This document provides an overview and analysis of PISA 2012 test results for Sweden and other countries. Some key points:
- 15-year-old Swedish students' performance declined compared to 40 other countries that improved in at least one subject.
- Shanghai-China, Singapore, Hong Kong-China, Chinese Taipei, Korea, and Japan had the highest student performance.
- Socioeconomic factors strongly influence student performance across countries. High-performing education systems promote equitable access to learning opportunities regardless of student background.
1. Strong performers and
successful reformers
in PISA 2012
OECD EMPLOYER
Lessons for Sweden
BRAND
Playbook
Andreas Schleicher
Stockholm, 18 February 2014
1
2. 3
What do 15-year-old Swedes know…
…and what can they do with what they know?
Of the 65 countries in PISA 40 improved
at least in one of the three subjects – Sweden saw a decline
3. High student performance
2012
Shanghai-China
Singapore
Hong Kong-China
Chinese Taipei
Korea
Macao-China
Japan
Switzerland
Liechtenstein
Estonia
Netherlands
Poland
Canada
Belgium
Finland
Viet Nam
Germany
Strong socio-economic
Austria
Australia
impact on student New Zealand Denmark
Slovenia Ireland
Iceland
Czech Rep.
performance 22France
26
24
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
UK
Latvia
Luxembourg
Norway
Portugal
Italy
Russian Fed.
US
Spain
Lithuania
Sweden
Slovak Rep.
Hungary
Croatia
Israel
Romania
Bulgaria
Greece
Turkey
Serbia
United Arab Emirates
Kazakhstan
Thailand
Chile
Malaysia
Low student performance
Mexico
Socially equitable
distribution of learning
opportunities
4
2
0
4. Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel socio-economic
Strong
Italy
impact on student
Japan
performance
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Slovak Rep.
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
2012
Korea
Japan
Switzerland
Netherlands
Poland
Belgium
Germany
Estonia
Canada
Finland
Socially equitable
Austria
Australia
New Zealand Denmark
Ireland
Slovenia
distribution of learning
Iceland
Czech Rep.
opportunities
France
UK
Luxembourg
Norway
Portugal
Italy
US
Spain
Sweden
Hungary
Israel
Greece
Turkey
Chile
Mexico
6. Contribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher
compensation costs, per student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004)
Salary as % of GDP/capita
Instruction time
1/teaching time
1/class size
Difference with OECD average
15
Percentage points
10
5
0
-5
Slovak Republic
Poland
United States
Sweden
Finland
Mexico
Ireland
Iceland
Norway
Hungary
Czech Republic
Austria
Italy
Denmark
Netherlands
France
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Australia
Japan
Greece
Germany
Luxembourg
Korea
Belgium
Switzerland
Spain
Portugal
-10
7. EU/U
S
Slovak Republic
Iceland
Czech Republic
Hungary
Italy
Austria
Estonia
United States
Norway
Chile
Poland
Scotland
France
Slovenia
Sweden
Ireland
Belgium (Fr.)
Netherlands
EU21 average
OECD average
Belgium (Fl.)
