11 PISA for Schools - Santander
Learning from strong performers and successful reformers
4 July 2016
Andreas Schleicher
The kind of things that are easy to teach are
now easy to automate, digitize or outsource
Changes in the demand for skillsTrends in different tasks in occupations (United States)
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 200935
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Routine manual
Nonroutine manual
Routine cognitive
Nonroutine analytic
Nonroutine interpersonal
Mean task input in percentiles of 1960 task distribution
Source: Autor, David H. and Brendan M. Price. 2013. "The Changing Task Composition of the US Labor Market: An Update of Autor, Levy, and Murnane (2003)." MIT Mimeograph, June.
PISA in brief
• Over half a million students…– representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 65 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– Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving, financial literacy– Total of 390 minutes of assessment material
… 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, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences .
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580Mean score
High mathematics performance
Low mathematics performance
… Shanghai-China performs above this line (613)Average performance
of 15-year-olds in Mathematics (PISA)
Fig I.2.13
Below PISA Level 2
More than 20% of Spanish 15-year-olds do not reach PISA
Level 2 (Shanghai 4%)
128% GDP2,037 bn$
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
High mathematics performance
Low mathematics performance
Average performanceof 15-year-olds in
mathematics
Strong socio-economic impact on student
performance
AustraliaAustria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
IcelandIreland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
2012
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
Strong socio-economic impact on student
performance
High mathematics performance
Low mathematics performance
AustraliaAustria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
IcelandIreland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
Strong socio-economic impact on student
performance
High mathematics performance
Low mathematics performance
AustraliaAustria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
IcelandIreland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Singapore
Shanghai
Singapore
2003 - 2012 Germany, Turkey and Mexico improved both their mathematics performance and equity levels
Chile 2003
Turkey 2003
High mathematics performance
Low mathematics performance
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
Strong socio-economic impact on student
performance
1111 Fostering resilience
The country where students go to class matters more than what social class students come from
12 PISA mathematics performance by decile of social background
Mex
ico
Gre
ece
Swed
en
Isra
el
Unite
d St
ates
Denm
ark
Aust
ralia
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
Cana
da
Aust
ria
Liec
hten
stei
n
Esto
nia
Slov
enia
New
Zea
land
Net
herl
ands
Switz
erla
nd
Belg
ium
Mac
ao-C
hina
Kore
a
Chin
ese
Taip
ei300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
600
625
650
675
Source: PISA 2012
Socio-economic background
1414Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
Catching up with the top-performers
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
1515Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
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
A learning systemCoherence
1616Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
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
A learning systemCoherence
A commitment to education and the belief that all children can achieve
Universal educational standards and personalization as the approach to heterogeneity in the student body…
… as 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
1717Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
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
A learning systemCoherence
Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the system and aligned with the instructional system
Well established delivery chain through which curricular goals translate into instructional systems, instructional practices and student learning (intended, implemented and achieved)
High level of metacognitive content of instruction
1818Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
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
A learning systemCoherence
Capacity at the point of delivery Attracting, developing and retaining high quality
teachers and school leaders and a work organisation in which they can use their potential
Instructional leadership and effective human resource management in schools
Teacher leadership, keeping teaching intellectually attractive
System-wide career development
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.31
9Teachers' perceptions of the value of teaching
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that teaching profession is a valued profession in society
Mal
aysia
Sing
apor
eKo
rea
Abu
Dhab
i (UA
E)Fi
nlan
dM
exico
Albe
rta (C
anad
a)Fl
ande
rs (B
elgi
um)
Neth
erla
nds
Aust
ralia
Engl
and
(UK)
Rom
ania
Israe
lUn
ited
Stat
esCh
ileAv
erag
eNo
rway
Japa
nLa
tvia
Serb
iaBu
lgar
iaDe
nmar
kPo
land
Icela
ndEs
toni
aBr
azil
Italy
Czec
h Re
publ
icPo
rtuga
lCr
oatia
Spai
nSw
eden
Fran
ceSl
ovak
Rep
ublic
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
enta
ge o
f tea
cher
s
Above-average performers in PISA
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.32
0Countries where teachers believe their profession is valued show higher levels of student achievement
Relationship between lower secondary teachers' views on the value of their profession in society and the country’s share of top mathematics performers in PISA 2012
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 800
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Australia
Brazil
BulgariaChile
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia FinlandFrance
IcelandIsraelItaly
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
RomaniaSerbia
Singapore
Slovak Republic
SpainSweden
Alberta (Canada)
England (UK)
Flanders (Belgium)
United States
Percentage of teachers who agree that teaching is valued in society
Shar
e of
mat
hem
atic
s to
p pe
rfor
mer
s
R2 = 0.24 r= 0.49
What knowledge, skills
and character qualities do successful teachers require?
