1 1 PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment What students know and can do Andreas Schleicher 7 December 2010 PISA 2009 Evaluating systems to improve education Andreas Schleicher Special advisor to the Secretary-General on Education Policy Head of the Indicators and Analysis Division, EDU Programme for International Student Assessment The yardstick for success is no longer improvement by national standards alone but the best performing education systems
The 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results were released by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) on December 7 in Paris, France. During a live webcast on December 7, Andreas Schleicher of the OECD presented the results of the study including performance results and an analysis of the common elements of high-performing education systems.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1 1 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
PISA 2009 Evaluating systems to improve education
Andreas Schleicher Special advisor to the Secretary-General on Education Policy
Head of the Indicators and Analysis Division, EDU
Programme for International Student Assessment
The yardstick for success is no longer improvement by national standards alone but the best performing education systems
2 2 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
1998 PISA countries in 2000 2001 2003 2006 2009 77% 81% 83% 85% 86% Coverage of world economy 87%
PISA 2009 in brief
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, resources and 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
3 3 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
1998 PISA countries in 2000 2001 2003 2006 2009 77% 81% 83% 85% 86% Coverage of world economy 87%
PISA 2009 in brief
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 don’t 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 .
5 5 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
How the demand for skills has changed
Economy-wide measures of routine and non-routine task input (US)
40
45
50
55
60
65
1960 1970 1980 1990 2002
Routine manual
Nonroutine manual
Routine cognitive
Nonroutine analytic
Nonroutine interactive
(Levy and Murnane)
Mea
n ta
sk inp
ut a
s pe
rcent
iles
of th
e 1
96
0 t
ask
dis
trib
utio
n
The dilemma of schools: The skills that are easiest to teach and test are also the ones that are easiest to digitise, automate and outsource
11 11 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
What 15-year-olds can do
17 17 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
Average performance of 15-year-olds in reading – extrapolate and apply
High reading performance
Low reading performance
… 17 countries perform below this line
Shanghai-China
Korea Finland Hong Kong-China
Singapore Canada
New Zealand Japan
Australia
Netherlands Belgium Norway , Estonia Switzerland Poland, Iceland United States Liechtenstein Sweden Germany,
Ireland France, Chinese Taipei Denmark United Kingdom Hungary, Portugal
Macao-China Italy Latvia
Slovenia Greece Spain
Czech Republic Slovak Republic, Croatia Israel Luxembourg,
Austria Lithuania Turkey
Dubai (UAE) Russian Federation
Chile
Serbia 440.000
460.000
480.000
500.000
520.000
540.000
560.000
1525354555
Northeast
Midwest
West
South
28 28 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
Average performance of 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply
Low average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
High average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
Low average performance
High social equity
High average performance
High social equity
Strong socio-economic impact on
student performance
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
High reading performance
Low reading performance
29 29 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik
Low average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
High average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
Low average performance
High social equity
High average performance
High social equity
Strong socio-economic impact on
student performance
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
High reading performance
Low reading performance
Australia Belgium
Canada
Chile Czech Rep
Denmark Finland
Germany
Greece
Hungary Iceland
Ireland Israel
Italy
Japan Korea Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands New Zealand
Norway
Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland
UK US
2009
1525354555
2009
30 30 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik
Low average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
High average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
Low average performance
High social equity
High average performance
High social equity
Strong socio-economic impact on
student performance
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
High reading performance
Low reading performance
Australia Belgium
Canada
Chile Czech Rep
Denmark Finland
Germany
Greece
Hungary Iceland
Ireland Israel
Italy
Japan Korea Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands New Zealand
Norway
Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland
UK US
2009
31 31 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik
Low average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
High average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
Low average performance
High social equity
High average performance
High social equity
Strong socio-economic impact on
student performance
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
High reading performance
Low reading performance
Australia Belgium
Canada
Chile Czech Rep
Denmark Finland
Germany
Greece
Hungary Iceland
Ireland Israel
Italy
Japan Korea Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands New Zealand
Norway
Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland
UK US
2000
32 32 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik
Low average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
High average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
Low average performance
High social equity
High average performance
High social equity
Strong socio-economic impact on
student performance
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
High reading performance
Low reading performance
Australia Belgium
Canada
Chile Czech Rep
Denmark Finland
Germany
Greece
Hungary Iceland
Ireland Israel
Italy
Japan Korea Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands New Zealand
Norway
Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland
UK US
2000
55 55 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
Quality differences between schools
58 58 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Arg
enti
na
Trin
idad
an
d T
ob
ago
Ital
yQ
atar
Turk
eyB
ulg
aria
Isra
elP
anam
aG
erm
any
Per
uH
un
gary
Du
bai
(U
AE)
Au
stri
aB
elgi
um
Luxe
mb
ou
rgN
eth
erla
nd
sJa
pan
Ch
ileU
rugu
ayG
reec
eB
razi
lC
zech
Rep
ub
licSl
ove
nia
Ro
man
iaC
roat
iaSe
rbia
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Mex
ico
Sin
gap
ore
Jord
anK
yrgy
zsta
nC
olo
mb
iaM
on
ten
egro
Ho
ng
Ko
ng-
Ch
ina
Alb
ania
Tun
isia
Slo
vak
Rep
ub
licLi
ech
ten
stei
nK
azak
hst
anM
acao
-Ch
ina
Irel
and
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
mC
hin
ese
Taip
eiK
ore
aSw
itze
rlan
dA
ust
ralia
New
Zea
lan
dP
ort
uga
lSh
angh
ai-C
hin
aA
zerb
aija
nR
uss
ian
Fed
erat
ion
Can
ada
Swed
enLi
thu
ania
Ind
on
esia
Spai
nP
ola
nd
Esto
nia
Latv
iaIc
elan
dTh
aila
nd
Den
mar
kN
orw
ayFi
nla
nd
Variability in student performance between and within schools
Variance
Performance variation of students within schools
Performance differences between schools
59 59 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
Does a more unequal society necessarily imply a more inequitable education system ?