Denmark
Australia
England
Israel
Finland
Germany
Canada
New Zealand
Portugal
Luxembourg
Korea
Spain
Ratio of teachers' salary to earnings for full-time, full-year
workers with tertiary education aged 25-64 (2011 or latest
available year)
Ratio
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
10. 14
Math teaching ≠ math teaching
PISA = reason mathematically and understand, formulate, employ
and interpret mathematical concepts, facts and procedures
11. 1.50
1.00
Viet Nam
Macao-China
Shanghai-China
Turkey
Uruguay
Greece
Hong Kong-China
Chinese Taipei
Portugal
Brazil
Serbia
Bulgaria
Singapore
Netherlands
Japan
Argentina
Costa Rica
Lithuania
Tunisia
New Zealand
Czech Republic
Israel
Korea
Latvia
Qatar
Italy
United States
Estonia
Ireland
Australia
Mexico
United Arab Emirates
Norway
Malaysia
Kazakhstan
United Kingdom
Romania
OECD average
Albania
Colombia
Indonesia
Sweden
Belgium
Peru
Thailand
Denmark
Russian Federation
Canada
Slovak Republic
Hungary
Germany
Croatia
Luxembourg
Montenegro
Chile
Poland
Finland
Austria
Slovenia
France
Switzerland
Jordan
Liechtenstein
Spain
Iceland
Index of exposure to word problems
15
Students' exposure to word problems
Fig I.3.1a
2.50
2.00
Formal math situated in a word
problem, where it is obvious to
students what mathematical
knowledge and skills are needed
0.50
0.00
12. Sweden
Iceland
Tunisia
Argentina
Switzerland
Brazil
Luxembourg
Ireland
Netherlands
New Zealand
Costa Rica
Austria
Liechtenstein
Malaysia
Indonesia
Denmark
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Lithuania
Germany
Australia
Chile
OECD average
Slovak Republic
Thailand
Qatar
Finland
Portugal
Colombia
Mexico
Peru
Czech Republic
Israel
Italy
Belgium
Hong Kong-China
Poland
France
Spain
Montenegro
Greece
Turkey
Slovenia
Viet Nam
Hungary
Bulgaria
Kazakhstan
Chinese Taipei
Canada
United States
Estonia
Romania
Latvia
Serbia
Japan
Korea
Croatia
Albania
Russian Federation
United Arab Emirates
Jordan
Macao-China
Singapore
Shanghai-China
Iceland
Index of exposure to formal mathematics
16
Students' exposure to conceptual understanding
Fig I.3.1b
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
13. Czech Republic
Macao-China
Shanghai-China
Viet Nam
Uruguay
Finland
Costa Rica
Sweden
Japan
Chinese Taipei
Italy
Israel
Norway
Estonia
Hong Kong-China
Austria
Serbia
Korea
Croatia
Latvia
Slovak Republic
Greece
United Kingdom
Ireland
Luxembourg
Belgium
Montenegro
Argentina
Slovenia
Bulgaria
OECD average
Lithuania
Hungary
Switzerland
New Zealand
Germany
Turkey
Denmark
Russian Federation
Singapore
Iceland
United States
Spain
Qatar
Liechtenstein
Poland
Australia
France
Brazil
Malaysia
Peru
Canada
Chile
United Arab Emirates
Romania
Tunisia
Netherlands
Portugal
Colombia
Albania
Kazakhstan
Jordan
Mexico
Indonesia
Thailand
Index of exposure to applied mathematics
17
Students' exposure to applied mathematics
Fig I.3.1c
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
14. Relationship between mathematics performance
and students' exposure to applied mathematics
18
Fig I.3.2
Mean score in mathematics
510
490
470
450
430
0.0
never
0.5
1.0
rarely
1.5
2.0
sometimes
Index of exposure to applied mathematics
2.5
3.0
frequently
15. 19
The dream of social mobility
In some countries it is close to a reality
16. 10
Shanghai-China
Hong Kong-China
Macao-China
Viet Nam
Singapore
Korea
Chinese Taipei
Japan
Liechtenstein
Switzerland
Estonia
Netherlands
Poland
Canada
Finland
Belgium
Portugal
Germany
Turkey
OECD average
Italy
Spain
Latvia
Ireland
Australia
Thailand
Austria
Luxembourg
Czech Republic
Slovenia
United Kingdom
Lithuania
France
Norway
Iceland
New Zealand
Russian Fed.
United States
Croatia
Denmark
Sweden
Hungary
Slovak Republic
Mexico
Serbia
Greece
Israel
Tunisia
Romania
Malaysia
Indonesia
Bulgaria
Kazakhstan
Uruguay
Brazil
Costa Rica
Chile
Colombia
Montenegro
U.A.E.
Argentina
Jordan
Peru
Qatar
20
Percentage of resilient students
% 40
30
More than 40
% resilient
Fig II.2.4
80
70
60
50
Socio-economically disadvantaged students not
only score lower in mathematics, they also report
lower levels of engagement, drive, motivation and
self-beliefs. Resilient students break this link and
share many characteristics of advantaged highachievers.