What knowledge, skills
and character qualities do successful teachers require?
96% of teachers: My role as a teacher is to facilitate students
own inquiry
What knowledge, skills
and character qualities do successful teachers require?
86%: Students learn best by findings solutions on their
own
What knowledge, skills
and character qualities do successful teachers require?
74%: Thinking and reasoning is more important than curriculum content
Prevalence of memorisationrehearsal, routine exercises, drill
and practice and/or repetition
-1.60 -1.40 -1.20 -1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00Switzerland
Poland
Germany
Japan
Korea
France
Sweden
Shanghai-China
Canada
Singapore
United States
Norway
Spain
Netherlands
United Kingdom
0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.00
Prevalence of elaborationreasoning, deep learning, intrinsic motivation, critical thinking, creativity, non-routine problems
High Low Low High
Viet N
am
Shang
hai-C
hina
Urugua
y
Hong K
ong-C
hina
Portug
al
Serbia
Singap
oreJa
pan
Costa
Rica
Tunisi
a
Czech
Rep
ublicKore
aQata
r
United
Stat
es
Irelan
d
Mexico
Norway
Kazak
hstan
Roman
ia
Albania
Indon
esia
Belgium
Thaila
nd
Russia
n Fed
eratio
n
Slovak
Rep
ublic
German
y
Luxe
mbourg
Chile
Finlan
d
Sloven
ia
Switzerl
and
Liech
tenste
in
Icelan
d0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Inde
x of
exp
osur
e to
wor
d pr
oble
ms
Focus on word problems Fig I.3.1a26
Word problems- Formal math situated in a word problem, where it
is obvious to students what mathematical knowledge and skills
are needed
Sweden
Tunisi
a
Switzerl
and
Luxe
mbourg
Netherl
ands
Costa
Rica
Liech
tenste
in
Indon
esia
United
King
dom
Lithu
ania
Austra
lia
OECD avera
ge
Thaila
nd
Finlan
d
Colombia Peru
Israe
l
Belgium
Poland
Spain
Greece
Sloven
ia
Hunga
ry
Kazak
hstan
Canad
a
Estonia
Latvi
aJa
pan
Croatia
Russia
n Fed
eratio
n
Jorda
n
Singap
ore0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Inde
x of
exp
osur
e to
form
al m
athe
mat
ics
Focus on conceptual understanding Fig I.3.1b 27
Focus on conceptual understanding
28
External forces exerting pressure
and influence inward on an occupation
Internal motivation and efforts of the members of the profession itself
Professionalism
Professionalism is the level of autonomy and internal regulation exercised by members of an
occupation in providing services to society
Policy levers to teacher professionalism
Knowledge base for teaching (initial education and incentives for professional development)
Autonomy: Teachers’ decision-making power over their work (teaching content, course offerings, discipline practices)
Peer networks: Opportunities for exchange and support needed to maintain high standards of teaching (participation in induction, mentoring, networks, feedback from direct observations)
Teacherprofessionalism
Professionalism is the level of autonomy and internal regulation exercised by
members of an occupation in providing services to society
Teacher professionalism
Knowledge base for teaching (initial education and incentives for professional development)
Peer networks: Opportunities for exchange and support needed to maintain high standards of teaching (participation in induction, mentoring, networks, feedback from direct observations)
Professionalism is the level of autonomy and internal regulation exercised by
members of an occupation in providing services to society
Autonomy: Teachers’ decision-making power over their work (teaching content, course offerings, discipline practices)
Spa
in
Japa
n
Fran
ce
Bra
zil
Finl
and
Flan
ders
Nor
way
Alb
erta
(Can
ada)
Aus
tralia
Den
mar
k
Isra
el
Kor
ea
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Sha
ngha
i (C
hina
)
Latv
ia
Net
herla
nds
Pol
and
Eng
land
New
Zea
land
Sin
gapo
re
Est
onia
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Networks Autonomy Knowledge
