CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARYAny use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey & Company is strictly prohibited

April 2011

Swedish Education

Discussion document

1

Context and objectives

▪ McKinsey has published two reports with international comparisons of different educational system’s performance

▪ The objective of today’s meeting is to discuss what additional measures can be taken to improve Sweden’s educational performance

2

Contents

▪ Introduction

▪ Sweden's starting position

▪ What do we know about “good-to-great”

▪ Discussion: Sweden’s journey

3

As an independent agent, McKinsey has published two reports about the

drivers and transformation of school system performance internationally

The McKinsey 2007 report on excellence The McKinsey 2010 report on how to get there

4

The 2007 report identified common denominators for the world’s most

high performing school systems

SOURCE: McKinsey 2007

Getting the right people to become teachers

The quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers

▪ High status of teachers▪ Mechanisms for selecting teachers for teacher training▪ Recruiting and branding strategies▪ Good starting compensation

Ensuring that the system is able to deliver the best possible instruction for every child

High performance requires every child to succeed

▪ Setting high expectations for what students should achieve▪ Funding that divert additional resources to schools in need of

improvement▪ Intervention to replace or improve leadership▪ Monitoring and intervening at the students level

Developing teachers into efficient instructors

The only way to improve outcomes is to improve instruction

▪ Defining what good instruction look like▪ Making teachers aware of weaknesses in their own practice▪ Placing coaches in schools to support teachers▪ Selecting and developing effective instructional leaders

– Getting the right teachers to become principals– Focusing each principal’s time on instructional leadership▪ Enabling teachers to learn from each other

Such as…

5

Leadership continuity is essential – the median tenure of successful new strategic leaders is six years and that of new political leaders is seven years

While ‘structure’ and ‘resource’ interventions dominate the debate, ‘process’ deserves as much attention

The 2010 report highlights nine lessons about school system improvement

SOURCE: McKinsey 2010

A system can make significant gains from wherever it starts – and these gains can be achieved in as short as six years1

Each stage of the school system improvement journey is associated with a unique set of interventions 2

A system’s context might not determine what needs to be done, but it does determine how it is done

3

Six interventions occur equally at every performance stage for all systems but manifest differently

4

5Prescribe adequacy and unleash greatness, with collaborative practice

as the engine of continuous improvement 6

The middle layer plays a crucial role in delivering and sustaining improvement – compliance, communication, collaboration, and insulation

7Ignition occurs due to socio-economic crisis, a critical report about system

performance, or the installation of a new political or strategic leader 8

9

6SOURCE: McKinsey & Company

More than 200 school systems were evaluated and 20 improved systems

identified and analyzed

Evaluated systems

Improved systems

Sustained improvers:Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Ontario (Canada), Saxony (Germany), England, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Poland, Aspire (USA), Long Beach, Ca (USA), Boston, MA (USA)

Promising starts:Armenia, Western Cape (south Africa) Chile, Minas Gerais (Brazil), Madhya Pradesh (India), Ghana, Jordan

200 school systems were evaluated based on international, national and regional assessments1

20 systems that had achieved large improvements were identified along with 575 educational reform interventions in these countries

Interventions that were common across systems at similar development stage were identified and mapped

Input data Selection and deep-dive Outcomes

1 1964 & 1978 – First International Mathematics Study (FIMS & SIMS), 1970 & 1983 – First International Science Study (FISS & SISS), 1995, 1999, 2003 & 2007 – Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 2000, 2003 & 2006 – Program for international Student Assessment (PISA), 2001 & 2006 – Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), 1971-2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) US, 2005, 2007 & 2009 Index of Development of the Basic Education (IDEB) Brazil, 2006, 2007, 2008 Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) India, 2000-2010 California Academic Performance Index US

7

In the study we’ve combined the scores of different international

comparisons such as PISA and TIMSS into a universal scale by which we

classify systems as either being poor, fair, good, great or excellent

8

Contents

▪ Introduction

▪ Sweden's starting position

▪ What do we know about “good-to-great”