60 60 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
Iceland
Japan
Argentina
Thailand
Peru
Russian Federation Italy
Norway
Lithuania
Colombia
Macao-China
Netherlands
Bulgaria
Germany
Switzerland
Belgium
United Kingdom Romania
Denmark Singapore
Sweden
Albania Latvia
Brazil Croatia
Israel
Kazakhstan
Panama
Montenegro
Finland
Luxembourg
Austria
Turkey
Kyrgyzstan
Uruguay
Canada
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Mexico
Greece
Hungary
Korea
Czech Republic Slovak Republic
Hong Kong-China
Tunisia
Estonia
Jordan
Qatar
Ireland
Chile
United States
Azerbaijan
France New Zealand
Indonesia
Serbia
Slovenia
Trinidad and Tobago
Australia
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0.20.250.30.350.40.450.50.550.6OECD a
vera
ge
OECD average
Perc
ent
age
of
explained v
arianc
e in
stud
ent
perf
ormanc
e
Income inequality (Gini-coefficient)
Low income equality
High educational equity
Low income equality Low educational equity
High income equality High educational equity
High income equality Low educational equity
61 61 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
How do social background and learning outcomes interact?
73 73 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
350
643
-2 -1 0 1 2
Tho
usa
nd
s
School performance and socio-economic background United States
Stu
dent
perf
orm
ance
Advantage PISA Index of socio-economic background Disadvantage
School performance and schools’ socio-economic background
Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schools
Private school
Public school in rural area
Public school in urban area
700
80 80 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80S
ha
ngh
ai-
Ch
ina
Ho
ng
Kon
g-C
hin
aK
ore
aM
aca
o-C
hin
aS
inga
po
reF
inla
nd
Ja
pa
nT
urk
ey
Cana
da
Port
ug
al
Ch
inese
Taip
ei
Pola
nd
New
Ze
ala
nd
Spa
inL
iech
tenste
inE
sto
nia
Neth
erla
nds
Italy
Sw
itze
rla
nd
Latv
iaA
ustr
alia
OE
CD
ave
rag
eF
ran
ce
Belg
ium
Irela
nd
Icela
nd
Me
xic
oU
nited
Sta
tes
Gre
ece
Thaila
nd
Cro
atia
Tunis
iaN
orw
ay
Hung
ary
Sw
ede
nS
loven
iaIn
do
ne
sia
Denm
ark
Chile
Un
ited
Kin
gd
om
Isra
el
Colo
mb
iaG
erm
any
Bra
zil
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
licS
lovak R
epu
blic
Luxe
mb
ou
rgL
ithu
ania
Austr
iaR
ussia
n F
ede
ratio
nT
rinid
ad a
nd
Tob
ago
Uru
gua
yS
erb
iaJo
rdan
Alb
an
iaA
rgen
tin
aD
uba
i (U
AE
)R
om
ania
Bulg
aria
Pan
am
aM
on
ten
eg
roK
aza
kh
sta
nP
eru
Azerb
aija
nQ
ata
rK
yrg
yzsta
n
Percentage of resilient students among disadvantaged students %
More than 30% resilient students among
disadvantaged students
Between 15%-30% of resilient students among
disadvantaged students
Less than 15% 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)
95 95 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
Does it all matter?
96 96 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
Level 2Level 3
Level 4Level 5
02468
101214161820
Age 19
Age 21
Age 21
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 ratio higher education entry
10
2
102 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
What does it all mean?
10
3
103 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
Some lessons from successful
systems
10
5
105 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
Lessons from PISA on successful
education systems
A commitment to education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve Universal educational standards and
personalisation 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
10
7
107 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik
Low average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
High average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
Low average performance
High social equity
High average performance
High social equity
Strong socio-economic impact on
student performance
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
High reading performance
Low reading performance
2009
Early selection and institutional differentiation
High degree of stratification
Low degree of stratification
10
8
108 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
Lessons from PISA on successful
education systems
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
10
9
109 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
Schools with less autonomy
Schools with more autonomy
480
490
500
Systems with
standards-based
exams
Systems without
standards-based
exams
483
School autonomy in resource allocation
System’s accountability arrangements
PISA score in reading
School autonomy, standardised exams and student performance
11
0
110 P
ISA
O
EC
D P
rogra
mm
e for
Inte
rnational S
tudent A
ssessm
ent
What
stu
dents
know
and c
an d
o
An
dre
as S
ch
leic
her
7 D
ece
mb
er
20
10
Lessons from PISA on successful
education systems
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