Data and Trust - Norway
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•1,265 views
This presentation was given by Astrid Søgnen of the Education Authority of the City of Oslo at the GCES Conference on Education Governance: The Role of Data in Tallinn on 12 February 2015 during the afternoon session workshop on Data and trust.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Data and Trust - Norway
Similar to Data and Trust - Norway (20)
More from EduSkills OECD
More from EduSkills OECD (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Data and Trust - Norway
- 1. Oslo kommune Utdanningsetaten 26.02.2015 Education Governance: The Role of Data, Tallinn, 12-13 February Education Authority, City of Oslo Data & Trust Astrid Søgnen
- 2. Oslo kommune Utdanningsetaten 87,069 Students 59,311 Pupils in primary school 15,555 Students in upper secondary school 7,800 Students in adult education centres 4,403 Apprentices 175 Locations 140 Primary schools, incl lower secondary 23 2 Upper secondary schools Combination schools 6 Adult education centres Oslo music and culture school Oslo seamanship school Oslo municipal school gardens Fagskolen (vocational diploma, EQF5-6) 1,787 Apprentice shops 14,553 Employees 11,603 Man years Budget 2015: NOK 12.6 billion Osloskolen 1
- 3. Oslo kommune Utdanningsetaten Focus areas: Basic skills in • Expressing themselves orally • Reading • Counting • Expressing themselves in writing • Using digital tools Basic subjects Safe schools – a working environment without bullying, violence and racism Complete and pass schooling or apprenticeship Flexible and adapted training across school types and learning arena Functional and maintained school buildings. 2
- 4. Oslo kommune Utdanningsetaten 26.02.2015 Find Willy – and meet his needs! 3
- 5. Oslo kommune Utdanningsetaten 26.02.2015 The issues • Whether the greater monitoring of education systems has led to pressure on teachers, school leaders and authorities to justify their practices • Whether the greater monitoring of education systems has led to improved student achievement, more efficient schools, more professional teachers and managers as well as increased trust in the school system as education and social institution. 4
- 6. Oslo kommune Utdanningsetaten 26.02.2015 An ordinary Friday at 12 noon… - the quality challenge 5
- 7. Oslo kommune Utdanningsetaten 26.02.2015 Students finishing (and passing all exams) within five years • Oslo has by far the best development of all counties 1997- 2008, with an improvement rate of 10.2 percentage points 6
- 8. Oslo kommune Utdanningsetaten Finish and pass 7
- 9. Oslo kommune Utdanningsetaten 26.02.2015 Social benefits in relation to grades from lower secondary school 8
- 10. Oslo kommune Utdanningsetaten 26.02.2015 The issues • Whether the greater monitoring of education systems has led to pressure on teachers, school leaders and authorities to justify their practices • Whether the greater monitoring of education systems has led to improved student achievement, more efficient schools, more professional teachers and managers as well as increased trust in the school system as education and social institution. 9
- 11. Oslo kommune Utdanningsetaten 26.02.2015 Thank you! Education Authority, City of Oslo
Editor's Notes
- OECD CERI, Tallinn: Workshop B introduction.
- I will start by presenting my school district - City of Oslo, Education Authority - with our focus areas and objectives.
- My starting point is Willy – a student at one of the Oslo schools. Willy has a legal right to customized tuition. The school mission is the student's future, wellbeing, education and work. That is why the schools and authorities must deliver based on knowledge and documentation. Trust - in this context, in my opinion – means that the students and their parents should trust the school to exercise its work with focus on what is best for the students – both academically and socially. We cannot consolidate with the future of the individual by not investigating the quality of the school and tuition, fearing the teachers and school management could feel mistrusted. The students are my main focus at all times as the Director of City of Oslo, Education Authority. My political chiefs are challenging me regarding the development of students under my management. And I better have good answers. I will come back to this with examples. I was asked to set the tone in my introduction – and feel free to be provocative! I accept the request and present two sides of the data and use challenge.
