How the U.S. and Other Countries Compare: Lessons Learned ... · How the U.S. and Other Countries...

11 National Conference on Student Assessment

How the U.S. and Other Countries Compare: Lessons Learned International Data

CCSSO – San Diego

June 22, 2015

Andreas Schleicher

Increased likelihood of positive outcomes among adults with higher literacy skills

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Being

Employed

High wages Good to

excellent

health

Participation

in volunteer

activities

High levels of

political

efficacy

High levels of

trust

United States

2

(scoring at Level 4/5 compared with those scoring at Level 1 or below)

Odds ratio

5 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

– Total of 390 minutes of assessment material

… 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 .

Singapore

Hong Kong-ChinaChinese Taipei

Korea

Macao-ChinaJapan LiechtensteinSwitzerland

NetherlandsEstonia FinlandCanada

PolandBelgiumGermany Viet Nam

Austria AustraliaIrelandSlovenia

DenmarkNew ZealandCzech Republic France

United KingdomIceland

LatviaLuxembourg NorwayPortugal ItalySpain

Russian Fed.Slovak Republic United StatesLithuaniaSwedenHungary

CroatiaIsrael

GreeceSerbiaTurkey

Romania

BulgariaU.A.E.KazakhstanThailand

ChileMalaysia

Mexico410

420

430

440

450

460

470

480

490

500

510

520

530

540

550

560

570

580

Mean score

High mathematics performance

Low mathematics performance

… Shanghai-China performs above this line (613)

Average performance

of 15-year-olds in

Mathematics (PISA)Fig I.2.13

Below PISA Level 2

Massachusetts

26% of American 15-year-olds do not reach PISA Level 2

(OECD average 23%, Shanghai 4%, Japan 11%, Canada 14%)

Low mathematics performanceIran*

Costa Rica

UruguayMontenegro

Bahrain*

Georgia*Brazil JordanArgentina Albania

Tunisia MacedoniaSaudi Arabia* Colombia

QatarIndonesiaBotswana*

Peru Oman*

Morocco*

Honduras*

South Africa*

Ghana*

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

410

420

* Substituted from TIMSS

Low mathematics performanceIran*

Costa Rica

UruguayMontenegro

Bahrain*

Georgia*Brazil JordanArgentina Albania

Tunisia MacedoniaSaudi Arabia* Colombia

QatarIndonesiaBotswana*

Peru Oman*

Morocco*

Honduras*

South Africa*

Ghana*

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

410

420

* Substituted from TIMSS

3880% GDP

4,526 bn$

751% GDP

23,841 bn$

Singapore


Korea









CroatiaIsrael

GreeceSerbiaTurkey

Romania


ChileMalaysia

Mexico



86% GDP

402 bn$

153% GDP

27,929 bn$

Socially equitable

distribution of learning

opportunities



Average performance

of 15-year-olds in

mathematics

Strong socio-economic

impact on student

performance

Singapore


Korea









CroatiaIsrael

GreeceSerbiaTurkey

Romania


ChileMalaysia

Mexico

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


Macao-China

Liechtenstein

Viet Nam

Latvia

Russian Fed.Lithuania

Croatia

SerbiaRomania

BulgariaUnited Arab

EmiratesKazakhstan

Thailand

Malaysia

02468101214161820222426

2012

Socially equitable


opportunities


impact on student

performance

Massachusetts



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

2012

Socially equitable


opportunities


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

Socially equitable


opportunities


impact on student

performance



-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Port

ugal

Spa

in

Sw

itze

rlan

d

Belg

ium

Kor

ea

Lux

em

bou

rg

Germ

any

Gre

ece

Jap

an

Aus

tral

ia

Uni

ted K

ingd

om

New

Zeal

and

Fra

nce

Neth

erl

ands

Den

mar

k

Ital

y

Aus

tria

Cze

ch R

epu

blic

Hun

gary

Nor

way

Icela

nd

Irela

nd

Mexic

o

Fin

land

Sw

eden

Uni

ted S

tate

s

Pola

nd

Slo

vak

Repu

blic

Salary as % of GDP/capita Instruction time 1/teaching time 1/class size

Contribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher

compensation costs, per student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004)

