rla
nds
Ko
rea
Fin
lan
dS
witze
rla
nd
Germ
an
yH
on
g K
ong
(C
hin
a)
Au
str
iaF
YR
OM
Po
land
Alb
ania
Bu
lgaria
Slo
va
k R
epu
blic
Lith
ua
nia
Esto
nia
Icela
nd
Co
sta
Ric
aU
nite
d K
ing
do
mL
atv
ia
Mean in
dex d
iffe
rence b
etw
een
advanta
ge
d
and
dis
advanta
ged
sch
ools
Index of shortage of educational material Index of shortage of educational staff
Disadvantaged schools have more
resources than advantaged schools
Disadvantaged schools have fewer
resources than advantaged schools
45th meeting of the PISA Governing Board
United Arab Emirates
Australia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Czech Republic
Germany
Dominican Republic
Spain
Hong Kong (China)
ItalyKorea
Macao (China)
Peru
Portugal
B-S-J-G (China)
Chinese Taipei
United States
R² = 0.39
0
20
40
60
80
100
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f st
ud
en
ts in
sch
oo
ls w
ho
se
pri
nci
pal
or
the
sch
oo
l go
vern
ing
bo
ard
has
co
nsi
der
able
re
spo
nsi
bili
ty f
or
det
erm
inin
g te
ach
ers
' sal
ary
incr
eas
es
Difference betwen advantaged and disadvantaged schools in the proportion of non-science teachers who reported that the school's capacity to provide
instruction is hindered by a lack of teaching staff at least to some extent
%
% dif.
Does greater school autonomy go together with greater inequity?
• No : Where school
responsibility for
hiring/firing teachers
and setting salaries
is greater,
inequitable teacher
sorting appears
LESS frequent!
Figure 3.16
13
13 Square school choice with equity
Financial incentives
for schools
Assistance for disadvantaged
parents
Manage/ consolidate
school network
Formula-based
approaches to school financing
Admission policies,
controlled choice
Foster collaboration
/pairing among schools
Engaging parents and stakeholders
What can policy do?
0
1
2
3
4
5
Swed
en
Esto
nia
Ru
ssia
Latv
ia
Bu
lgar
ia
Icel
and
No
rway
Hu
nga
ry
Den
mar
k
Fin
lan
d
Sin
gap
ore
Isra
el
Bel
giu
m
Ho
ng
Ko
ng
(Ch
ina)
Spai
n
Slo
vak
Re
pu
blic
Uru
guay
Fran
ce
Mac
ao (
Ch
ina)
Bra
zil
B-S
-J-G
(C
hin
a)
Jap
an
Ger
man
y
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
lic
Lith
uan
ia
Slo
ven
ia
Thai
lan
d
Au
stri
a
Cro
atia
Ital
y
Ch
ines
e T
aip
ei
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Po
lan
d
Per
u
Ko
rea
Mex
ico
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Gre
ece
Mo
nte
neg
ro
Do
min
ican
Rep
ub
lic
New
Zea
lan
d
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Swit
zerl
and
Co
sta
Ric
a
Qat
ar
Un
ited
Ara
b E
mir
ate
s
Co
lom
bia
Au
stra
lia
Can
ada
Ch
ile
Irel
and
Tun
isia
Po
rtu
gal
Turk
ey
Year
s
Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools
Number of years in pre-primary education among students attending socio-economically …
Attendance at pre-primary school by schools’ socio-economic profile
Table II.6.51
OECD average
Variation in performance between and within schoolsFigure I.6.11
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
Ne
the
rla
nds
11
4B
-S-J
-G (
Ch
ina
) 11
9B
ulg
aria
11
5H
un
ga
ry 1
04
Trin
idad
an
d T
ob
ago
9
8B
elg
ium
1
12
Slo
ve
nia
1
01
Germ
an
y
11
0S
lova
k R
epu
blic
1
09
Ma
lta
1
54
Un
ite
d A
rab
Em
ira
tes 1
10
Au
str
ia 1
06
Isra
el 12
6L
eb
ano
n 9
1C
ze
ch R
epu
blic
1
01
Qata
r
109
Ja
pan
9
7S
witze
rla
nd
11
0S
ing
ap
ore
1
20
Italy
9
3C
hin
ese