- Is that wrong? Should not schools and other institutions justify their excisting practice based on data? Are we not depending on that? The aim is improvement, and how to obtain continuous improvement. "Pressure …to justify" is good, isn't it? – and usual practice in many workplaces. What is 'trust' in this context? All school owners at different levels should do what is right for our students – to ensure that they learn more and pass their exams. This is their future. I trust that all stakeholders have the best intentions. I never question WHAT teachers and managers do, but I have a right and duty to question HOW and follow up on whether student achievement is as expected. Can the use of data ruin the creativity, motivation and self-respect of teachers? We work in a knowledge institution and must respect that some measures work better than others. I am sure you can remove the appendicitis through a patient's ear, but is it beneficial for the patient? Will the surgeon's creativity, motivation and self-respect decrease if you limit the free choice of solution in future? Isn't the wellbeing of the patient the crucial factor? I'm sure knowledge based change of practice, leading to improved student results, will increase the teacher's motivation and self-respect – basically develop the teacher's professionalism.
- This slide shows the quality challenge. Every dot is a teaching lesson. The observations are made with class management and learning efficiency in mind. We carried out this study at 13 schools. We have many "maps" like these. There are too many quality differences in Norwegian schools. We know from PISA and other studies that the differences are greater within each school than between schools in Norway. Data on students' development and more accurate information on "what works" will mean that both teachers and school owners can have a professional and meaningful dialogue on how to ensure more equitable quality in tuition. The differences between schools in Norway are not very big, however, there are major unexplained differences within each school. Is the inexplicable difference in quality between class 5A and 5B really OK? Can you accept this as a politician, parent, headmaster or union member? Without data – how can the headmaster improve the practice in class 5B?
- This slide shows Norwegian student movements in upper secondary school towards completing their education. Oslo example: In year 2000, no data, 65% passed – 5% below national average In year 2011, after 10 years of using data, 75% passed - 5% above national average! The improvement is 15%, or 10 percentage points. The other counties have results between 3.7 percentage points progress and 6.5 percentage points decline, no other county uses data systematically. In other words – 600 new students qualify in our city every year – tax payers, not recipients of social benefits. Created by man. Oslo has a very mixed group of students. 40% of the pupils in primary school have a minority background and thus language challenges. We have developed a much more systematic use of data in the last 6-8 years when it comes to follow up, development and management of the schools. Achievement data are central, but also other data for example from the annual student survey. Data are used in the management dialogue with school management, but also in cooperation with teachers regarding academic development – and which challenges school results show that students have.
- Oslo students perform best in Norway on most national tests and have good exam results. Systematic use of data, analysis of data and corrective measures are important activities to achieve this.
- This graph from Norway Statistics shows the correlation between average grade in lower secondary school and recipients of social benefits. It shows how important school quality is and the quality is dependant upon systematic use of data and accurate information. The red line at the top are the ones with less than grade three on average. More than twice compared to youth the same age, receive social benefits. When they are 24 years old, 20% receive social benefits. Only 4% of the students with grades between four and five receive benefits, as illustrated with the grey line. The connections we have seen, however, seem to confirm what many believe: that learning in primary school is of great importance to future career. The connections we have seen, show how crucial it is for teacher, headmaster and local authority to work knowledge and evidence based with teaching and learning. We cannot play games with the future of children and young people under the headline of trust and autonomy. More good schools will thus be able to raise the level for pupils and prepare them for success in future education and career. Thus the effect will be greater when measures are taken early. It is in other words, easier and cheaper to prevent failure than to help the ones that are struggling. It is very unfortunate if weak schooling means a life on social benefits. It is a loss to society when valuable resources are lost and it weakens the sustainability of the welfare state. But first and foremost, it is a great loss for the individual in question.
- Critics claim that increased use of data can lead to simple inferences between cause and effect. This is an important objection and will happen if you do not know the context and only see big figures without seeing the students behind the statistics. It is important to remember that even Ontario (often used as a school success story) think they can improve their quality of data. We can also improve and check our data thoroughly – Norway Statistics (SSB), standardized tests/ national exams/ our internal solutions. In closing, I would like to emphasize that a good school and good learning documented over time presupposes much more than data. But you may have realized by now that I'm in favour of systematic use of data as the basis for quality in teaching and that it contributes to more students succeeding in getting an education. That is my mission. How could I, responsible for the teaching of 90,000 students, take responsibility in a world where I only have trust and no data?