Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools ...

Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more collaboration

Teachers don't participate inmanagement

Teachers participate inmanagement455

460

465

470

475

480

485

Less school autonomy

More school autonomy

Score points

School autonomy for resource allocation x System's level of teachers participating in school managementAcross all participating countries and economies

Fig IV.1.17

Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with 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

No standardisedmath policy

Standardised mathpolicy455

460

465

470

475

480

485



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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Uru

guay

Gre

ece

Japa

nB

elgi

um +

Aus

tria

+M

acao

-Chi

na +

Sw

itzer

land

+G

erm

any

+S

pain

+H

ong

Kon

g-C

hina

+Fi

nlan

d -

Den

mar

k +

Aus

tralia

Cze

ch R

epub

licP

olan

d -

OE

CD

ave

rage

200

3 +

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

+Ita

ly +

Liec

hten

stei

n +

Nor

way

Indo

nesi

a +

Net

herla

nds

Kor

eaTu

nisi

aLu

xem

bour

g +

Turk

ey +

Icel

and

-M

exic

o +

Irela

nd +

Hun

gary

Can

ada

+B

razi

l +P

ortu

gal +

Thai

land

+S

wed

en +

Latv

ia +

New

Zea

land

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

+U

nite

d S

tate

s

%

2012 2003

Change between 2003 and 2012 in using student assessment data to compare school performance

Percentage of students in schools that use assessment data to compare the school against regional or national benchmarks

+ 2012 higher than 2003- 2012 lower than 2003

Fig IV.4.18

B

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Finl

and

Uru

guay

Gre

ece

+S

witz

erla

nd +

Irela

nd +

Bel

gium

+S

wed

en +

Japa

n +

Ger

man

y +

Nor

way

+Ita

ly +

Hun

gary

+S

lova

k R

epub

licTu

nisi

aD

enm

ark

+O

EC

D a

vera

ge 2

003

+S

pain

Aus

tralia

+Lu

xem

bour

g +

Liec

hten

stei

n +

Net

herla

nds

+La

tvia

-K

orea

+N

ew Z

eala

nd +

Icel

and

+B

razi

l +

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Mac

ao-C

hina

+A

ustri

a +

Indo

nesi

aTu

rkey

+C

zech

Rep

ublic

+M

exic

oH

ong

Kon

g-C

hina

+Th

aila

nd +

Por

tuga

l +

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

+P

olan

d

%

2012 2003

Change between 2003 and 2012 in using student assessment data to monitor teachers

Percentage of students in schools that use assessment data to monitor teachers:

Fig IV.4.19

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.4.1447

SIN

The issue is not how many charter schools a country has…

…but how countries enable every school to assume charter type autonomy

48

-125

-100

-75

-50

-25

0

25

50

75

100C

hine

se T

aipe

iH

ong

Kon

g-C

hina

Thai

land

Vie

t Nam

Luxe

mbo

urg

Sw

itzer

land

Indo

nesi

aIta

lyK

azak

hsta

nJa

pan

Cze

ch R

epub

licN

ethe

rland

sE

ston

iaA

lban

iaIre

land

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Hun

gary

Sw

eden

Kor

eaU

nite

d K

ingd

omFi

nlan

dD

enm

ark

OE

CD

ave

rage

Fran

ceS

hang

hai-C

hina

Aus

tralia

Spa

inS

lova

k R

epub

licM

exic

oG

erm

any

Aus

tria

Col

ombi

aC

hile

Can

ada

Pol

and

Jord

anA

rgen

tina

Uni

ted

Ara

b E

mira

tes

Por

tuga

lP

eru

Cos

ta R

ica

Bra

zil

New

Zea

land

Mal

aysi

aS

love

nia

Uru

guay

Qat

ar

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

Performance advantage of public schools

Performance advantage of private schools

Differences in mathematics performance between private and public schools shrink considerably after accounting for socio-economic status

Observed performance difference

After accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic status

Fig IV.1.19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Chi

le

Cro

atia

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Kor

ea

Por

tuga

l

Mex

ico

Italy

Hun

gary

Ger

man

y

Bel

gium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

Mac

ao-C

hina

%

All parentsParents in the bottom quarter of socio-economic statusParents in the top quarter of socio-economic status

A school’s religious philosophy is not a determining factor when parents choose a school for their child