20
Between 20%-40% of resilient students
Less than 20%
0
17. 21
The share of immigrant students in OECD countries
increased from 9% in 2003 to 12% in 2012…
…while the performance disadvantage of immigrant students
shrank by 11 score points during the same period (after
accounting for socio-economic factors)
18. Finland
Mexico
France
Change between 2003 and 2012 in immigrant students' mathematics
performance – before accounting for students’ socio-economic status
Denmark
Switzerland -
Belgium -
Austria
Sweden
Netherlands
Brazil
Germany -
Spain
Iceland
Greece
80
Liechtenstein
2012
Italy +
Norway
Portugal
Luxembourg
OECD average 2003 -
Czech Republic
Russian Federation
Thailand
United States
United Kingdom
Hong Kong-China
Latvia
Canada
Ireland
New Zealand -
Turkey
-20
Slovak Republic -
Macao-China
Australia -
Hungary -
Score point difference (without-with immig.)
23
Fig II.3.5
2003
100
Students without an immigrant
background perform better
60
40
20
0
Students with an immigrant
background perform better
-40
19. 25
It is not just about poor kids
in poor neighbourhoods…
…but about many kids in many neighbourhoods
20. 60
40
20
20
80
Albania
Finland
Iceland
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Estonia
Ireland
Spain
Canada
Poland
Latvia
Kazakhstan
United States
Mexico
Colombia
Costa Rica
Russian Fed.
Malaysia
Jordan
New Zealand
Lithuania
Greece
Montenegro
United Kingdom
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Portugal
Indonesia
Chile
Thailand
Romania
Tunisia
Switzerland
Peru
Uruguay
Croatia
U.A.E.
Macao-China
Serbia
Viet Nam
Korea
ong Kong-China
Singapore
Austria
Italy
Luxembourg
Czech Republic
Japan
Bulgaria
Israel
Qatar
Shanghai-China
Germany
Slovenia
Slovak Republic
Turkey
Belgium
Hungary
Liechtenstein
Netherlands
Chinese Taipei
Variation in student performance as % of OECD average variation
26
Variability in student mathematics performance
between and within schools
Fig II.2.7
100
80
Performance differences
Between-school differences are still small in
between schools
Sweden, but they increased from 831 index
OECD average
points in 2003 to 1042 index points in 2012
58% of between-school differences are explained
by social factors
0
Performance variation of
students within schools
40
60
OECD average
100
21. %
30
Hong Kong-China
Korea +
Liechtenstein
Macao-China +
Japan
Switzerland
Belgium Netherlands Germany
Poland +
Canada Finland New Zealand Australia Austria
OECD average 2003 France
Czech Republic Luxembourg
Iceland Slovak Republic
Ireland
Portugal +
Denmark Italy +
Norway Hungary
United States
Sweden Spain
Latvia
Russian Federation
Turkey
Greece
Thailand
Uruguay Tunisia
Brazil
Mexico
Indonesia
28
Percentage of top performers in mathematics
in 2003 and 2012
2012
Fig I.2.23
2003
40
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 skills
20
10
0
22. Excellence matters
30
%
• Evolution of employment in
occupational groups defined by
20
problem-solving skills
25
medium-low level
of problem-solving
15
10
5
0
Low level of
problem-solving
-5
-10
-15
-20
Medium-high level
of problem-solving
23. High impact on outcomes
31
31
Quick wins
Lessons from high performers
Must haves
Catching up with the top-performers
Low feasibility
High feasibility
Money pits
Low hanging fruits
Low impact on outcomes
24. High impact on outcomes
32
32
Quick wins
Must haves
Lessons from high performers
Commitment to universal achievement
Capacity
at point of delivery
Resources
where they yield most
Gateways, instructional
systems
Coherence
A learning system
Low feasibility
High feasibility
Incentive structures and
accountability
Money pits
Low hanging fruits
Low impact on outcomes
25. High impact on outcomes
33
33
Lessons from high performers
Quick
Must to education and the belief that wins
A commitmenthaves
Commitment to universal therefore
competencies can be learned andachievementall
children can achieve
Capacity
personalization as
at Universal educational standards andResources
point of delivery
the approach to heterogeneitywhere they yield most
in the student body…
… as opposed to a belief that students have different
Gateways, instructional
destinations to be met with different expectations, and
systems
selection/stratification as the approach to
Coherence
heterogeneity
A learning system
Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring
Low feasibility
High feasibility
student success and to whom
Incentive structures and
accountability
Money pits
Low hanging fruits
Low impact on outcomes
26. 34
Countries where students have stronger beliefs
in their abilities perform better in mathematics
Fig III.4.5
OECD average
650
Mean mathematics performance
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
-0.60
Shanghai-China
Singapore
Hong Kong-China
Korea
R² =
Chinese Taipei
Macao-China
Japan
Switzerland
Netherlands Estonia Canada
Liechtenstein
Finland
Germany
Poland
Belgium
Viet Nam
Slovenia
Denmark
New Zealand
Latvia
Sweden
Portugal
Italy
Austria
Australia
Russian Fed.