▪ Discussion: Sweden’s journey

9

Comparing to EU15 and EFTA, Sweden ranks in the bottom half

473Greece

483Luxembourg

485Spain

486Italy

489Austria

490Portugal

496Sweden

497France

498Ireland

500Denmark

500Norway

501Iceland

502United Kingdom

510Belgium

512Germany

518Switzerland

520Netherlands

545Finland

PISA 2009Country

Results of EU15 and EFTAScore on the universal scale

Other relevant education systemsScore on the universal scale

428Romania

434Bulgaria

481Lithuania

487Latvia

489Slovak Republic

492Czech Republic

497Hungary

497USA

501Slovenia

502Poland

515Estonia

520Australia

525New Zealand

527Canada

531Japan

541Korea

544Singapore

547Hong Kong

PISA 2009Country

SOURCE: PISA 2009, McKinsey 2010

10

Great

Good

Fair

Excellent

Sweden has come out as “good” during almost three decadesO

rigin

al S

core

(U

nive

rsal

Sca

le S

core

1 )

1 Universal Scale brings test scores onto an absolute scale across time and examination to allow for comparisons across both time and exam type. The 2009 universal scale score is apreliminary estimate. It is based on the 2009 PISA scores normalised using 2008 NAEP. It will be updated and become final once 2009 NAEP data is available.

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

TIMSS

Maths:Maths:Science:Science:

PRILSReading:

PISA

Maths:Science:Reading:

SISSScience:Science:

198557 (487)60 (496)

1995

540 (496)

553 (526)

561 (512)2001

2003

509 (516)514 (512)506 (506)

2003

499 (488)

525 (491)

549 (519)2006

2006

502 (522)507 (508)503 (509)

2007

503 (497)491 (490)525 (482)511 (487)

2009

494 (505)497 (499)495 (485)

2000

510 (499)516 (506)512 (503)

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

496489513503503511

491

Universal scale score1

600

550

500

450

400

350

300

2500

Poor

11

Since others are improving, Sweden’s relative position is falling

Singapore

581Japan

581Korea

569Hong Kong

550Belgium-Flemish

540Sweden

534Slovak Republic

529Netherlands

527Hungary

527Bulgaria

524Russia

509Australia

501New Zealand

498Norway

494Slovenia

493Scotland

492United States

609

Latvia

474Romania

472

488

468Cyprus

418Iran

Lithuania

Singapore

589Korea

586Hong Kong

570Japan

537Belgium-Flemish

536Netherlands

529Hungary

508Russia

508Slovak Republic

505Latvia

505Australia

504United States

502Lithuania

499Sweden

498Scotland

494New Zealand

493Slovenia

605

Bulgaria

475Romania

461

476

459Cyprus

411Iran

Norway

-41

1995 2003

Taipei

597Korea

593Singapore

572Hong Kong

570Japan

517Hungary

513England

512Russia

508US

506Lithuania

504Czech rep

501Slovenia

499Armenia

496Australia

491

488Malta

487Scotland

486Serbia

480

Sweden

474Malaysia

469Norway

465Cyprus

598

Italy

2007

Example: TIMSS Mathematics, grade 8

SOURCE: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

-8

12

While the system as a whole is “stuck in good” the student outcome

variation between schools has increased

Student reading outcome variation between schools in Sweden, PISA 2009, percent1

OECD Average 2009: 41.7%

OECD Average 2009: 41.7%

1 The values are shown as percent of the total variation in OECD. A low value means a low variation, e.g., student outcome is not dependent on whichschool the student attends

SOURCE: PISA 2009; Skolverket

▪ Variations between schools have more than doubled since 2000

▪ About 70% of the variation is explained by differences in social background – an increase compared to 2003 and 2006

6,9

2009

17,0

9,1

2003 2006

4,2

2000

21,7

7,9

8,5

5,8

9,0

14,82,7

4,8

+155%

Variation between schools explained by social background

13

The gap in results between children of low educated parents and children

of well educated parents seems to increase from year 3 to year 9

12

20

32

10

24

37

Low educated

welleducated

mid educated

Year 3

Year 9Share of students failing national test in math 2010

Percent

SOURCE: Skolverket

12

20

32

10

24

37

welleducated

mid educated

Low educated

14

This variation is not only due to socio-economic differences, indicating large improvement potential through process changes

1 Score = Share of “Godkänt” * 1 + Share of “Väl Godkänt” * 2 + Share of “Mycket Väl Godkänt” * 3

Stockholm school results from national test in mathematics

Weighted average score1 and socio-economic compensation

Schools selected for deep dive comparison

Abrahamsberg

0,5

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

Socio-economic compensationSEK per STUDENT

50.0005.000 45.00040.00035.00030.00025.00020.00015.00010.0000

Sofia skola

Vällingbyskolan

Bäckahagen

15

Contents

▪ Introduction

▪ Sweden's starting position

▪ What do we know about “good-to-great”