Percentage points

Difference with OECD average

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after acc

ounting for socio-economic statusFig II.3.32020

Behavioural issues equate to lower job satisfaction,

class size doesn’t

Teachers' job satisfaction level following the number of students in the classroom in relation to the percentage of

students with behavioural problems

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

15

or

less

16

-20

21

-25

26

-30

31

-35

36

or

more

Teach

er

job

sati

sfa

cti

on

(le

vel)

Class size (number of students)

Average

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

No

ne

1%

to 1

0%

11

% to 3

0%

31

% o

r m

ore

Teach

er

job

sati

sfa

cti

on

(le

vel)

Students with behavioural problems

Average

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



Socially equitable


opportunities


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

Singapore

Shanghai

Singapore

2003 - 2012

Chile 2003

Turkey 2003



Socially equitable


opportunities


impact on student

performance

2424 Why poverty need not be destiny

It’s not just about poor kids in poor neighborhoods but about many kids in many neighborhoods

The country where students go to class matters more than what social class students come from

2525PISA mathematics performance

by decile of social background

300

325

350

375

400

425

450

475

500

525

550

575

600

625

650

675

Mexic

oChile

Gre

ece

Norw

ay

Sw

eden

Icela

nd

Isra

el

Italy

United S

tate

sSpain

Denm

ark

Luxem

bourg

Aust

ralia

Irela

nd

United K

ingdom

Hungary

Canada

Fin

land

Aust

ria

Turk

ey

Lie

chte

nst

ein

Cze

ch R

epublic

Est

onia

Port

ugal

Slo

venia

Slo

vak R

epublic

New

Zeala

nd

Germ

any

Neth

erlands

Fra

nce

Sw

itze

rland

Pola

nd

Belg

ium

Japan

Maca

o-C

hin

aH

ong K

ong-C

hin

aKore

aSin

gapore

Chin

ese

Taip

ei

Shanghai-Chin

a

Source: PISA 2012

Australia

Brazil

Chile

Estonia

Spain

France

Iceland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Bulgaria

Malaysia

Mexico

NetherlandsNorway

Poland

Portugal

RomaniaSerbia

Singapore

Slovak Republic

Latvia

United States

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

% s

tudents

from

dis

advanta

ged b

ack

gro

unds

the p

erc

enta

ge o

f st

udents

with a

valu

e o

f ESCS low

er

than -

1

% principals who reported that more than 30% of their studentsare from socioeconomically disadvantaged homes