Taip
ei 11
1L
uxe
mb
ourg
1
12
Tu
rke
y
70
Bra
zil
89
Cro
atia
89
Gre
ece
9
4C
hile
8
3L
ith
ua
nia
9
2O
EC
D a
ve
rage
1
00
Uru
gu
ay 8
4C
AB
A (
Arg
entina
) 82
Ro
ma
nia
7
0V
iet N
am
6
5K
ore
a 1
01
Au
str
alia
1
17
Un
ite
d K
ing
do
m 1
11
Pe
ru
66
Co
lom
bia
7
2T
haila
nd
69
Ho
ng K
ong
(C
hin
a)
72
FY
RO
M
80
Po
rtug
al 94
Do
min
ica
n R
epu
blic
5
9In
don
esia
5
2G
eo
rgia
9
2Jo
rda
n 7
9N
ew
Zea
land
1
21
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
10
8M
onte
ne
gro
8
1T
unis
ia
47
Sw
ed
en
11
7M
exic
o 5
7A
lba
nia
6
9K
oso
vo
5
7M
aca
o (
Ch
ina)
7
4A
lge
ria
5
4E
sto
nia
8
8M
old
ova
8
3C
osta
Ric
a
55
Ru
ssia
7
6C
an
ad
a 9
5P
ola
nd
9
2D
en
mark
9
1L
atv
ia 7
5Ir
ela
nd
8
8S
pa
in
86
No
rwa
y 1
03
Fin
lan
d 1
03
Icela
nd
93
Between-school variation Within-school variation
Total variation as a
proportion of the OECD
average
OECD average 69%
OECD average 30%
%
Teachers, teaching and learning
Learning time and science performance Figure II.6.23
Finland
Germany Switzerland
Japan Estonia
Sweden
NetherlandsNew Zealand
Macao(China)
Iceland
Hong Kong(China) Chinese Taipei
Uruguay
Singapore
PolandUnited States
Israel
Bulgaria
Korea
Russia Italy
Greece
B-S-J-G (China)
Colombia
Chile
Mexico
Brazil
CostaRica
Turkey
MontenegroPeru
QatarThailand
UnitedArab
Emirates
Tunisia
Dominican Republic
R² = 0.21
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
35 40 45 50 55 60
PIS
A s
cie
nc
e s
co
re
Total learning time in and outside of school
OECD average
OECD average
OE
CD
avera
ge
Learning time and science performance (PISA)Figure II.6.23
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Fin
lan
dG
erm
an
yS
witze
rla
nd
Ja
pan
Esto
nia
Sw
ed
en
Ne
the
rla
nds
Ne
w Z
ea
land
Au
str
alia
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Ma
ca
o (
Ch
ina)
Un
ite
d K
ing
do
mC
an
ad
aB
elg
ium
Fra
nce
No
rwa
yS
love
nia
Icela
nd
Luxe
mb
ourg
Ire
lan
dL
atv
iaH
on
g K
ong
(C
hin
a)
OE
CD
ave
rage
Ch
inese
Taip
ei
Au
str
iaP
ort
ug
al
Uru
gu
ay
Lith
ua
nia
Sin
gap
ore
De
nm
ark
Hu
nga
ryP
ola
nd
Slo
va
k R
epu
blic
Sp
ain
Cro
atia
Un
ite
d S
tate
sIs
rae
lB
ulg
aria
Ko
rea
Ru
ssia
Italy
Gre
ece
B-S
-J-G
(C
hin
a)
Co
lom
bia
Ch
ileM
exic
oB
razil
Co
sta
Ric
aT
urk
ey
Mo
nte
ne
gro
Pe
ruQ
ata
rT
haila
nd
Un
ite
d A
rab
Em
ira
tes
Tu
nis
iaD
om
inic
an R
epu
blic
Sc
ore
po
ints
in
sc
ien
ce
pe
r h
ou
r o
f le
arn
ing
tim
e
Hours Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time
28 Teachers’ skillsNumeracy test scores of tertiary graduates and teachers
Numeracy score215 235 255 275 295 315 335 355 375
SpainPolandEstonia
United StatesCanadaIreland
KoreaEngland (UK)
England/N. Ireland (UK)Denmark
Northern Ireland (UK)France
AustraliaSweden
Czech RepublicAustria
NetherlandsNorway
GermanyFlanders (Belgium)
FinlandJapan
Numeracy score
Numeracy skills of middle half of
college graduates
29 Teachers’ skillsNumeracy test scores of tertiary graduates and teachers
Numeracy score215 235 255 275 295 315 335 355 375
SpainPolandEstonia
United StatesCanadaIreland
KoreaEngland (UK)
England/N. Ireland (UK)Denmark
Northern Ireland (UK)France
AustraliaSweden
Czech RepublicAustria
NetherlandsNorway
GermanyFlanders (Belgium)
FinlandJapan
Numeracy score
Numeracy skills of teachers
What teachers say and what teachers do