▪ Discussion: Sweden’s journey

16

A system can make significant gains from wherever it starts –and these gains can be achieved in as short as six years

Lesson I

17

Our sample represents a continuum of improvement from

poor to fair to good to great

SOURCE: TIMSS, PISA, NAEP, national and provincial assessments; McKinsey & Company interventions database

Poor2

Fair2

Good2

Great

1985 1990 2000 20101995 2005

Ontario, Canada

Saxony, Germany

England

Slovenia

Poland

Latvia

Lithuania

Singapore

Hong Kong

South Korea

Long Beach, CA, USA

Boston/MA, USA

Aspire Public Schools (USA)

Armenia

Minas Gerais, Brazil

Madhya Pradesh, India

Systems

Systems with

Special Assumptions

Chile

Western Cape, SA

Ghana

Jordan

18

Systems at all performance levels can improve

outcomes substantially in as short as six years

Chile Latvia Hong Kong

2006

2000

+75% SYE2 +65% SYE2 +25% SYE2

SOURCE: PISA, McKinsey & Company interventions database

Saxony

+75% SYE2

Poor GoodFair GreatInitialPerformance

PISA scores, average1; 2000–06

1 Average across math, science, and reading PISA scores2 One school-year-equivalent (SYE) corresponds to 38 points on the PISA scale

533

497

460

412

542525

485

440

19

Chinese

Singapore narrowed the achievement gap between its ethnic groups

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100OverallIndian

Malay

20060504030201009998979695949392919089881987

SOURCE: Singapore Ministry of Education

% of pupils who sat the Primary School Leaving Exam and achieved eligibility for secondary school by ethnicity

20

42

24

17

+25

200820062004

42

33

23

+19

200820062004

43

36

30

+13

200820062004

44

54

45

-1

200820062004

75

88

80

2004

-5

20082006

Pass rates, grade 3Lowest wealthPercent

Pass rates, grade 32nd lowest wealthPercent

Pass rates, grade 33rd lowest wealthPercent

Pass rates, grade 31

2nd highest wealthPercent

SOURCE: WCED Learner Assessment Studies, Final Reports, 2002-2008

Pass rates, grade 31

Highest wealthPercent

Western Cape narrowed the literacy inequality gap in four years: among 3rd

graders, the bottom three quintiles have caught up to the second richest

1 Interviewees in WCED attributed some of the drop in the two highest wealth quintiles to shifts upwards in wealth categories of learners from 2006

21

Each stage of the school system improvement journey is associated with a unique set of interventions, from poor to fair to good to great to excellent

Lesson II

22SOURCE: McKinsey & Company interventions database

Common

across all

journeys

Poor to fair Fair to good Good to great Great to excellent

Shaping the professional

Intervention

cluster1

▪ Raising calibre of

entering teachers and

principals– Recruiting programs– Pre-service training– Certification

requirements

▪ Raising calibre of

existing teachers and

principals– In-service training

programs– Coaching on practice– Career tracks– Teacher and

community forums

▪ School-based decision-

making– Self-evaluation– Independent and

specialized schools

Improving through peers

and innovation

▪ Cultivating peer-led learning

for teachers and principals– Collaborative practice– Decentralizing pedagogical

rights to schools & teachers– Rotation and secondment

programs

▪ Creating additional support

mechanisms for professionals– Release professionals from

admin burden by providing additional administrative staff

▪ System-sponsored

experimentation/innovation

across schools– Providing additional funding

for innovation– Sharing innovation from front-

line to all schools

Achieving the basics of

literacy and numeracy

Getting the foundations in

place

▪ Providing motivation and

scaffolding for low skill

teachers– Scripted teaching materials– Coaching on curriculum– Instructional time on task– School visits by center– Incentives for high

performance

▪ Getting all schools to a

minimum quality level– Outcome targets– Additional support for low

performing schools– School infrastructure

improvement– Provision of textbooks

▪ Getting students in seats– Expand school seats– Fulfil students’ basic needs

to raise attendance

▪ Data and accountability

foundation– Transparency to schools

and/or public on school performance

– School inspections and inspections institutions

▪ Financial and organizational

foundation– Optimization of school and

teacher volumes– Decentralizing financial and

administrative rights– Increasing funding – Funding allocation model– Organizational redesign

