empowering and enabling teachers
TRANSCRIPT
Making education everybody’s business
Empowering and enabling teachers
Andreas Schleicher30 March 2017
The kind of things that are easy to teach are
now easy to automate, digitize or outsource
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
3
DigitalisationSystems thinking
Design thinking
Information
literacyDigital literacy
Global competen
ce
4
Digitalisation
Democratizing
Concentrating
Particularizing
Homogenizing
Empowering
Disempowering
1m $ / employee
120 k$ / employee
Scale without mass
Trends in science performance (PISA)
2006 2009 2012 2015450
470
490
510
530
550
570
OECD
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
Country average science performance
Stud
ent p
erfo
rman
ce
Trends in science performance
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
2006 2009 2012 2015450
470
490
510
530
550
570
Country average science performance
Spending per student and learning outcomes
0 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000 120 000 140 000 160 000 180 000 200 000300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
511.338208
385.595556
368.102547
426.737491420.512968
409.291568
447.984415
376.488601387.824630
413.281467409.626613
391.459889
438.738260422.632355
471.131461478.823277
490.571021
477.044455
612.675536
481.644744
498.957882520.545522
466.481430
517.501097
553.766659
487.063181499.749903
518.070400513.525056
484.319298
494.984674
485.321181
573.468314
518.750335
536.406918
501.127422501.497460492.795697
522.971758
478.260636
514.745239
UK
504.150766500.026757
481.366786
505.540743
489.373070
530.931004
489.845098
Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (USD, PPPs)
Low spending High spend-ing
PISA
Mat
h Pe
rfor
m-
ance
Learning time and student performanceFigure II.6.23
35 40 45 50 55 60300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Finland
Germany Switzerland
Japan Estonia
Sweden
NetherlandsNew Zealand
Macao(China)
Iceland
Hong Kong(China) Chinese Taipei
Uruguay
Singapore
Poland United States
IsraelBulgaria
Korea
Russia ItalyGreece
B-S-J-G (China)
Colombia
Chile
Mexico
BrazilCostaRica
TurkeyMontenegroPeru
QatarThailand
UnitedArab
Emirates
Tunisia
Dominican Republic
R² = 0.205109930113565
Total learning time in and outside of school
PISA
sci
ence
sco
re
OECD average
OECD average
OE
CD
ave
rage
Learning time and science performanceFigure II.6.23
Finla
ndGe
rman
ySw
itzer
land
Japa
nEs
toni
aSw
eden
Neth
erla
nds
New
Zeal
and
Aust
ralia
Czec
h Re
publ
icMa
cao
(Chi
na)
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mCa
nada
Belg
ium
Fran
ceNo
rway
Slov
enia
Icela
ndLu
xem
bour
gIre
land
Latv
iaHo
ng K
ong
(Chi
na)
OECD
ave
rage
Chin
ese
Taip
eiAu
stria
Portu
gal
Urug
uay
Lithu
ania
Sing
apor
eDe
nmar
kHu
ngar
yPo
land
Slov
ak R
epub
licSp
ain
Croa
tiaUn
ited
Stat
esIsr
ael
Bulg
aria
Kore
aRu
ssia
Italy
Gree
ceB-
S-J-G
(Chi
na)
Colo
mbi
aCh
ileMe
xico
Braz
ilCo
sta
Rica
Turk
eyMo
nten
egro
Peru
Qata
rTh
aila
ndUn
ited
Arab
Em
ir...
Tuni
siaDo
min
ican
Repu
...
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
678910111213141516
Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning timeHours
Scor
e po
ints
in sc
ienc
e pe
r hou
r of t
otal
lear
ning
tim
e
What PISA says about effective teaching
Memorisation is less useful as problems become more difficult (OECD average)
300 400 500 600 700 8000.70
1.00
R² = 0.811771493557881
Difficulty of mathematics item on the PISA scaleSource: Figure 4.3
12
Difficult problem
Easy problem
Greater success
Less success
Odds ratio
Memorisation is associated
with a lower chance of success
as problems become more
difficult
Control strategies are always helpful but less so as problems become more difficult (OECD average)
300 400 500 600 700 8000.95
1.20
R² = 0.309815623974217
Difficulty of mathematics item on the PISA scale
Using control strategies is associated with a lower chance of success as problems become more difficult
Source: Figure 5.213
Difficult problem
Greater success
Less success
Easy problem
Odds ratio
Elaboration strategies are more useful as problems become more difficult (OECD average)
300 400 500 600 700 8000.80
1.50
R² = 0.820032961220149
Difficulty of mathematics item on the PISA scale
Using elaboration
strategies is
associated with a
greater chance of
success as problems
become more
difficult
Source: Figure 6.2
14
Difficult problem
Greater success
Less success
Easy problem
Odds ratio
Teaching and learning strategies in mathematics
15
R² = 0.102181859010917
More teacher-direc-ted instructionTeaching
More memorisation
Lear
ning
OECD average
More elaboration
More student-oriented in-
struction
Chinese Taipei
Vietnam
Macao-China Korea
Hong-Kong China
SingaporeJapan
Shanghai- China
Ireland
Hungary
France
Croatia
United Kingdom
Australia
New ZealandUrugua
yIsrael
Approaches to teaching
Engagement and career
expectations Learning outcomes
Student-oriented Teacher-directed
Some students learn at high levels
All students learn at high levels
350
400
450
500
550 SingaporeJapan
EstoniaChinese Tapei Finland Macao (China)CanadaViet Nam
Hong Kong (China)B-S-J-G (China) KoreaNew ZealandSloveniaAustraliaUnited KingdomGermanyNetherlands
SwitzerlandIrelandBelgium DenmarkPolandPortugal NorwayUnited StatesAustriaFrance
SwedenCzech Rep. Spain Latvia RussiaLuxembourg ItalyHungary LithuaniaCroatia IcelandIsraelMaltaSlovak Rep.
GreeceChile
Bulgaria
United Arab EmiratesUruguayRomania
Moldova TurkeyTrinidad and Tobago ThailandCosta Rica QatarColombia Mexico MontenegroJordanIndonesia BrazilPeru
LebanonTunisia
FYROM Kosovo AlgeriaDominican Rep. (332)
Mea
n sc
ienc
e pe
rfor
man
ce
Hig
her
perf
oman
ceScience performance and equity in PISA (2015)
Some countries combine excel-lence with equity
High performanceHigh equity
Low performanceLow equity
Low performanceHigh equity
High performanceLow equity
More equity
Poverty is not destiny – Learning outcomes and social backgroundby international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)
Dom
inica
n Re
publ
ic 40
Koso
vo 1
0
FYRO
M 13
Mont
eneg
ro 1
1
Unite
d Ar
ab E
mira
tes 3
Leba
non
27Me
xico
53
Cost
a Ri
ca 3
8
Turk
ey 5
9
Thail
and
55
Icela
nd 1
Rom
ania
20
Bulg
aria
13
Russ
ia 5
Chile
27
Lithu
ania
12
Italy
15Sp
ain 3
1
Croa
tia 1
0
OECD
ave
rage
12
Malta
13
Maca
o (C
hina
) 22
Aust
ria 5
Luxe
mbo
urg
14
Czec
h Re
publ
ic 9
Aust
ralia
4
Cana
da 2
Kore
a 6
Switz
erlan
d 8
Slov
enia
5
Finlan
d 2
Viet
Nam
76
Japa
n 8
B-S-
J-G (C
hina
) 52
280
330
380
430
480
530
580
630
Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile
Scor
e po
ints
Figure I.6.7
% of students in the bottom international
deciles of ESCS
OECD median student
Swed
enRussi
a
Bulgaria
Norway
Denmark
Singa
pore
Belgium
Spain
Uruguay
Macao
(China)
B-S-J-G
(China)
German
y
Lithuan
ia
Thaila
nd
Croati
a
Chinese Ta
ipei
PolandKorea
Luxe
mbourg
Montenegro
New Ze
aland
United Stat
es
Costa Rica
United Arab Em
irates
Australi
aChile
Tunisi
a
Turke
y0
1
2
3
4
5Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools
Year
s
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
Differences in educational resourcesbetween advantaged and disadvantaged schools
Figure I.6.14
CABA
(Arg
entin
a)Pe
ruUn
ited
Arab
Em
irate
sJo
rdan
Braz
ilTu
rkey
Dom
inica
n Re
publ
icUr
ugua
yB-
S-J-G
(Chi
na)
Japa
nLu
xem
bour
gPo
rtuga
lIta
lyCr
oatia
Alge
riaIsr
ael
Swed
enMo
ldov
aSl
oven
iaHu
ngar
yVi
et N
amSi
ngap
ore
Gree
ceCa
nada
Qata
rKo
sovo
Kore
aSw
itzer
land
Hong
Kon
g (C
hina
)FY
ROM
Alba
nia
Slov
ak R
epub
licEs
toni
aCo
sta
Rica
Latv
ia
-3
-2
-1
0
1Index of shortage of educational material
Mea
n in
dex
diffe
renc
e be
twee
n ad
-va
ntag
ed a
nd d
isadv
anta
ged
scho
ols
Disadvantaged schools have more resources than advantaged schools
Disadvantaged schools have fewer resources than advantaged schools
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profileBefore accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Scor
e-po
int d
iffer
ence
Student and teacher behaviour hindering learning and science performance
Figure II.3.10
Croa
tiaAu
stria
Slov
enia
Italy
Mont
eneg
roFY
ROM
Bulg
aria
Belg
ium
Neth
erla
nds
Chin
ese
Taip
eiJa
pan
Hung
ary
Gree
ceKo
rea
Fran
ceKo
sovo
Turk
eyCz
ech
Repu
blic
OECD
ave
rage
Aust
ralia
Portu
gal
CABA
(Arg
entin
a)Lu
xem
bour
gTh
aila
ndSl
ovak
Rep
ublic
Colo
mbi
aMe
xico
Russ
iaSw
itzer
land
Indo
nesia
Alba
nia
Cost
a Ri
caGe
rman
yLit
huan
iaGe
orgi
aMa
cao
(Chi
na)
Irela
ndUr
ugua
yAl
geria
Spai
nCh
ileLa
tvia
B-S-
J-G (C
hina
)Un
ited
King
dom
Braz
ilEs
toni
aUn
ited
Arab
Em
ir...
Pola
ndDo
min
ican
Repu
blic
Swed
en
0102030405060708090
100Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools
Enrolment in pre-vocational or vocational programmes, by schools’ socio-economic profile
%
3030
Make learning central, encourage engagement and responsibility
Be acutely sensitive to individual differences
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
A continuum of support
Bureaucratic Look-up
Devolved Look-outward
Professionalism
External forces exerting pressure and influence
inward on an occupation Internal motivation and efforts of the members of the profession itself
Professionalism is the level of autonomy and internal regulation exercised by members of an
occupation in providing services to society
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
Student-teacher ratios and class sizeFigure II.6.14
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 505
10
15
20
25
30
CABA (Argentina)
JordanViet 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
ThailandR² = 0.24784962376208
Class size in language of instruction
Stud
ent-
teac
her
ratio High student-teacher
ratios and small class sizes
Low student-teacher ratios and large class
sizes
OECD average
OE
CD
ave
rage
The power of reputationational metrics
Delivered wisdom
User-generated wisdomRecognising both students and adults as resources for the co-creation of communities, for the design
of learning and for the success of students
The past was dividedTeachers and content divided by subjects and student destinations
Schools designed to keep students inside, and the rest of the world outside
The future is integratedIntegrated: Emphasising integration of subjects, integration of
students and integration of learning contextsConnected: with real-world contexts, and permeable to the rich
resources in the communityLess subject-based, more project-based
Uniformity
DiversityEmbracing diversity with differentiated pedagogical practices
Hong
Kon
g (C
hina
)Ma
cao
(Chi
na)
Esto
nia
Sing
apor
eSp
ain
Portu
gal
Cana
daSw
itzer
land
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mGe
rman
ySl
oven
iaAu
stra
liaNe
ther
land
sNe
w Ze
alan
dAu
stria
Belg
ium
OECD
ave
rage
Denm
ark
Norw
ayUn
ited
Stat
esIre
land
Swed
enFr
ance
Italy
Russ
iaCr
oatia
Luxe
mbo
urg
Gree
ceCA
BA (A
rgen
tina)
Israe
lCo
sta
Rica
Jord
anUn
ited
Arab
Em
ir...
Qata
r01020304050607080
Non-immigrant students Immigrant students%
Percentage of resilient studentsby immigrant background
Figure I.7.8
Resilient students come from the bottom 25% of the ESCS index within their country/economy and perform among the top 25% across all countries/economies, after taking socio-economic status into account
Standardisation and ConformityStandardisation and compliance lead students to be
educated in batches of age, following the same standard curriculum, all assessed at the same time.
IngeniousBuilding instruction from student passions and capacities,
helping students personalise their learning and assessment in ways that foster engagement and talents.
Learning a placeSchools as technological islands, that is technology was deployed
mostly to support existing practices for efficiency gains
Learning an activityTechnologies liberating learning from past conventions and connect
learners in new and powerful ways. The past was interactive, the future is participative
Prescription
Informed profession
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
Teacher professionalism
Autonomy: Teachers’ decision-making power over their work (teaching content, course offerings, discipline practices)
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)
Disc
uss
indi
vid.
..
Shar
e re
sour
ces
Team
con
fere
...
Colla
bora
te fo
...
Team
teac
hing
Colla
bora
tive
PD
Join
t act
iviti
es
Clas
sroo
m o
bse.
..
0102030405060708090
100Average
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
Professional collaboration among teachers
Exchange and co-ordin-ation
(OECD countries)
Teachers Self-Efficacy and Professional Collaboration
Nev
er
Onc
e a
y...
2-4
tim
e...
5-10
tim
...
1-3
tim
...
Onc
e a
...11.40
11.60
11.80
12.00
12.20
12.40
12.60
12.80
13.00
13.20
13.40Teach jointly as a team in the same classObserve other teachers’ classes and provide feedbackEngage in joint activities across different classesTake part in col-laborative pro-fessional learn-ing
Teac
her
self
-effi
cacy
(le
vel)
Less frequently
Morefrequently
Administrative control and accountability
Professional forms of work organisation
Reso
urce
s
Curri
culu
m
Disc
iplin
ary
polic
ies
Asse
ssm
ent p
olici
es
Adm
issio
ns p
olici
es
Reso
urce
s
Curri
culu
m
Disc
iplin
ary
polic
ies
Asse
ssm
ent p
olici
es
Adm
issio
ns p
olici
es
Reso
urce
s
Curri
culu
m
Disc
iplin
ary
polic
ies
Asse
ssm
ent p
olici
es
Adm
issio
ns p
olici
es
Reso
urce
s
Curri
culu
m
Disc
iplin
ary
polic
ies
Asse
ssm
ent p
olici
es
Adm
issio
ns p
olici
es
Reso
urce
s
Curri
culu
m
Disc
iplin
ary
polic
ies
Asse
ssm
ent p
olici
es
Adm
issio
ns p
olici
es
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Correlations between the responsibilities for school governance and science performance
Figure II.4.8
Lower science
performance
Higher science performance
Students score lower in science when the school governing board
holds more responsibility for admissions policies
School principal Teachers School governing board
Local or regional education authority
National education authority
Effective governance…58
Focuses on processes, not structures• Number of levels and power at each are not what make or break a good system, but rather the strength of the
alignment across the system, the involvement of actors and the processes underlying governance and reform.
Is flexible and able to adapt to change and unexpected events• Strengthening a system’s ability to learn from feedback is fundamental
Works through building capacity, stakeholder involvement and open dialogue• Involvement of more stakeholders only works when there is a strategic vision and a set of processes to harness
their ideas and input
Requires a whole-of-system approach• Aligning policies, roles and responsibilities to improve efficiency and reduce potential overlap
Harnesses evidence and research to inform policy and reform• A strong knowledge system combines data, research findings and expert practitioner knowledge. The key is
knowing what to use, when, why and how.
Idiosyncratic policies
Alignment of policies
61
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
Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/pisa– All publications– The complete micro-level database
Email: [email protected]: SchleicherOECDWechat: AndreasSchleicher
and remember:Without data, you are just another person with an opinion
Thank you