Hungary
Luxembourg Spain
Croatia
Slovak Republic
Greece
Norway
Turkey Israel
Sweden
Serbia
Czech Republic
Lithuania
U.A.E.
Iceland
Romania
United Kingdom
Malaysia
Thailand
United States
Ireland
Bulgaria Kazakhstan
Chile
Montenegro
France
Costa Rica
Mexico
Uruguay
Albania
Brazil
Argentina
Tunisia
Colombia
Qatar
Jordan
Indonesia
Peru
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
Mean index of mathematics self-efficacy
0.80
0.36
1.00
1.20
27. 35
Motivation to learn mathematics
Fig III.3.9
Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements:
Sweden
Shanghai-China
OECD average
I am interested in the things I learn
in mathematics
I do mathematics because I enjoy it
I look forward to my mathematics
lessons
I enjoy reading about mathematics
0
B
UK
10
20
30
40
%
50
60
70
28. 36
Perceived self-responsibility for failure
in mathematics
Fig III.3.6
Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements:
Sweden
Shanghai-China
OECD average
Sometimes I am just unlucky
The teacher did not get students interested in
the material
Sometimes the course material is too hard
This week I made bad guesses on the quiz
My teacher did not explain the concepts well
this week
I’m not very good at solving mathematics
problems
0
B
US
20
40
60
%
80
100
29. 37
The parent factor
Students 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.
30. High impact on outcomes
41
41
Quick wins
Must haves
Lessons from high performers
Commitment to universal achievement
Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the
Capacity
system and aligned with high stakes gateways and
Resources
at point of delivery
where
instructional systemsthey yield most
Coherence
Low feasibility
Well established delivery chain through which
Gateways, instructional
curricular goals translate into instructional systems,
systems
instructional practices and student learning (intended,
implemented andlearning system
A achieved)
High level of metacognitive content of instruction …
High feasibility
Incentive structures and
accountability
Money pits
Low hanging fruits
Low impact on outcomes
31. B
Netherlands
Croatia
ong Kong-China
Japan
Thailand
Serbia
Viet Nam
Hungary
Singapore
Bulgaria
Liechtenstein
Macao-China
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Austria
U.A.E.
Korea
Indonesia
Italy
Germany
Albania
Montenegro
New Zealand
Czech Republic
Israel
Malaysia
Slovak Republic
Shanghai-China
Costa Rica
Mexico
Tunisia
Qatar
Chinese Taipei
Kazakhstan
Australia
OECD average
Turkey
Colombia
Canada
Chile
Estonia
Portugal
Jordan
United States
Romania
France
Peru
Slovenia
Latvia
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Belgium
Ireland
Russian Fed.