▪ Pedagogical foundation – School model/ streaming– Language of instruction

Theme

Improvementjourney

Six interventions: [1] Revising curriculum and standards; [2] Reviewing reward and remunerations structure; [3] Building technical skills

of teachers and principals, often through group or cascaded training; [4] Assessing student learning; [5] Utilizing student data to guide

delivery, and [ 6] Establishing policy documents and education laws

1 Total number of interventions in each phase: poor to fair, n=103, fair to good, n=226; good to great, n=150; great to excellent, n=94

A unique ‘intervention cluster’ exists for each improvement journey,

with six interventions common across all journeys

23

Good to great journeys emphasize shaping the professional

Theme Intervention types

▪ Recruiting▪ Preparation and induction

Raising calibre of entering teachers and principals

▪ Professional development ▪ Coaching on practice▪ Career pathways▪ Teacher forums

Raising calibre of existing teachers and principals

▪ Self-evaluation▪ Curriculum flexibility

School-based decision-making

Systems included

Aspire (2003+)Boston (2006+)England (1995+)Hong Kong (1989–99)Long Beach (2005+)Latvia (2001+)

Lithuania (2001+)Poland (2003+)Saxony (2000–05)Singapore (1988–98)Slovenia (2006+)South Korea (1983–98)

SOURCE: McKinsey & Company

24

Good to Great example: Ontario’s proficiency levels show consistent

improvement at both 3rd and 6th grades

54

50

02009-10

2006-07

2004-05

52

2002-03

2000-01

72

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

56

72

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

02009-10

2006-07

2004-05

2002-03

2000-01

Proportion of 3rd grade students proficient in reading, writing, and mathematics

Proportion of 6th grade students proficient in reading, writing, and mathematics

SOURCE: Ontario Education Quality and Accountability Office; IELD Ontario Case Study Report 2007

In 2003, a new Premier and education team entered office in Ontario and launched school system reforms

Education reforms Education reforms

Mathematics

Writing

Reading

25

The engine of sustained and continuous improvement from ‘good’

performance onwards is collaborative professional practice

Collaborative practice is school professionals working with

each other to improve their practice

Study groups, professional learning communities using research and data

Teachers visiting each other's class rooms

Teachers doing demonstration lessons together and joint-lesson-planning

Teachers mentoring and coaching each other and working with specialist coaches and principals on instructional practice

Schools, subject groups, or system developing a consensus model of good practice

Teacher and leaders reviewing student performance data together and jointly developing solutions

Examples

Boston, MA, USA

Hong Kong

Ontario, Canada

Aspire Public Schools, USA

SOURCE: system interviews, McKinsey analysis

����

����

����

����

����

����

26

Capability building vs. formal accountability Share of professional development & training interventions relative to accountability interventions

The balance of capability-building and accountability shifts as systems

improve their performance

SOURCE: McKinsey & Company interventions database

100% =

Great to Excellent

32

Good to Great

54

Fair to Good

51

Poor to Fair

26

Accountability

Professional development and training

4550

2233

50 55 67 78

27

Lesson III

While ‘structure’ and ‘resource’interventions dominate the debate, ‘process’ deserves as much attention

28

Process is the most prevalent intervention type

relative to structure and resource

Intervention type

Structures –organizational, financial, and instructional configuration/ shape of the system

Processes –practices, activities, rights and responsibilities in the system

Resources –Level and allocation of financial and human resources to fuel the system

Share of all interventions(Percent,100% = 573)

70

15

15

SOURCE: McKinsey & Company interventions database

Focus of process intervention

Share oftotal process interventions (Percent,100% = 400)

Total processreforms 100

Policy & strategy

Learning Model

Total deliveryinterventions

ProfessionalDevelopment 26

Management& leadership 12

Communications 8

Change Authorities& Responsibilities 11

AccountabilityDelivery

Content

Policy 13

15

72

15

29

A system’s context might not determine what needs to be done, but it does determine how it is done

Lesson IV

30

Data

Persuade Mandate

Language of instruction

Professional development expectations

US systemsSingapore

SingaporeHong Kong

LithuaniaPoland

1 In all subjects, except the mother tongue, from Primary 1 onwards

“When there is time pressure todeliver results, and the stakeholder environment is fractious, sometimes agreeing to a number is the best way to get people focused”

