1. Raising the efficiency of educational services
The Hague, 16 March 2010
Andreas SchleicherEducation Policy Advisor of the OECD Secretary-General

2. Changes in the number of students as well as changes in expenditure on educational institutions per studentprimary to secondary education (1995,2004)
Index of change between 1995 and 2004 (1995=100, 2004 constant prices)
Index of change (1995=100)
B1.7a
3. Latin America then
Hanushek 2009
4. Latin America then and now
Hanushek 2009
5. Latin America then and now
Why quality is the key
Hanushek 2009
6. Relationship between test performance and economic outcomesAnnual improved GDP from raising performance by 25 PISA points
Percent addition to GDP
7. Catching up with Finland(in percent of GDP)
% currrent GDP
8. Raise everyone to minimum of 400 PISA points
% currrent GDP
9. 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 ratioCollege entry
School marks at age 15
PISA performance at age 15
10. Some conclusions
The higher economic outcomes that improved student performance entails dwarf the dimensions of economic cycles
Even if the estimated impacts of skills were twice as large as the true underlying causal impact on growth, the resulting present value of successful school reform still far exceeds any conceivable costs of improvement.
11. OECDs PISA assessment of the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds
Coverage of world economy
83%
77%
81%
85%
86%
87%
12. High science performance
Average performanceof 15-year-olds in science extrapolate and apply
18 countries perform below this line
Low science performance
13. Money matters - but other things do too
Question:
If better education results in more money,
Does more money result in better education?
14. Student performance
PISA Index of socio-economic background
Advantage
Disadvantage
School performance and socio-economic background The Netherlands
Student performance and students socio-economic background within schools
School performance and schools socio-economic background
Student performance and students socio-economic background
Schools proportional to size
15. Output
Output inefficiency
Input inefficiency
Input
16. DEA estimates of technical efficiency at the school level1B. Output oriented efficiency
1.DEA performed with four inputs (teaching and computing resources, social-economic status of students and language background) and one output (average PISA score).
17. DEA estimates of cost efficiency at the national level1B. Output oriented efficiency
1.DEA performed with two inputs (cumulative expenditure per pupils and pupils socio-economic background) and one output (average PISA score).2.Data for these countries concern public institutions only.
18. High science performance
Average performanceof 15-year-olds in science extrapolate and apply
18 countries perform below this line
Low science performance
19. Spending choices on secondary schoolsContribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher compensation costsper student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004)
Percentage points
20. High ambitions and universal standards
Rigor, focus and coherence
Great systems attract great teachers and provideaccess to best practice and quality professional development
21. Challenge and support
Strong support
Poor performance
Improvements idiosyncratic
Strong performance
Systemic improvement
Lowchallenge
Highchallenge
Poor performance
Stagnation
Conflict
Demoralisation
Weak support
22. International Best Practice
The past

Principals who are trained, empowered, accountable and provide instructional leadership

23. Principals who manage a building, who have little training and preparation and are accountable but not empowered 24. Attracting, recruiting and providing excellent training for prospective teachers from the top third of the graduate distribution 25. Attracting and recruiting teachers from the bottom third of the graduate distribution and offering training which does not relate to real classrooms 26. Incentives, rules and funding encourage a fair distribution of teaching talent 27. The best teachers are in the most advantaged communitiesHuman capital
28. International Best Practice
The past

Expectations of teachers are clear; consistent quality, strong professional ethic and excellent professional development focused on classroom practice

29. Seniority and tenure matter more than performance; patchy professional development; wide variation in quality 30. Teachers and the system expect every child to succeed and intervene preventatively to ensure this 31. Wide achievement gaps, just beginning to narrow but systemic and professional barriers to transformation remain in placeHuman capital (cont)
32. High ambitions
Devolved responsibility,the school as the centre of action
Accountability and intervention in inverse proportion to success
Access to best practice and quality professional development
33. School autonomy, standards-based examinations and science performanceSchool autonomy in selecting teachers for hire
PISA score in science
34. Public and private schools
%
Score point difference
Public schools perform better
Private schools perform better
35. Pooled international dataset, effects of selected school/system factors on science performance after accounting for all other factors in the model
School principals positive evaluation of quality of educational materials(gross only)
Schools with more competing schools(gross only)
Schools with greater autonomy (resources)(gross and net)
School activities to promote science learning(gross and net)
One additional hour of self-study or homework (gross and net)
One additional hour of science learning at school (gross and net)
School results posted publicly (gross and net)
Academically selective schools (gross and net) but no system-wide effect
Schools practicing ability grouping (gross and net)
One additional hour of out-of-school lessons (gross and net)
20
Each additional 10% of public funding(gross only)
School principals perception that lack of qualified teachers hindersinstruction(gross only)
Effect after accounting for the socio-economic background of students, schools and countries
Measured effect
OECD (2007), PISA 2006 Science Competencies from Tomorrows World, Table 6.1a
36. Strong ambitions
Devolvedresponsibility,the school as the centre of action
Integrated educational opportunities
From prescribed forms of teaching and assessment towards personalised learning
Accountability
Access to best practice and quality professional development
37. High science performance
Durchschnittliche Schlerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik
High average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
High average performance
High social equity
Strong socio-economic impact on student performance
Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities
Early selection and institutional differentiation
High degree of stratification
Low degree of stratification
Low average performance
Large socio-economic disparities
Low average performance
High social equity
Low science performance
38. Variation in student performance
20
OECD (2007), Learning for tomorrows world: First results from PISA 2006, Table 4.1a
39. Variation in student performance
Variation of performance within schools
Variation of performance between schools
OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrows world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 4.1a
40. Public cost and benefits for a male obtaining
post-secondary education
Public costs
Public benefits
Net present value, USD equivalent
(numbers in orange shownegative values)
USD equivalent
41. Paradigm shifts
42. www.oecd.org;www.pisa.oecd.org
All national and international publications
The complete micro-level database
email: pisa@oecd.org
Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org
and remember:
Without data, you are just another person with an opinion
Thank you !