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.33
131 TALIS Teacher professionalism index
Percentage of lower secondary teachers with less than 3 years experience at their school and as a teacher, who are working in schools with the following reported access to formal induction programmes, and their reported participation in such programmes
Icel
and
Finl
and
Geor
gia
Serb
ia
Japa
n
Slov
ak R
epub
lic
Net
herla
nds
Nor
way
Albe
rta
(Can
ada)
Flan
ders
(Bel
gium
)
Aust
ralia
Unite
d St
ates
Croa
tia
Kore
a
Aver
age
Russ
ia
Chile
Israe
l
New
Zea
land
Mal
aysia
Engl
and
(Uni
ted
King
dom
)
Rom
ania
Czec
h Re
publ
ic
Sing
apor
e
Shan
ghai
(Chi
na)0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Access
Participation
%
Not everywhere where induction programmes are accessibledo teachers use them
Disc
uss
indi
vidu
al s
t...
Shar
e re
sour
ces
Team
con
fere
nces
Colla
bora
te fo
r com
m...
Team
teac
hing
Colla
bora
tive
PD
Join
t act
iviti
es
Clas
sroo
m o
bser
vatio
ns
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Spain
Perc
enta
ge o
f te
ache
rs
Professional collaboration
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report doing the following activities at least once per month
Teacher co-operation33
Exchange and co-ordination
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.33
434 Teachers Self-Efficacy and Professional Collaboration
Nev
er
Onc
e a
year
...
2-4
tim
es a
...
5-10
tim
es ..
.
1-3
tim
es ..
.
Onc
e a
wee
...11.40
11.60
11.80
12.00
12.20
12.40
12.60
12.80
13.00
13.20
13.40
Teach jointly as a team in the same class
Observe other teachers’ classes and provide feedback
Engage in joint ac-tivities across dif -ferent classes
Take part in col-laborative profes-sional learning
Teac
her
self
-effi
cacy
(le
vel)
Less frequently
Morefrequently
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Low professionalism
High professionalism
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.33
535 Teacher professionalism index and teacher outcomes
Perceptions of teachers’ status
Satisfaction with the profession
Satisfaction with the work environment
Teachers’ self-efficacy
Predicted percentile
%
Yes
No
If I am more innovative in my teaching I will be rewarded (country average)
Knowledge and understanding of subject field(s)
Pedagogical competencies in teaching subject field(s)
Student evaluation and assessment practices
Knowledge of the curriculum
ICT skills for teaching
Student behaviour and classroom management
Approaches to individual learning
New technologies in the workplace
Teaching cross-curricular skills
Teaching students with special needs
Student career guidance and counselling
Approaches to developing cross-occupational competencies
School management and administration
Teaching in a multicultural/lingual setting
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
ModerateLarge
38 Impact of professional development on teaching
Percentage of teachers who participated in professional development activities with the following content in the 12 months prior to the survey, and reported moderate or large positive impact of this activity on their teaching
Percentage of teachers
39
Making educational reform happen
• Clear and consistent priorities (across governments and across time), ambition and urgency, and the capacity to learn rapidly.
Shared vision
• Appropriate targets, real-time data, monitoring, incentives aligned to targets, accountability, and the capacity to intervene where necessary.
Performance management
• Building professional capabilities, sharing best practice and innovation, flexible management, and frontline ethos aligned with system objectives.
Frontline capacity
• Strong leadership at every level, including teacher leadership, adequate process design and consistency of focus across agencies.
