1 1 Seeing US education through the prism of international comparisons Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Alliance for excellent education, Washington, 4 October 2007 Prof. Andreas Schleicher Head, Indicators and Analysis Division OECD Directorate for Education
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
1111
Seeing US education through the prism of international
comparisons
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Alliance for excellent education, Washington, 4 October 2007Prof. Andreas Schleicher
Head, Indicators and Analysis DivisionOECD Directorate for Education
2222 Agenda
11.. Why we need to care A world of change in the demand for skills
and the global talent pool
2.2. Where we are – and where we can be Quality, equity and efficiency in education in
the best performing countries
3.3. How we can get there Some policy levers that emerge from
international comparisons
4444
%
1. Excluding ISCED 3C short programmes 2. Year of reference 20043. Including some ISCED 3C short programmes 3. Year of reference 2003.
Growth in baseline qualificationsA world of change
Approximated by percentage of persons with high school or equivalent qualfications in the age groups 55-64, 45-55, 45-44 und 25-34 years
13
1
1
27
6666 High school completion ratesPercentage of graduates to the population at the typical age of graduation
%
7777 College-level graduation ratesPercentage of tertiary type A graduates to the population at the typical age of graduation
%
A3.1
15
2
Decline of the relative position of the US from 1995 to 2005
Rising college-degrees have not led to an “inflation” of the labour-market value of qualifications.
In all but three of the 20 countries with available data, the earnings benefit increased between 1997 and 2003, in Germany, Italy and Hungary by between 20% and 40%
Growing benefits in many of the countries with the steepest attainment growth .
12121212 Moving targetsFuture supply of high school graduates
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
China EU India US
2003
2010
2015
13131313Future supply of high school graduates
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
China EU I ndia US
2003
2010
2015
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
China EU India US
2003
2010
2015
Future supply of college graduates
14141414 Percentage of science graduates
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Korea J apan EU United States
15151515
Getting the fundamentals right.
What the top-performers achieve in terms of quality, equity and
efficiency in schooling outcomes
17171717Coverage of world economy 77%81%83%85%86%87%
PISA - OECD’s global assessment of what students know and can do with their
knowledge
18181818Deciding what to assess...
looking back at what students were expected to have learned
…or…
looking ahead to how well they can extrapolate from what they have
learned and apply their knowledge and skills in novel settings.
For PISA, the OECD countries chose the latter.
19191919 Average performanceof 15-year-olds in mathematics – extrapolate and apply
High mathematics performance
Low mathematics performanceGreece
Russian Federation
Liechtenstein
Korea
Hong Kong- China
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Macao- China Switzerland
New Zealand
Belgium
J apan
Australia
I celandCzech Republic
SwedenFranceDenmark
I reland GermanyAustria
Slovak Republic
LuxembourgPoland Hungary
Norway
SpainUnited StatesLatvia
PortugalI taly
440
460
480
500
520
540
61626
20202020
400
450
500
550
600
Hong
Kong
-China
Nethe
rland
s
Belgi
um
Switz
erland
Cana
da
New Z
ealan
d
Mac
ao-C
hina
Australi
a
Germ
any
Fran
ce
Denmar
k
Swed
en
Austria
Luxe
mbour
g
Norwa
y
United
Sta
tes
Russian Fe
dera
tion
Native students First- generation students Second- generation students
OECD average = 500
Math performance of immigrant students
Native students
Second-generation students
First-generation students
Where immigrant students succeed – A comparative review of performance and engagement in PISA 2003: Figure 2.2a.
21212121Strengths and weaknesses in
mathThe real world The mathematical World
A real situation
A model of reality A mathematical model
Mathematical results
Real results
Understanding, structuring and simplifying the situation
Making the problem amenable to mathematical
treatment
Interpreting the mathematical results
Using relevant mathematical tools to solve the problemValidating
the results
22222222 How the demand for skills has changedEconomy-wide measures of routine and non-routine task input
(US)
(Levy and Murnane)
Mean t
ask
inp
ut
as
perc
enti
les
of
th
e 1
960 t
ask
dis
trib
uti
on
24242424 Average performanceof 15-year-olds in mathematics
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 mathematics performance
Low mathematics performanceGreece
Russian Federation
Liechtenstein
Korea
Hong Kong- China
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Macao- China Switzerland
New Zealand
Belgium
J apan
Australia
I celandCzech Republic
SwedenFranceDenmark
I reland GermanyAustria
Slovak Republic
LuxembourgPoland Hungary
Norway
SpainUnited StatesLatvia
PortugalI taly
440
460
480
500
520
540
61626
25252525 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 mathematics performance
Low mathematics performanceGreece
Russian Federation
Liechtenstein
Korea
Hong Kong- China
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Switzerland
New Zealand
Belgium
J apan
Australia
I celandCzech Republic
SwedenFrance
Denmark
I relandGermanyAustria
Slovak Republic
LuxembourgPolandHungary
Norway
SpainUnited States Latvia
Portugal I taly
440
460
480
500
520
540
61626
Watch out for new data on this on December 4 !