Social background – principal and students

Size of bullet represents

impact of social background

on student performance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60S

ha

ngh

ai-

Ch

ina

Sin

ga

po

reC

hin

ese

Taip

ei

Ho

ng

Kon

g-C

hin

aK

ore

aL

iech

tenste

inM

aca

o-C

hin

aJa

pa

nS

witze

rla

nd

Belg

ium

Neth

erla

nds

Germ

any

Pola

nd

Cana

da

Fin

land

New

Ze

ala

nd

Austr

alia

Esto

nia

Austr

iaS

loven

iaV

iet N

am

Fra

nce

Czech R

ep

ub

licO

EC

D a

ve

rag

eU

nited

Kin

gd

om

Luxe

mb

ou

rgIc

ela

nd

Slo

vak R

epu

blic

Ire

land

Port

ug

al

Denm

ark

Italy

Norw

ay

Isra

el

Hung

ary

United

Sta

tes

Lithu

ania

Sw

ede

nS

pa

inL

atv

iaR

ussia

n F

ede

ratio

nC

roa

tia

Tu

rkey

Serb

iaB

ulg

aria

Gre

ece

Un

ited

Ara

b E

mira

tes

Rom

ania

Th

aila

nd

Qata

rC

hile

Uru

gua

yM

ala

ysia

Mo

nte

neg

roK

aza

kh

sta

nA

lban

iaT

unis

iaB

razil

Me

xic

oP

eru

Co

sta

Ric

aJo

rdan

Colo

mb

iaIn

do

ne

sia

Arg

en

tin

a

%

Percentage of top performers

in mathematics27 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 skills

Massachusetts

Connecticut

Florida

2828 Why care about advanced skills?

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

%Evolution of employment in occupational groups

defined by PIAAC problem-solving skills

Employment of workers with advanced

problem-solving skills

Employment of workers with poor problem-solving skillsEmployment of workers with

medium-low problem-solving skills (PIAAC)

Source:PIAAC 2011

Math teaching ≠ math teachingPISA = reason mathematically and understand, formulate, employ

and interpret mathematical concepts, facts and procedures

29

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50V

iet N

am

Ma

ca

o-C

hin

aS

ha

ngh

ai-

Ch

ina

Tu

rke

yU

rug

ua

yG

reece

Hong

Kon

g-C

hin

aC

hin

ese

Taip

ei

Port

ug

al

Bra

zil

Serb

iaB

ulg

aria

Sin

ga

po

reN

eth

erla

nds

Ja

pa

nA

rgen

tin

aC

osta

Ric

aL

ithu

ania

Tu

nis

iaN

ew

Ze

ala

nd

Czech R

ep

ub

licIs

rael

Kore

aL

atv

iaQ

ata

rIt

aly

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Esto

nia

Ire

land

Austr

alia

Me

xic

oU

nited

Ara

b E

mira

tes

Norw

ay

Ma

laysia

Kaza

kh

sta

nU

nited

Kin

gd

om

Rom

ania

OE

CD

ave

rag

eA

lban

iaC

olo

mb

iaIn

do

ne

sia

Sw

ede

nB

elg

ium

Peru

Th

aila

nd

Denm

ark

Ru

ssia

n F

ede

ratio

nC

ana

da

Slo

vak R

epu

blic

Hu

ng

ary

Germ

any

Cro

atia

Luxe

mb

ou

rgM

on

ten

eg

roC

hile

Pola

nd

Fin

land

Austr

iaS

loven

iaF

ran

ce

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Jo

rdan

Lie

ch

tenste

inS

pa

inIc

ela

nd

Ind

ex

of

ex

po

su

re t

o w

ord

pro

ble

ms

Focus on word problems Fig I.3.1a30

Formal math situated in a word problem, where it is obvious to

students what mathematical knowledge and skills are needed

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50S

wede

nIc

ela

nd

Tu

nis

iaA

rgen

tin

aS

witze

rla

nd

Bra

zil

Luxe

mb

ou

rgIr

ela

nd

Neth

erla

nds

New

Ze

ala

nd

Costa

Ric

aA

ustr

iaL

iech

tenste

inM

ala

ysia

Ind

one

sia

Denm

ark

United

Kin

gd

om

Uru

gua

yL

ithu

ania

Germ

any

Austr

alia

Chile

OE

CD

ave

rag

eS

lovak R

epu

blic

Th

aila

nd

Qata

rF

inla

nd

Port

ug

al

Colo

mb

iaM

exic

oP

eru

Czech R

ep

ub

licIs

rael

Italy

Belg

ium

Hong

Kon

g-C

hin

aP

ola

nd

Fra

nce

Spa

inM

on

ten

eg

roG

reece

Tu

rkey

Slo

ven

iaV

iet N

am

Hung

ary

Bulg

aria

Kaza

kh

sta

nC

hin

ese

Taip

ei

Cana

da

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Esto

nia

Rom

ania

Latv

iaS

erb

iaJa

pa

nK

ore

aC

roa

tia

Alb

an

iaR

ussia

n F

ede

ratio

nU

nited

Ara

b E

mira

tes

Jo

rdan

Ma

ca

o-C

hin

aS

inga

po

reS

ha

ngh

ai-

Ch

ina

Ind

ex

of

ex

po

su

re t

o f

orm

al m

ath

em

ati

cs

Focus on conceptual understanding Fig I.3.1b 31

3232L

essons f

rom

hig

h p

erf

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

3333L

essons f

rom

hig

h p

erf

orm

ers




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

3434L

essons f

rom

hig

h p

erf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







A commitment to education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve Universal educational standards and personalization 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