Delivery architecture
4040Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
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
A learning systemCoherence
Incentives, accountability, knowledge management Aligned incentive structures
For students How gateways affect the strength, direction, clarity and nature of the incentives
operating on students at each stage of their education Degree to which students have incentives to take tough courses and study hard Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing well
For teachers Make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation Improve their own performance
and the performance of their colleagues Pursue professional development opportunities
that lead to stronger pedagogical practices A balance between vertical and lateral accountability Effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread
innovation – communication within the system and with stakeholders around it
A capable centre with authority and legitimacy to act
4141Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s41 Aligning autonomy with accountability
4242Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
42
42
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
531.551979302783
414.947431329217
430.53288984921
423.795593172672
484.685067484024
507.375949559565
493.913526079401
557.719613495498
454.493852942216459.674291542381
419.468595641077
488.357558008343
404.86657067849406.81928697245
410.692469685374
455.967032005237
396.468122669645
431.953772561969416.098738598916
300.849653448456
527.668467891543
404.539944308878
440.111661967012
474.054187560775
464.989161819408
547.743708881437
626.566663790363
452.789179885987
529.511834268283
497.071637137884
453.49524309675
482.577394045123
532.465311188924
506.274697797594
488.818411796174
402.907104971934
498.55233132561486.358212456265
502.809277446549
485.011835724539
525.143096315803
466.514022482625
460.853234111852
488.150072840935484.3703865799
468.514073102546
499.317279833724
438.810335285436
499.440165643771501.844010272146
478.664970193416480.554307802789
498.658254792673
481.116171960251
503.011259906496490.67709912419
463.432481043829
552.313972933536
478.845972683071R² = 0.133981453407518
Index of school responsibility for curriculum and assessment (index points)
Mat
hem
atic
s pe
rform
ance
(sco
re p
oint
s)Countries that grant schools autonomy over curricula and
assessments tend to perform better in mathematics
Source: PISA 2012
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
No shared math policy
Shared math policy
Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with standardised math policies
Score points
School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's extent of implementing a standardised math policy (e.g. curriculum and instructional materials)
Fig IV.1.16
Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more collaboration
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
Teachers don't participate in management
Teachers participate in management
Score points
School autonomy for resource allocation x System's level of teachers participating in school managementAcross all participating countries and economies
Fig IV.1.17
Written specification of the school's curriculum and educational goals
Written specification of student-performance standards
Systematic recording of data, including teacher and student attendance and graduation rates, test results and professional development of teachers
Internal evaluation/self-evaluation
External evaluation
Written feedback from students (e.g. regarding lessons, teachers or resources)
Teacher mentoring
Regular consultation with one or more experts over a period of at least six months with the aim of improving the school
Implementation of a standardised policy for mathematics
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that their schools have the following for quality assurance and improvement:
Singapore OECD average
%
Quality assurance and school improvement Fig IV.4.1445
4646Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
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
A learning systemCoherence
Investing resources where they can make mostof a difference
Alignment of resources with key challenges (e.g. attracting the most talented teachers to the most challenging classrooms)
Effective spending choices that prioritise high quality teachers over smaller classes
4747 Align the resources with the challenges
-0.500.511.5300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700R² = 0
Equity in resource allocation (index points)
Mat
hem
atic
s pe
rform
ance
(sco
re p
oint
s)
Greater equityLess equity
Adjusted by per capita GDP
Countries with better performance in mathematics tend to allocate educational resources more equitably
Source: PISA 2012
4848Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
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
A learning systemCoherence
Coherence of policies and practices Alignment of policies
across all aspects of the system Coherence of policies
over sustained periods of time Consistency of implementation Fidelity of implementation
(without excessive control)
4949Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
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
A learning systemCoherence
5050Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s Some students learn at high levels
All students need to learn at high levels
Student inclusion
Routine cognitive skills Conceptual understanding, complex ways of thinking, ways of working
Curriculum, instruction and assessment
Standardisation and compliance
High-level professional knowledge workers
Teacher quality
‘Tayloristic’, hierarchical
Flat, collegial
Work organisation
Primarily to authorities
Primarily to peers and stakeholders
Accountability
What it all means
The old bureaucratic system The modern enabling system
5151Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
51
51 Thank you
Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org– All publications– The complete micro-level database
Email: [email protected]: SchleicherEDU
and remember:Without data, you are just another person with an opinion