29292929
How can we get there?
Levers for policy that emerge from OECD’s international comparisons
standardsDefining what students should be able to do, not prescribing what teachers should teach
Access to best practice and quality
professional development
32323232 Challenge and support
Weak support
Strong support
Lowchallenge
Highchallenge
Strong performance
Systemic improvement
Poor performance
Improvements idiosyncratic
Conflict
Demoralisation
Poor performance
Stagnation
33333333High ambitions
Access to best practice and quality
professional development
Intelligent accountability
and intervention in inverse proportion
to success
Devolved responsibility,
the school as the centre of action
34343434
YesNo
No
Yes
36.4
32.5
0.00%0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Central
standards
Local autonomy
Woessmann, 2005
PISA math performance
School autonomy and central exams
Pooled international data
36363636Public and private schools
0 20 40 60 80 100
Luxembourg
J apan
I taly
Switzerland
Finland
Denmark
Czech Republic
Sweden
Hungary
Austria
Portugal
United States
Netherlands
Slovak Republic
Korea
I reland
Spain
Canada
Mexico
New Zealand
Germany
OECD
United Kingdom
Government schools
Government dependent private
Government independent private
-15
0
-10
0
-50
0 50 100
Observed perf ormance diff erence
Diff erence af ter accounting f or socio-economic background of students and schools
Private schools perform better
Public schools perform better
39393939Strong ambitions
Access to best practice and quality
professional development
Accountability
Devolvedresponsibility,
the school as the centre of action
Integrated educational
opportunities
From prescribed forms of teaching and assessment
towards personalised
learning
40404040 Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik
Strong socio-economic impact
on student performance
Socially equitable distribution of
learning opportunities
High mathematics performance
Low mathematics performance
Early selection and institutional differentiation
High degree of stratification
Low degree of stratification Greece
Russian Federation
Liechtenstein
Korea
Hong Kong- China
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Switzerland
New Zealand
Belgium
J apan
Australia
I celandCzech Republic
SwedenFrance
Denmark
I relandGermanyAustria
Slovak Republic
LuxembourgPolandHungary
Norway
SpainUnited States Latvia
Portugal I taly
440
460
480
500
520
540
61626
41414141High ambitions
Access to best practice and quality
professional development
Accountabilityand intervention in inverse proportion
to success
Personalizedlearning
Devolved responsibility,
the school as the centre of action
Integrated educational opportunities
42424242Creating a knowledge-rich profession in which schools and
teachers have the authority to act, the necessary knowledge to do so wisely, and access to effective support
systems
The tradition of education systems has been “knowledge poor”
(think of the assembly line in Detroit)
The best performing education systems are “knowledge rich”
(think of Silicon Valley)
National prescription
Professional judgement
Informed professional judgement, the teacher
as a “knowledge worker”
Informed prescription
Uninformed professional judgement, teachers working in isolation
Uninformed prescription,
teachers implement curricula
43434343 Paradigm shifts
Prescription Informed profession
Uniformity Embracing diversity
Demarcation Collaboration
Provision Outcomes
Bureaucratic – look up Devolved – look outwards
Talk equity Deliver equity
Hit & miss Universal high standards
Received wisdom Data and best practice
The old bureaucratic education system
The modern enabling education system
45454545 Why care? Progress
Concerns about skill barriers to economic growth, productivity growth and rates of technological innovation
– One additional year of education equals to between 3 and 6% of GDP
– Rising tertiary level qualifications seem generally not to have led to an “inflation” of the labour-market value of qualifications (in all but three of the 20 countries with available data, the earnings benefit increased between 1997 and 2003, in Germany, Italy and Hungary by between 20% and 40%)
Fairness Concerns about the role of skills in creating
social inequity in economic outcomes– Both average and distribution of skill matter
to long-term growth (high percentages of low skill impede growth)
Value for money Concerns about the demand for, and efficiency
and effectiveness of, investments in public goods
46464646
Thank you !Thank you !
www.oecd.org; www.pisa.oecd.org– All national and international publications– The complete micro-level database