Percentage of parents who reported that a school adheres to a particular religiousphilosophy is a very important criterion when choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

B

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mex

ico

Mac

ao-C

hina

Chi

le

Kor

ea

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Por

tuga

l

Italy

Ger

man

y

Bel

gium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

Hun

gary

%


A school’s particular approach to teaching is not a determining factor when parents choose a school for their child

Percentage of parents who reported that a particular approach to pedagogy is a very important criterion when choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Chi

le

Mex

ico

Por

tuga

l

Italy

Mac

ao-C

hina

Hun

gary

Bel

gium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

Ger

man

y

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Cro

atia

Kor

ea

%


Legacy is not an important criterion when choosing a school

Percentage of parents who reported that the fact that other family members attended a school is a very important criterion when choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

B

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Chi

le

Mex

ico

Por

tuga

l

Cro

atia

Kor

ea

Mac

ao-C

hina

Hun

gary

Italy

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Ger

man

y

Bel

gium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

%


Expenses associated with schooling are a concern among disadvantaged families

Percentage of parents who reported that expenses such as tuition, books, and room and board, are very important criteria when choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Chi

le

Mex

ico

Por

tuga

l

Kor

ea

Mac

ao-C

hina

Cro

atia

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Hun

gary

Ger

man

y

Bel

gium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

%


Financial aid for school is a greater concern among disadvantaged parents

Percentage of parents who reported that the availability of financial aid, such as a school loan, scholarship or grant, is a very important criterion when choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Por

tuga

l

Mex

ico

Chi

le

Kor

ea

Ger

man

y

Hun

gary

Cro

atia

Bel

gium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

Mac

ao-C

hina

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Italy

%


For disadvantaged families, physical access to school is a significant concern

Percentage of parents who reported that the school’s distance from home is a very important criterion when choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Por

tuga

l

Bel

gium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

Chi

le

Mex

ico

Cro

atia

Hun

gary

Ger

man

y

Kor

ea

Italy

Mac

ao-C

hina

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

%


Parents show some interest in the particular courses or subjects a school offers

Percentage of parents who reported that the particular courses or subjects a school offers is a very important criterion when choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

B

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Kor

ea

Chi

le

Por

tuga

l

Mex

ico

Mac

ao-C

hina

Cro

atia

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Ger

man

y

Italy

Hun

gary

Bel

gium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

%


Advantaged families tend to seek out schools whose students are high achievers

Percentage of parents who reported that students’ high academic achievement is a very important criterion in choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Por

tuga

l

Chi

le

Mex

ico

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Bel

gium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

Ger

man

y

Kor

ea

Italy

Mac

ao-C

hina

Hun

gary

Cro

atia

%


A school’s reputation is a very important consideration among advantaged families

Percentage of parents who reported that a school’s good reputation isa very important criterion when choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Chi

le

Kor

ea

Por

tuga

l

Ger

man

y

Mex

ico

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na

Mac

ao-C

hina

Italy

Cro

atia

Bel

gium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

Hun

gary

%


Advantaged parents tend to seek out schools with an active and pleasant climate

Percentage of parents who reported that an active and pleasant climate is a very important criterion when choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Portu

gal

Kore

a

Chi

le

Hon

g Ko

ng-C

hina

Mac

ao-C

hina

Mex

ico

Cro

atia

Italy

Ger

man

y

Hun

gary

Belg

ium

(Fl.

Com

m.)

%


Parents everywhere look for a safe school environment for their child

Percentage of parents who reported that a safe school environment is a very important criterion in choosing a school for their child

Fig IV.4.5

6161Le

sson

s fro

m h

igh

perfo

rmer

s

Low impact on outcomes

High impact on outcomes

Low feasibility High feasibility

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

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

Money makes a difference……but only up to a point

62

Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and mathematics performance in PISA 2012

Slovak Republic

Czech RepublicEstonia

Israel

Poland

Korea

Portugal

New Zealand

CanadaGermany

Spain

France

Italy

Singapore

Finland

Japan

Slovenia IrelandIceland

Netherlands

Sweden

Belgium

UK

AustraliaDenmark

United States

Austria

Norway

Switzerland

Luxembourg

Viet Nam

Jordan

Peru

ThailandMalaysia

Uruguay

Turkey

Colombia

Tunisia

MexicoMontenegro

Brazil

Bulgaria

Chile

CroatiaLithuania

Latvia

Hungary

Shanghai-China

R² = 0.01

R² = 0.37

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

0 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000 120 000 140 000 160 000 180 000 200 000