Iceland
Brazil
Lithuania
Poland
Argentina
Denmark
Sweden
Greece
Norway
Spain
Finland
Most schools look at students’ past academic performance when
considering admission
Fig IV.1.6
Students in schools whose principals reported that "students' records of academic
performance" or "recommendations of feeder schools" is always considered for admission
100
90
80
70
% 60
50
40
30
20
10
0
32. 43
High impact on outcomes
43
Capacity at
Lessons from high performers
the point of delivery
Quick wins
Must haves
Attracting, developing and retaining high quality
Commitment a universal achievement
teachers and school leaders andto work organisation in
which they can use their potential
Capacity
Instructional leadership and human resource
Resources
at point of delivery
management in schools
where they yield most
Keeping teaching an attractive profession
Gateways, instructional
System-wide career development …
systems
Coherence
A learning system
Low feasibility
High feasibility
Incentive structures and
accountability
Money pits
Low hanging fruits
Low impact on outcomes
34. High impact on outcomes
45
45
Lessons from high performers
Quick wins
Must haves
Incentives, accountability, knowledge management
Commitment to universal achievement
Aligned incentive structures
For students
Capacity
Resources
How gateways
at point of delivery affect the strength, direction, clarity and nature of the
incentives operating on students at each stage of their education
where they yield most
Degree to which students have incentives to take tough courses and study hard
Gateways,
Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing well instructional
For teachers
Coherenceinnovations in pedagogy and/or organisation
Make
A learning system
Low feasibility
Improve their own performance
and the performance of their colleagues
Pursue professional development opportunities
that lead to stronger pedagogical practices
systems
High feasibility
Incentive structures and
A balance between vertical and lateral accountability
accountability
Effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread
innovation – communication within the system and with
stakeholders around it
Money pits
Low hanging
A capable centre with authority and legitimacy to act fruits
Low impact on outcomes
35. Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with
less autonomy in systems with standardised math policies
Fig IV.1.16
School autonomy for curriculum and assessment
x system's extent of implementing a standardised math policy (e.g. curriculum and
instructional materials)
Score points
485
480
475
470
465
460
Standardised math
policy
455
No standardised
math policy
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
36. Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with
less autonomy in systems with more collaboration
School autonomy for resource allocation x System's level of teachers
participating in school management
Across all participating countries and economies
Score points
485
480
475
470
465
460
Teachers participate in
management
455
Teachers don't participate
in management
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
Fig IV.1.17
37. Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with
less autonomy in systems with more accountability arrangements
Fig IV.1.16
School autonomy for curriculum and assessment
x system's level of posting achievement data publicly
Score points
478
476
474
472
470
468
466
School data public
464
School data not public
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
38. %
0
Finland
Uruguay
Greece +
Switzerland +
Ireland +
Belgium +
Sweden +
Japan +
Germany +
Norway +
Italy +
Hungary +
Slovak Republic
Tunisia
Denmark +
OECD average 2003…
Spain
Australia +
Luxembourg +
Liechtenstein +
Netherlands +
Latvia Korea +
New Zealand +
Iceland +
Brazil +
United States
Macao-China +
Austria +
Indonesia
Turkey +
Czech Republic +
Mexico
Hong Kong-China +
Thailand +
Portugal +
Russian Federation +
Poland
Change between 2003 and 2012 in using student
assessment data to monitor teachers
2012
Fig IV.4.19
Percentage of students in schools that use assessment data to monitor teachers:
2003
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
39. 51
Quality assurance and school improvement
Fig IV.4.14
Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that their schools have the
following for quality assurance and improvement:
Sweden
Singapore
OECD average
Implementation of a standardised policy for
mathematics
Regular consultation with one or more experts over a
period of at least six months with the aim of improving…
Teacher mentoring
Written feedback from students (e.g. regarding
lessons, teachers or resources)
External evaluation
Internal evaluation/self-evaluation
Systematic recording of data, including teacher and
student attendance and graduation rates, test results…
Written specification of student-performance standards
Written specification of the school's curriculum and
educational goals
0
20
40
%
60
80
100
40. High impact on outcomes
52
52
Quick wins
Lessons from high performers
Must haves
Commitment to universal achievement
Investing resources where they can
make most
of
Capacity a difference
Resources
Alignment of resources with key challenges (e.g.