96% of teachers: My role as a teacher is to facilitate students own inquiry
86%: Students learn best by findings solutions on their own
74%: Thinking and reasoning is more important than curriculum content
-2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00
Prevalence of memorisationrehearsal, routine exercises, drill and
practice and/or repetition
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Switzerland
Poland
Germany
Japan
Korea
France
Sweden
Shanghai-China
Canada
Singapore
United States
Norway
Spain
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Prevalence of elaborationreasoning, deep learning, intrinsic motivation, critical thinking, creativity, non-routine problems
High Low Low High
Memorisation is less useful as problems become more difficult(OECD average)
R² = 0.81
0.70
1.00
300 400 500 600 700 800
Difficulty of mathematics item on the PISA scale
40
Source: Figure 4.3
Difficult problem
Easy problem
Greater success
Less success
Odds ratio
Elaboration strategies are more useful as problems become more difficult (OECD average)
R² = 0.82
0.80
1.50
300 400 500 600 700 800
Difficulty of mathematics item on the PISA scale
42
Source: Figure 6.2
Difficultproblem
Greater success
Less success
Easy problem
Odds ratio
Students in disadvantaged schools have
less exposure conceptual understanding in math
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Po
rtu
gal
Bra
zil
Qat
arLu
xem
bo
urg
Tun
isia
Jord
anA
ust
ralia
Swe
den
Be
lgiu
mD
en
mar
kU
nit
ed
Ara
b E
mir
ate
sC
olo
mb
iaA
rge
nti
na
Ch
ines
e T
aip
eiC
hile
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Turk
eyN
eth
erla
nd
sM
alay
sia
Can
ada
Slo
vak
Rep
ub
licA
ust
ria
Ind
on
esia
Ro
man
iaC
ost
a R
ica
Thai
lan
dSw
itze
rlan
dU
rugu
ayB
ulg
aria
Latv
iaM
on
ten
egr
oO
ECD
ave
rage
Serb
iaIs
rael
Fran
ceG
reec
eFi
nla
nd
Pe
ruM
exic
oG
erm
any
Un
ite
d K
ingd
om
No
rway
Esto
nia
Un
ite
d S
tate
sH
un
gary
Irel
and
Po
lan
dV
iet
Nam
Jap
anSh
angh
ai-C
hin
a 1
Icel
and
Lith
uan
iaIt
aly
Cro
atia
Kaz
akh
stan
Slo
ven
iaH
on
g K
on
g-C
hin
aR
uss
ian
Fed
erat
ion
Spai
nLi
ech
ten
ste
in 1
Sin
gap
ore
Mac
ao-C
hin
a 1
Ko
rea
Bottom quarter (disadvantaged students) Top quarter (advantaged students)
Source: Figure 7.1a
Exp
osu
reto
pu
rem
ath
ema
tics
More exposure
Less exposure
One-point difference in exposure to conceptual understanding predicts a 1.23 Std.Dev difference in school performance
4
444
Be experts on their discipline and experts on how students learn
Respond to individual differences with broad pedagogical repertoire
Provide continual assessment with formative feedback
Be demanding for every student with a high level of cognitive activation
Ensure that students feel valued and included and learning is collaborative
Growing expectations on teachers
• Some evidence that well-being factors impact motivation, self-efficacy and job commitment
• Attrition a growing issue, with high costs
• Growing teacher shortages
Teachers’ job satisfaction
0 20 40 60 80 100
The advantages of being a teacherclearly outweigh the disadvantages
If I could decide again, I would stillchoose to work as a teacher
I would recommend my school as agood place to work
I enjoy working at this school
All in all, I am satisfied with my job
I am satisfied with my performancein this school
Percentage of teachers