United States

Poland

Hong Kong-China

Brazil

New Zealand

Greece

Uruguay

United Kingdom

EstoniaFinland

Albania

Croatia

Latvia

Slovak RepublicLuxembourg

Germany

Lithuania

Austria

Czech Republic

Chinese Taipei

France

Thailand

Japan

Turkey Sweden

HungaryAustralia

Israel

Canada

IrelandBulgaria

Jordan

Chile

Macao-China

U.A.E.

Belgium

Netherlands

Spain

Argentina

Indonesia

Denmark

Kazakhstan

Peru

Costa Rica

Switzerland

Montenegro

Tunisia

Iceland

Slovenia

Qatar

Singapore

Portugal

Norway

Colombia

Malaysia

Mexico

Liechtenstein

Korea

Serbia

Russian Fed.

Romania

Viet Nam

Italy

Shanghai-China

R² = 0.36

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

-0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

Me

an

ma

the

ma

tic

s p

erf

orm

an

ce

Mean index of mathematics self-efficacy

OE

CD

ave

rag

e

Countries where students have stronger beliefs

in their abilities perform better in mathematics35 Fig III.4.5

Perceived self-responsibility for failure

in mathematics

Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements:

0 20 40 60 80 100

I’m not very good at solving mathematics problems

My teacher did not explain the concepts wellthis week

This week I made bad guesses on the quiz

Sometimes the course material is too hard

The teacher did not get students interested inthe material

Sometimes I am just unlucky

%

France Shanghai-China OECD average

Fig III.3.636

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

Colo

mb

iaC

osta

Ric

aP

eru

Isra

el

Luxe

mb

ou

rgC

hile

Tu

nis

iaS

lovak R

epu

blic

Lie

ch

tenste

inIt

aly

Kore

aS

pa

inA

rgen

tin

aB

razil

Port

ug

al

Gre

ece

Ja

pa

nA

ustr

iaU

rug

ua

yM

exic

oH

ong

Kon

g-C

hin

aB

ulg

aria

Tu

rkey

Ind

one

sia

Hung

ary

Vie

t N

am

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Rom

ania

U.A

.E.

Ch

inese

Taip

ei

Cana

da

Ire

land

Belg

ium

Kaza

kh

sta

nC

ze

ch R

ep

ub

licO

EC

D a

ve

rag

eC

roa

tia

Fra

nce

Sha

ngh

ai-

Ch

ina

Mo

nte

neg

roP

ola

nd

Serb

iaM

ala

ysia

Esto

nia

Qata

rM

aca

o-C

hin

aN

eth

erla

nds

Ne

w Z

eala

nd

Norw

ay

Lithu

ania

Slo

ven

iaD

enm

ark

Jo

rdan

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Austr

alia

Germ

any

Latv

iaR

ussia

n F

ed.

Sw

ede

nS

inga

po

reU

nited

Kin

gd

om

Th

aila

nd

Fin

land

Icela

nd

Sc

ore

-po

int

dif

fere

nc

e (

bo

ys

-gir

ls)

Gender gap among the highest-achieving students (90th percentile)

Gender gap adjusted for differences in mathematics self-efficacy between boys and girls

Gender gap

Greater self-efficacy among girls could shrink the gender gap in mathematics

performance, particularly among the highest-performing students 37 Fig III.7.12

Boys do better

Girls do better

Percentage of girls and boys who intend to take additional

mathematics, rather than language, courses after they leave school

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Turk

ey

Jord

an *

Cost

a R

ica *

Thaila

nd

Kaza

khst

an *

Icela

nd

Shanghai-Chin

a *

Vie

t N

am

Alb

ania

*United A

rab E

mirate

s *

Qata

rM

ala

ysia

*N

orw

ay

Isra

el

Cyp

rus

Indonesia *

Portugal *

Colo

mbia

Japan

Neth

erlands

Cro

atia

Latv

iaUru

guay

Arg

entina

Denm

ark

Peru

Mexi

coTunisia

Est

onia

Chile

Liech

tenst

ein

Maca

o-C

hin

aPola

nd

Luxe

mbourg

France

Spain

Italy

Sw

eden

Belg

ium

United S

tate

sCze

ch R

epublic

Chin

ese

Taip

ei

Sin

gapore

OECD

ave

rage

Slo

venia

Canada

Gre

ece

Lith

uania

Bulg

aria

Sw

itze

rland

Finla

nd

United K

ingdom

Slo

vak

Republic

Rom

ania

Russ

ian F

edera

tion

Aust

ria

Monte

negro

Bra

zil

Irela

nd

Germ

any

Hong K

ong-C

hin

aAust

ralia

New

Zeala

nd

Serb

iaKore

aH

ungary

Girls Boys%

3939L

essons f

rom

hig

h p

erf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







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 …

4040L

essons f

rom

hig

h p

erf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







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 …

Developing Teaching

as a profession

Recruit top candidates into the profession

Support teachers in continued

development of practice

Retain and recognise effective teachers –path for growth

Improve the societal

view of teaching as

a profession


ounting for socio-economic status4141 Capacity at the point of delivery

Mean mathematics performance, by school location,

after accounting for socio-economic statusFig II.3.34242 Teachers' perceptions of the value of teaching

Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that teaching profession is a valued profession

in society

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mala

ysia

Sin

gapore

Kore

a

Abu D

habi (U

AE)

Finla

nd

Mexi

co

Alb

erta (Canada)

Flanders

(Belg

ium

)

Neth

erlands

Aust

ralia

Engla

nd (UK)

Rom

ania

Isra

el

United S

tate

s

Chile

Ave

rage

Norw

ay

Japan

Latv

ia

Serb

ia

Bulg

aria

Denm

ark

Pola

nd

Icela

nd

Est

onia

Bra

zil

Italy

Cze

ch R

epublic

Portugal

Cro

atia

Spain

Sw

eden

France

Slo

vak R

epublic

Perc

enta

ge o

f te

ach

ers


after accounting for socio-economic statusFig II.3.34343

Countries where teachers believe their profession is valued

show higher levels of student achievement

Relationship between lower secondary teachers' views on the value of their profession in society and the country’s

share of top mathematics performers in PISA 2012

Australia

Brazil

Bulgaria

Chile

Croatia

Czech Republic

Denmark

EstoniaFinland

France

IcelandIsrael

Italy

Japan

Korea

Latvia

Mexico

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Serbia

Singapore

Slovak Republic

SpainSweden

Alberta (Canada)

England (UK)

Flanders (Belgium)

United States

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Share

of

math

em

atics

top p

erf

orm

ers

Percentage of teachers who agree that teaching is valued in society

R2 = 0.24 r= 0.49

Teacher skills and graduate skills (numeracy)

230 250 270 290 310 330 350

Italy

Poland

Estonia

United States

Canada

Ireland

Korea

England (UK)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Denmark

Northern Ireland (UK)

Slovak Republic

France

Australia

Sweden

Czech Republic

Austria

Netherlands

Norway

Germany

Flanders (Belgium)

Finland

Japan

Middle half of the numeracy

skill distribution of graduates

(16-65 years)

PIAAC test scores (numeracy)

Teacher skills and graduate skills (numeracy)

230 250 270 290 310 330 350

Italy

Poland

Estonia

United States

Canada

Ireland

Korea

England (UK)

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Denmark

Northern Ireland (UK)

Slovak Republic

France

Australia

Sweden

Czech Republic

Austria

Netherlands

Norway

Germany

Flanders (Belgium)