at point of delivery
where they teachers
attracting the most talentedyield mostto the most
challenging classrooms)
Gateways, instructional
Effective spending choices that prioritise high quality
systems
teachers over smaller classes
Coherence
A learning system
Low feasibility
High feasibility
Incentive structures and
accountability
Money pits
Low hanging fruits
Low impact on outcomes
41. Money makes a difference – but only up to a point
650
Cumulative expenditure per student less than USD 50 000
Shanghai-China
Mathematics performance (score points)
Fig IV.1.8
Cumulative expenditure per student USD 50 000 or more
600
Singapore
Korea
550
Japan
Switzerland
Netherlands
PolandCanada
Finland
Viet Nam
Estonia
Belgium
Germany
Czech Republic
Australia Austria
New Zealand
Slovenia Ireland
Denmark
Latvia
France
UK
Norway
Portugal
Iceland
Lithuania
Slovak Republic
Croatia
Italy Sweden United States
Israel
Hungary
Spain
Turkey
500
R² = 0.01
Luxembourg
450
Bulgaria
Thailand
Chile
Mexico
Montenegro
Uruguay
Malaysia
400
Tunisia Brazil
Jordan
Colombia
Peru
350
R² = 0.37
300
0
20 000
40 000
60 000
80 000
100 000
120 000
140 000
160 000
Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (USD, PPPs)
180 000
200 000
42. Among high-income countries
high-performers pay teachers more
Fig IV.1.10
Mathematics performance (score points)
650
Per capita GDP less than USD 20 000
In 33 countries schools where a higher
600 share of principals reported that
teacher shortages hinder learning tend
to show lower performance
550
Shanghai-China
Per capita GDP over USD 20 000
Singapore
Hong Kong-China
Korea
Macao-China
Japan
R² = 0.09
Netherlands
Finland
Canada
Belgium
Austria Australia
Germany
Czech Rep.
Iceland
Ireland
Latvia
France
Denmark
New Zealand
Slovenia UK
Slovak Rep.
Norway
Italy Luxembourg
Portugal
Spain
USA
Hungary
Croatia
Israel Sweden Lithuania
Romania
Greece
Bulgaria Thailand
Malaysia
Uruguay
Chile
Tunisia
Montenegro
Qatar
Indonesia
Colombia
Argentina Peru
Jordan
Estonia
500
450
400
Poland
Among low-income countries a
host of other resources are the
principal barriers
350
R² = 0.05
300
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Teachers' salaries relative to per capita GDP (%)
160
180
200
220
43. Countries with better performance in mathematics tend
to allocate educational resources more equitably
700
Adjusted by per capita GDP
650
Mathematics performance (score points)
Fig IV.1.11
30% of the variation in math
performance across OECD countries is
600
explained by the degree of similarity of
educational resources between
advantaged and disadvantaged schools
550
500
450
Mexico
Costa Rica
400
Shanghai-China
Chinese Taipei
Korea
R² = 0.19
Viet Nam Singapore
Hong Kong-China
Estonia
Japan Poland
Slovenia
Switzerland
Latvia
Finland
Canada
Belgium
Germany
Macao-China
Slovak Rep.
New Zealand
UK
IrelandIceland France
DenmarkSpain Austria
Australia
Croatia
Hungary
Israel
Romania Portugal
Sweden
Bulgaria
Turkey
USA
Greece
Norway
Italy
Serbia
Thailand
Malaysia
Chile
Kazakhstan
Uruguay
Jordan
Brazil
Indonesia UAE
Montenegro
Colombia
Tunisia
Argentina
Luxembourg
Peru
350
Qatar
300
1.5
1
Less
equity
0.5
OECD countries tend to allocate at least
an equal, if not a larger, number of
teachers per student to disadvantaged
schools; but disadvantaged schools tend
to have great difficulty in attracting
0
-0.5
qualified teachers.