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Teachers’ job satisfaction and class size
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.00
15 or less 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36 or more
Teac
he
rs' j
ob
sat
isfa
ctio
n (
leve
l)
Class size (number of students)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Low professionalism
High professionalism
Fig II.3.3
Perceptions of
teachers’ statusSatisfaction with
the profession
Satisfaction with the
work environment
Teachers’
self-efficacy
Teacher job satisfaction and professionalism
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Discu
ss indiv
idual
students
Share
reso
urc
es
Team
confe
rence
s
Colla
bora
te for
com
mon s
tandard
s
Team
teach
ing
Colla
bora
tive
PD
Join
t act
ivitie
s
Cla
ssro
om
obse
rvations
Perc
enta
ge o
f te
ach
ers
Average
Professional collaboration
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report doing the following activities at least once per month
Professional collaboration among teachers
Exchange and co-ordination
(OECD countries)
Teachers Self-Efficacy and Professional Collaboration
11.40
11.60
11.80
12.00
12.20
12.40
12.60
12.80
13.00
13.20
13.40
Never
Once
a y
ear
or
less
2-4
tim
es
a y
ear
5-1
0 t
imes
a y
ear
1-3
tim
es
a m
onth
Once
a w
eek o
r m
ore
Teach
er
self-e
ffic
acy
(le
vel)
Teach jointly as a team in the same class
Observe other teachers’ classes and provide feedback
Engage in joint activities across different classes
Take part in collaborative professional learning
Less frequently
Morefrequently
Student-teacher ratios and class sizeFigure II.6.14
CABA (Argentina)
Jordan
Viet Nam
Poland
United States
Chile
Denmark
Hungary
B-S-G-J(China)
Turkey
Georgia
ChineseTaipei
Mexico
Russia
Albania
Hong Kong(China)
Japan
Belgium
Algeria
Colombia
Peru
Macao(China)
Switzerland
Malta
Dominican Republic
Netherlands
Singapore
Brazil
Kosovo
Finland
Thailand
R² = 0.25
5
10
15
20
25
30
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Stu
den
t-te
ac
her
rati
o
Class size in language of instruction
High student-teacher ratios
and small class sizes
Low student-teacher ratios
and large class sizes
OECD
average
OE
CD
avera
ge
Professionalism
Public confidence in profession and professionals
Professional preparation and learning
Collective ownership of professional practice
Decisions made in accordance with the body of knowledge o the profession
Acceptance of professional responsibility in the name of the profession and accountability towards the profession
One last thought
Research in education
Public educational research
Public expenditures in education and health as % of GDP (2014)
Share (%) of public research budget on education and health (2014)
1.8
9.3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Education Health
OECD average
5.5
6.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Education Health
OECD average
Public educational research: budget per student
383
57 54
44 4236
3124 21
18 1611 11 10 10 9
6 5 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Public budget for education per student (2014)
Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/edu
– All publications
– The complete PISA micro-level database
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: SchleicherOECD
Wechat: AndreasSchleicher
Thank you