“There is no shame in transparency…we are here for the kids”

“We have never used targets. Focusing on targets can lead to shortcuts in teaching practice”

“No good for our students could ever come from making school data public and embarrassing our educators”

One of the most important contextual decisions we encountered is when to

mandate or persuade change

SOURCE: McKinsey & Company

31

Leadership continuity is essential

Lesson V

32

Strategic leader

Political leader

Years of tenure

Median of strategic leaders in our samplesystems

US urban superintendent average

England education secretary

SOURCE: McKinsey & Company interventions database

16

2.8

6

16 7

2

The median tenures of leaders in the systems we studied was six years for

strategic leaders and seven for political leaders

Median of political leaders in our samplesystems

33

Leadership continuity is essential – the median tenure of successful new strategic leaders is six years and that of new political leaders is seven years

While ‘structure’ and ‘resource’ interventions dominate the debate, ‘process’ deserves as much attention

Our research highlights nine lessons about school system improvement

A system can make significant gains from wherever it starts – and these gains can be achieved in as short as six years1

Each stage of the school system improvement journey is associated with a unique set of interventions 2

A system’s context might not determine what needs to be done, but it does determine how it is done

3

Six interventions occur equally at every performance stage for all systems but manifest differently

4

5Prescribe adequacy and unleash greatness, with collaborative practice

as the engine of continuous improvement 6

The middle layer plays a crucial role in delivering and sustaining improvement – compliance, communication, collaboration, and insulation

7Ignition occurs due to socio-economic crisis, a critical report about system

performance, or the installation of a new political or strategic leader 8

9

34

Contents

▪ Introduction

▪ Sweden's starting position

▪ What do we know about “good-to-great”

▪ Discussion: Sweden’s journey

35

To understand the educational reforms in Sweden we interviewed teachers,

principals and key stakeholders of the Swedish school systemOrganization Interviewees Sample questions

Schools:AbrahamsbergsskolanBäckahagens skolaVällingbyskolan

▪ 3 principals▪ 6 teachers

What is a normal week like? – how much joint planning, coaching, pro-fessional development?

What are the biggest changes in your work during the last 20 years?

Unions:Lärarnas RiksförbundLärarförbundetSkolledarföbundet

▪ Anders Almgren(vice ordf Lärarnas Riksförbund)

▪ Anders Johansson (ombudsman Lärarförbundet)

▪ Lars Flodin (ordf Skolledarförb.)

What do you perceive as weaknesses in the Swedish school system?

What are the biggest changes to the school system during the last 20 years?

Municipalities:Stockholm citySwedish association of local authorities and regions

▪ Thomas Persson(utbildningsdirektör Stockholm city)

▪ Joakim Feldt (project manager SKL)

What is your strategy on professional development of your teachers and principals?

Teacher education experts:Högskoleverket

▪ Jana Hejzlar(utvärderingsavdelningen, Högskoleverket)

What has been the major changes to the teacher education?

Skolverket (agency of education)

▪ Helene Ängmo (tf GD)▪ Katarina Håkansson (chef

kvalitetsutvecklingsavdelningen)▪ Anders Palm (head of

mathematics development)

What are your KPI:swhen assessing Swedish schools?

What has been your main focus in de-veloping the Swedish school system?

36

Most reforms have been of structural or financial character and

few reforms have directly targeted the ongoing

processes in the classroom

SOURCE: Skolverket – Vad påverkar resultaten i svensk skola, interviews

1991 1994

NOT EXHAUSTIVE

2000

Independent school reform and voucher system

1992 1993

Removal of designated grants to municipals

New curriculum (LPO -94)

Wärnersson-pengarna

Documentation of individual development plans compulsory

2006 2010 2011

New teacher education

Reform of upper secondary school

Course based upper secondary school introduced

Year

Individual wages for teachers

1996

The agency of school development is formed

2003 2008

The School inspection becomes a separate agency

Structural/financial reforms

Process reforms

Freedom of choice reform

New Curriculum (LGR -11)

New school law

Teacher certificate

Municipals new heads of schools

Trial of removing national time schedules

New gradesystemintroduced

1998

Curriculum forpre-school

Inspection responsi-bility for Skolverket

Newteacher education

2001

Maths and natural science development

Practical training program

The teacher package

Upcoming

reforms:

Temporary Student’s health init.