Equity in resource allocation
(index points)
Greater
equity
44. High impact on outcomes
57
57
Quick wins
Must haves
Lessons from high performers
Commitment to universal achievement
Capacity
at point of delivery
Coherence of policies and practices
Alignment of policies
across all aspects of the system
Coherence
Coherence of policies
over sustained periods of time
LowConsistency of implementation
feasibility
Fidelity of implementation
(without excessive control)
Money pits
CAN
Resources
where they yield most
Gateways, instructional
systems
A learning system
High feasibility
Incentive structures and
accountability
Low hanging fruits
Low impact on outcomes
45. High impact on outcomes
58
58
Quick wins
Must haves
Lessons from high performers
Commitment to universal achievement
Capacity
at point of delivery
Resources
where they yield most
Gateways, instructional
systems
Coherence
A learning system
Low feasibility
High feasibility
Incentive structures and
accountability
Money pits
Low hanging fruits
Low impact on outcomes
46. What it all means
59
59
Lessons from high performers
Average education systems
High performers
Student inclusion
Some students learn at high levels
All students need to learn at high levels
Curriculum, instruction and assessment
Routine cognitive skills, rote learning
Learning to learn, complex ways of thinking, ways
of working
Teacher quality
Few years more than secondary
High-level professional knowledge workers
Work organisation
‘Tayloristic’, hierarchical
Flat, collegial
Accountability
Primarily to authorities
Primarily to peers and stakeholders
47. Find out more about PISA at www.pisa.oecd.org
• All national and international publications
• The complete micro-level database
Thank you !
Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org
Twitter: SchleicherEDU
and remember:
Without data, you are just another person with an opinion
Notas del editor
The red dot indicates classroom spending per student, relative to the spending capacity of countries, the higher the dot, the more of its GDP a country invests. High salaries are an obvious cost driver. You see Korea paying their teachers very well, the green bar goes up a lot. Korea also has long school days, another cost driver, marked here by the white bar going up. Last but not least, Korea provides their teachers with lots of time for other things than teaching such as teacher collaboration and professional development, which costs money as well. So how does Korea finances all of this? They do this with large classes, the blue bar pulls costs down. If you go to the next country on the list, Luxembourg, you see that the red dot is about where it is for Korea, so Luxembourg spends roughly the same per student as Korea. But parents and teachers in Luxembourg mainly care about small classes, so policy makers have invested mainly into reducing class size, you see the blue bar as the main cost driver. But even Luxembourg can only spend its money once, and the result is that school days are short, teacher salaries are average at best and teachers have little time for anything else than teaching. Finland and the US are a similar contrast.Countries make quite different spending choices. But when you look at this these data long enough, you see that many of the high performing education systems tend to prioritise the quality of teachers over the size of classes.
(9) Does this matter? Yes, it does. When you look at the evolution of employment by those problem-solving skills, you can see that there has been a significant decline in employment by people with basic problem-solving skills. There has been little change in employment among the low-skilled. But there has been significant growth in employment among great problem-solvers. What you see here is the hollowing out of labour-markets. Those who have great skills are fine, and will be better and better off. The people most at risk are not the poorly-skilled but white-collar workers with so-so-problem-solving skills, because their skills can increasingly be digitised, automated or outsourced. Those at the low end of the spectrum keep their jobs but are seeing declining wages. That's because you cannot digitise your bus driver or outsource your hairdresser to India.
(Fig. II.4.5)
(Fig. II.4.5)
(Fig. II.4.5)
I want to conclude with what we have learned about successful reform trajectories In the past when you only needed a small slice of well-educated people it was efficient for governments to invest a large sum in a small elite to lead the country. But the social and economic cost of low educational performance has risen substantially and all young people now need to leave school with strong foundation skills.When you could still assume that what you learn in school will last for a lifetime, teaching content and routine cognitive skills was at the centre of education. Today, where you can access content on Google, where routine cognitive skills are being digitised or outsourced, and where jobs are changing rapidly, the focus is on enabling people to become lifelong learners, to manage complex ways of thinking and complex ways of working that computers cannot take over easily.In the past, teachers had sometimes only a few years more education than the students they taught. When teacher quality is so low, governments tend to tell their teachers exactly what to do and exactly how they want it done and they tend to use Tayloristic methods of administrative control and accountability to get the results they want. Today the challenge is to make teaching a profession of high-level knowledge workers. But such people will not work in schools organised as Tayloristic workplaces using administrative forms of accountability and bureaucratic command and control systems to direct their work. To attract the people they need, successful education systems have transformed the form of work organisation in their schools to a professional form of work organisation in which professional norms of control complement bureaucratic and administrative forms of control.