Mat

hem

atic

s pe

rfor

man

ce (s

core

poi

nts)

Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (USD, PPPs)

Cumulative expenditure per student less than USD 50 000

Cumulative expenditure per student USD 50 000 or more

Fig IV.1.8

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Sha

ngha

i-Chi

naH

ong

Kon

g-C

hina

Fran

ceS

lova

k R

epub

licM

acao

-Chi

naIta

lyS

witz

erla

ndQ

atar

Cze

ch R

epub

licIs

rael

Thai

land

Arg

entin

aD

enm

ark

Bel

gium

Vie

t Nam

Ger

man

yU

.A.E

.U

nite

d K

ingd

omG

reec

eIn

done

sia

Spa

inC

hine

se T

aipe

iS

inga

pore

Japa

nFi

nlan

dU

rugu

ayP

olan

dS

wed

enA

ustra

liaN

ew Z

eala

ndO

EC

D a

vera

geN

ethe

rland

sM

alay

sia

Aus

tria

Luxe

mbo

urg

Bul

garia

Mex

ico

Jord

anP

eru

Icel

and

Por

tuga

lB

razi

lTu

rkey

Rom

ania

Can

ada

Nor

way

Tuni

sia

Lith

uani

aC

hile

Ser

bia

Kor

eaU

nite

d S

tate

sR

ussi

an F

ed.

Cos

ta R

ica

Kaz

akhs

tan

Mon

tene

gro

Col

ombi

aC

roat

iaS

love

nia

Irela

ndLa

tvia

Est

onia

Scor

e po

int d

iffer

ence

before accounting for students' socio-economic status after accounting for students' socio-economic status

Difference in mathematics performance, by attendance at pre-primary school

Students who attended pre-primary school perform better

Fig III.4.1264

o Within countries, class time relates positively to performance– Holds also after accounting for socio-economic and

demographic factors, but does not hold when pooling data across countries (learning outcomes are the product of quantity and quality)

– The proportion of students in schools with after-school mathematics lessons is unrelated to system performance

– Homework relates positively to school performance

o Most countries and economies with comparable data between 2003 and 2012 have moved towards better-staffed and better-equipped schools

65 Also worth noting

High performers spend resources where they are needed most

66

Hong Kong-China

BrazilUruguay

Croatia

Latvia

Chinese Taipei

ThailandBulgaria

Jordan

Macao-China

UAEArgentina

IndonesiaKazakhstan

Peru

Costa RicaMontenegro

Tunisia

Qatar

Singapore

Colombia

MalaysiaSerbia

Romania

Viet Nam

Shanghai-China

USA

Poland

New Zealand

Greece

UK

Estonia

FinlandSlovak Rep.

Luxembourg

GermanyAustriaFrance

Japan

TurkeySweden HungaryAustralia Israel

CanadaIreland

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

Mat

hem

atic

s pe

rfor

man

ce (s

core

poi

nts)

Equity in resource allocation(index points)

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

Greater equity

Less equity

Adjusted by per capita GDP

Fig IV.1.11

SHA

6868Le

sson

s fro

m h

igh

perfo

rmer

s




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Coherence of policies and practicesAlignment of policies across all aspects of the systemCoherence of policies over sustained periods of timeConsistency of implementation Fidelity of implementation (without excessive control)

CAN

6969Le

sson

s fro

m h

igh

perfo

rmer

s




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







7070Le

sson

s fro

m h

igh

perfo

rmer

s

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

Student inclusion

Routine cognitive skills, rote learning Learning to learn, complex ways of thinking, ways of working

Curriculum, instruction and assessment

Few years more than secondary 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

Thank you !

Find out more about PISA at www.pisa.oecd.org• All national and international publications• The complete micro-level database

Email: [email protected]: SchleicherEDU

and remember:Without data, you are just another person with an opinion

Do you have an idea on how to use this data to improve education in your country?

Would you like to work with us to develop that idea?

Apply to the Thomas J. Alexander

fellowship programme!

http://www.oecd.org/edu/thomasjalexanderfellowship.htm

Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools ...

Documents

Transcript of Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools ...