strong performers and successful reformers in pisa 2012 - policy lessons for norway
DESCRIPTION
What do 15-year-old Norwegians know……and what can they do with what they know?TRANSCRIPT
OECD EMPLOYER BRAND
Playbook
1
Strong performers andsuccessful reformersin PISA 2012Policy lessons for Norway
Andreas SchleicherOslo, 8 January 2014
Germany
France
Finland
Spain
Korea
Norway
US
240 245 250 255 260 265 270 275 280 285 290 295 300
Test score literacy
A changing world – foundation skills
Avera
ge 1
6-2
4 y
ear-o
lds
Korea
Germany
Norway
Avera
ge 5
5-6
5 y
ear-o
lds
Spain
Finland
France
US
UK
Skills in the older generation
4 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
… 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 .
What do 15-year-old Norwegians know……and what can they do with what they know?
5
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)
… 12 countries perform below this line
Average performanceof 15-year-olds in
MathematicsFig I.2.13
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
02468101214161820222426
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
Hong Kong-ChinaChinese Taipei
Macao-China
Liechtenstein
Viet Nam
Latvia
Russian Fed.Lithuania
Croatia
SerbiaRomania
Bulgaria United Arab Emirates
KazakhstanThailand
Malaysia
2012Shanghai-China
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
Strong socio-economic impact on student
performance468101214161820222426
AustraliaAustria
BelgiumCanada
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
Hong Kong-ChinaChinese Taipei
Macao-China
Liechtenstein
Viet Nam
Latvia
Russian Fed.Lithuania
Croatia
SerbiaRomaniaBulgariaUnited Arab Emirates
KazakhstanThailand
Malaysia
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
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech Rep.DenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak Rep.SloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUKUS
2012
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
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
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech Rep.DenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak Rep.SloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUKUS
Be
lgiu
m (
Fl.)
Po
rtu
ga
l
Sp
ain
Ge
rma
ny
Au
stri
a
No
rwa
y
Au
stra
lia
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Ire
lan
d
Fra
nce
Ca
na
da
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Ita
ly
En
gla
nd
Ko
rea
Fin
lan
d
Ice
lan
d
Slo
ve
nia
Isra
el
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
lic
Po
lan
d
Tu
rke
y
Hu
ng
ary
Ch
ile
Slo
va
k R
ep
ub
lic
Est
on
ia
-3 000
-2 000
-1 000
0
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
Contribution of teachers' salary Contribution of instruction timeContribution of teaching time Contribution of estimated class size
US$
Composition of instructional costs
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
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech Rep.DenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak Rep.SloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUKUS
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
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech Rep.DenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak Rep.SloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUKUS
Singapore
Shanghai
Singapore
2003 - 2012 Germany, Turkey and Mexico improved both their mathematics performance and equity levels
The dream of social mobility
In some countries it is close to a reality
14
15
Shang
hai-C
hina
Mac
ao-C
hina
Singa
pore
Chine
se T
aipe
i
Liec
hten
stein
Estoni
a
Polan
d
Finl
and
Portu
gal
Turk
ey Italy
Latvi
a
Austra
lia
Austri
a
Czech
Rep
ublic
Unite
d Kin
gdom
Fran
ce
Icela
nd
Russia
n Fe
d.
Croat
ia
Sweden
Slova
k Rep
ublic
Serbi
aIsr
ael
Roman
ia
Indo
nesia
Kazak
hsta
n
Brazil
Chile
Mon
tene
gro
Argen
tina
Peru
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
%
Percentage of resilient students
More than 10% resilient Between 5%-10% of resilient students Less than 5%
Fig II.2.4
It is not just about poor kids in poor neighbourhoods…
…but about many kids in many neighbourhoods
16
17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60%
Percentage of top performersin mathematics
Tab I.2.1a
Across OECD, 13% of students are top performers (Level 5 or 6). They can develop and work with models for complex situations, and work strategically with advanced thinking and reasoning skillsIn Norway the percentage declined since 2003
18
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
*-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
medium-low level of prob-lem-solving
Low level of problem-solving
Medium-high level of prob-lem-solving
%• Evolution of employment in
occupational groups defined by problem-solving skills
Excellence matters
1919Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers
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
2020Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers
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
2121Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers
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 competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve at high levels
Ambitious universal standards and personalization as the approach to heterogeneity in the student body
Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom
23 Motivation to learn mathematics
Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements:
I enjoy reading about mathematics
I look forward to my mathematics lessons
I do mathematics because I enjoy it
I am interested in the things I learn in mathematics
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Norway Shanghai-China OECD average
%
Fig III.3.9
UKB
24Perceived self-responsibility for failure in mathematics
Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements:
I’m not very good at solving mathematics problems
My teacher did not explain the concepts well this week
This week I made bad guesses on the quiz
Sometimes the course material is too hard
The teacher did not get students interested in the material
Sometimes I am just unlucky
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Norway Shanghai-China OECD average
%
Fig III.3.6
USB
The parent factorStudents whose parents have high educational expectations for them tend
to report more perseverance, greater intrinsic motivation to learn mathematics, and more confidence in their own ability to solve mathematics problems than students of similar background and academic performance,
whose parents hold less ambitious expectations for them.
25
26
Be
lgiu
m (
Fle
mis
h)
Ko
rea
Italy
Ho
ng
Ko
ng
-Ch
ina
Ch
ile
Po
rtu
ga
l
Hu
ng
ary
Cro
atia
Ma
cao
-Ch
ina
Me
xico
Ge
rma
ny
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
Change in the index of intrinsic motivation to learn mathematics that is asso-ciated with parents expecting the child to complete a university degree
Me
an
ind
ex
ch
an
ge
Parents’ high expectations can nurture students’ enjoyment in learning mathematics
Fig III.6.11
27
Po
rtu
ga
l
Italy
Be
lgiu
m (
Fle
mis
h)
Me
xico
Hu
ng
ary
Ch
ile
Ho
ng
Ko
ng
-Ch
ina
Ge
rma
ny
Cro
atia
Ko
rea
Ma
cao
-Ch
ina
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Change in the index of perseverance that is associated with parents expecting the child to complete a university degree
Me
an
ind
ex
ch
an
ge
Parents’ high expectations can fosterperseverance in their child
Fig III.6.11
2828Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers
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 high stakes gateways and instructional systems
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
2929Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers
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 human resource management in schools
Keeping teaching an attractive profession System-wide career development …
3030Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers
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
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
No standardised math policy
Standardised 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 accountability arrangements
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
464
466
468
470
472
474
476
478
School data not public
School data public
Score points
School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's level of posting achievement data publicly
Fig IV.1.16
36
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:
Norway Singapore OECD average
%
Quality assurance and school improvement Fig IV.4.14
3737Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers
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
3939Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers
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)
4040Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers
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
4141Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers Some students learn at high levels
All students need to learn at high levels
Student inclusion
Routine cognitive skills, rote learning
Learning to learn, complex ways of thinking, ways
of workingCurriculum, instruction and assessment
Few years more than secondary
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
Average education systems High performers
Good to excellent health
Being Employed
High levels of trust
Participation in volunteer activities
High levels of political efficacy
High wages1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Average Norway
Likelihood of positive social and economic outcomes among highly literate adults
(scoring at Level 4/5 compared with those scoring at Level 1 or below)
Odds ratio
Thank you !
Find out more about PISA at www.pisa.oecd.org• All national and international publications• The complete micro-level database
Email: [email protected]: SchleicherEDU
and remember:Without data, you are just another person with an opinion