Finland

Japan

Middle half of the numeracy

skill distribution of graduates

(16-65 years)

Numeracy skills of teachers

PIAAC test scores (numeracy)


after accounting for socio-economic statusFig II.3.34646 Teachers Self-Efficacy and Professional Collaboration

11.40

11.60

11.80

12.00

12.20

12.40

12.60

12.80

13.00

13.20

13.40

Never

Once

a y

ear

or

less

2-4

tim

es

a y

ear

5-1

0 t

imes

a y

ear

1-3

tim

es

a m

onth

Once

a w

eek o

r m

ore

Teach

er

self-e

ffic

acy

(le

vel)

Teach jointly as a

team in the same

class

Observe other

teachers’ classes and

provide feedback

Engage in joint

activities across

different classes

Take part in

collaborative

professional learning

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100D

iscu

ss indiv

idual

students

Share

reso

urc

es

Team

confe

rence

s

Colla

bora

te for co

mm

on

standard

s

Team

teach

ing

Colla

bora

tive

PD

Join

t act

ivitie

s

Cla

ssro

om

obse

rvations

Perc

enta

ge o

f te

ach

ers

Average United States

Professional collaboration

Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report doing the following activities at least once per month

Teacher co-operation47

Exchange and co-ordination


ounting for socio-economic statusFig II.3.34848 Teachers' needs for professional development

Percentage of lower secondary teachers indicating they have a high level of need for professional development in the

following areas

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Knowledge of the curriculum

Knowledge of the subject field(s)

School management and administration

Pedagogical competencies

Developing competencies for future work

Teaching cross-curricular skills

Student evaluation and assessment practice

Student career guidance and counselling

Approaches to individualised learning

Teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting

Student behaviour and classroom management

New technologies in the workplace

ICT skills for teaching

Teaching students with special needs

United States Average

4949L

essons f

rom

hig

h p

erf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







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

5050L

essons f

rom

hig

h p

erf

orm

ers

50 Aligning autonomy with accountability

5151L

essons f

rom

hig

h p

erf

orm

ers

51

51

Hong Kong-China

Brazil

Uruguay

Albania

Croatia

Latvia

Lithuania

Chinese Taipei

ThailandBulgaria

Jordan

Macao-China

UAE Argentina

Indonesia

Kazakhstan

Peru

Costa Rica

Tunisia

Qatar

Singapore

Colombia

Malaysia

Serbia

Romania

Viet Nam

Shanghai-China

USA

Poland

New Zealand

Greece

UK

Estonia

Finland

Slovak Rep.

Luxembourg

GermanyAustria

Czech Rep.

France

Japan

Turkey

Sweden

HungaryAustralia

Israel

Canada

Chile

Belgium

NetherlandsSpain

Denmark

Switzerland

Iceland

Slovenia

Portugal

Norway

Korea

Italy

R² = 0.13

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Ma

the

ma

tic

s p

erf

orm

an

ce

(sc

ore

po

ints

)

Index of school responsibility for curriculum and assessment (index points)

Countries that grant schools autonomy over curricula and assessments tend to perform better in mathematics

Source: PISA 2012

No shared mathpolicy

Shared math policy455

460

465

470

475

480

485

Less school autonomy

More school autonomy

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


less autonomy in systems with more accountability arrangements

School data not public

School data public464

466

468

470

472

474

476

478



Score points

School autonomy for curriculum and assessment

x system's level of posting achievement data publicly

Fig IV.1.16


less autonomy in systems with more collaboration

Teachers don't participate inmanagement

Teachers participate inmanagement455

460

465

470

475

480

485



Score points

School autonomy for resource allocation x System's level of teachers

participating in school management

Across all participating countries and economies

Fig IV.1.17

0 20 40 60 80 100

Written specification of the school's curriculum andeducational goals

Written specification of student-performance standards

Systematic recording of data, including teacher andstudent attendance and graduation rates, test results…

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 aperiod of at least six months with the aim of improving…

Implementation of a standardised policy for mathematics

%

Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that their schools have the following for quality assurance and improvement:

Singapore OECD average

Quality assurance and school improvement Fig IV.4.1455

5656L

essons f

rom

hig

h p

erf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







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

5757 Align the resources with the challenges

Hong Kong-China

Brazil

Uruguay

Croatia

Latvia

Chinese Taipei

Thailand

Bulgaria

Jordan

Macao-China

UAE

Argentina

Indonesia

Kazakhstan

Peru

Costa RicaMontenegro

Tunisia

Qatar

Singapore

Colombia

MalaysiaSerbia

Romania

Viet Nam

Shanghai-China

USA

Poland

New Zealand

Greece

UK

Estonia

Finland

Slovak Rep.

Luxembourg

Germany

AustriaFrance

Japan

TurkeySweden Hungary

AustraliaIsrael

Canada

Ireland

Chile

Belgium

SpainDenmark

Switzerland

Iceland

Slovenia

PortugalNorway

Mexico

Korea

Italy

R² = 0.19

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

-0.500.511.5

Ma

the

ma

tic

s p

erf

orm

an

ce

(sc

ore

po

ints

)

Equity in resource allocation(index points)

Greater equityLess equity

Adjusted by per capita GDP

Countries with better performance in mathematics tend to allocate educational resources more equitably

Source: PISA 2012

5858 Adequate resources to address disadvantage

Disadvantaged schools reported

more teacher shortage

Advantaged schools reported

more teacher shortage

-0.5

-0.3

-0.1

0.1

0.3

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.1

1.3

1.5

Ko

rea

Esto

nia

Isra

el

La

tvia

Slo

ve

nia

Ita

lyP

ola

nd

Sin

gap

ore

Arg

en

tin

aN

eth

erl

an

ds

Po

rtu

ga

lC

olo

mb

iaF

ran

ce

Fin

lan

dT

un

isia

Ma

cao

-Ch

ina

Sp

ain

Gre

ec

eS

wit

zerl

an

dN

orw

ay

Ru

ss

ian

Fe

d.

Jap

an

Au

str

iaM

on

ten

eg

roC

roati

aC

an

ad

aO

EC

D a

ve

rag

eG

erm

an

yD

en

mark

Hu

ng

ary

Un

ite

d K

ing

do

mL

ux

em

bo

urg

Ho

ng

Ko

ng

-Ch

ina

Belg

ium

Ice

lan

dV

iet

Na

mIr

ela

nd

Un

ite

d S

tate

sC

hil

eC

zech

Rep

ub

lic

Serb

iaT

urk

ey

Me

xic

oIn

do

nesia

Uru

gu

ay

Sh

an

gh

ai-

Ch

ina

Slo

va

k R

ep

ub

lic

Sw

ed

en

Bra

zil

Ne

w Z

ea

lan

dA

us

tralia

Ch

ine

se

Ta

ipe

i

Me

an

in

de

x d

iffe

ren

ce

Difference between socio-economically disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged schools

A shortage of qualified teachers is more of concernin disadvantaged schools

5959L

essons f

rom

hig

h p

erf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







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)

6060L

essons f

rom

hig

h p

erf

orm

ers




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







6161L

essons f

rom

hig

h p

erf

orm

ers Some students learn at high levels All students need to learn at high levels

Student inclusion

Routine cognitive skills Conceptual understanding, complex ways of thinking, ways of working

Curriculum, instruction and assessment

Standardisation and compliance 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

The old bureaucratic system The modern enabling system

6262L

essons f

rom

hig

h p

erf

orm

ers

62

62 Thank you

Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org

– All publications

– The complete micro-level database

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: SchleicherEDU

and remember:

Without data, you are just another person with an opinion

How the U.S. and Other Countries Compare: Lessons Learned ... · How the U.S. and Other Countries...

Documents

Transcript of How the U.S. and Other Countries Compare: Lessons Learned ... · How the U.S. and Other Countries...