Piloting of summer schools

National tests from year 3

Grades from year 6

37

The Swedish reform focus since 2006 and forward

SOURCE: MckKinsey 2007, McKinsey 2010; Skolverket; Interviews

Sweden

Poor to fair Fair to good Good to great Great to excellentImprovement

journey

Theme

� Revising curriculum and standards

� Reviewing reward and remuneration structure

� Building technical skills of teachers and principals

Achieving the basics of literacy

and numeracy

Getting the foundations in

place

Shaping the professional Improving through peers and

innovation

Intervention

cluster

▪ Providing motivation and

scaffolding for low skill

teachers

– Scripted teaching materials– Coaching on curriculum– Instructional time on task– School visits by center– Incentives for high

performance▪ Getting all schools to a

minimum quality level

– Outcome targets– Additional support for low

performing schools– School infrastructure

improvement– Provision of textbooks

▪ Getting students in seats

– Expand school seats– Fulfill students basic needs to

raise attendance

▪ Data and accountability

foundation

– Transparency to schools and/or public on school performance

– School inspections and inspections institutions

▪ Functional and

organizational foundation

– Optimization of school and teacher volumes

– Decentralizing financial and administrative rights

– Increasing funding– Funding allocation model– Organizational redesign

▪ Pedagogical foundation

– School model/streaming– Language of instruction

▪ Raising caliber of entering

teachers and principals

– Recruiting programs– Pre-service training– Certification requirements

▪ Raising caliber of existing

teachers and principals

– In-service training programs

– Coaching on practice– Career tracks– Teacher forums and

collaborative planning▪ School-based decision

making

– Self-evaluation– Independent and

specialized schools

▪ Cultivating peer-led learning

for teachers and principals

– Collaborative practice– Decentralizing pedagogical

rights to schools and teachers

– Rotation and secondmentprograms

▪ Creating additional support

mechanisms for

professionals

– Release professionals from admin burden by providing additional administrative staff

▪ System-sponsored

experimentation/innovation

across schools

– Providing additional funding for innovation

– Sharing innovation from front-line to all schools

Common

across all

journeys

Intervention is a major recent reform focus

Intervention not part of current reforms

� Assessing student learning

� Utilizing student data to guide delivery

� Establishing policy documents and education laws

38

Assessing Sweden’s performance in areas of good-to-great-interventions

we find a number of measures lagging behind

SOURCE: McKinsey analysis

Area of intervention lagging behind

National average

Performance Journey: Good-to-great Theme: Shaping the professional

Performance level

Raising caliber of

entering teachers

and principals

Cluster Interventions

HighLow

▪ Recruiting programsA

▪ Pre-service training▪ Certification requirements

School based

decision-making

Raising caliber of

existing teachers

and principals

Common across all interventions

▪ In-service training programsB

▪ Teacher collaborative practiceC

▪ Coaching on practiceD

▪ Career tracksE

▪ Self-evaluation▪ Independent and specialized schools

▪ Revising curriculum and standards▪ Reviewing reward and remuneration structure▪ Building technical skills of teachers and principals

▪ Assessing student learning▪ Utilizing student data to guide deliveryF

▪ Establishing policy documents and education laws

39

Sweden has few candidates per seat for teachers education

Candidates per seat

1.879

9.816

526

194

1.136

340

233

996

2.841

1.964

397

568

Seats

SOURCE: Skolverket, OECD, Education at a glance 2007

Recruiting programs

National screening

Interviews (university

Assesmenttests

(university)

Group work (university)

Recruitment by school

On competition of their teacher training candidates are recruited by individual schools

Check suitability for teaching: Group exercises and teaching demonstrations test communications and interpersonal skills

Check suitability for teaching: Interviews look for motivation to teach, motivation to learn, communication skills and emotional intelligence

Check overall academic ability and literacy – Tests evaluate the ability to process information think critically and synthesise data, Applicants should be in the top 20% of their cohort

Check for strong intrinsics:300-question multiple choice assessment testing numeracy,literacy and problem solving

Only 1 in 10

applicants is

accepted to become

a teacher*

Best practice – Finland Sweden

Teacher 1,6

Economist

Lawyer

2,1

10,0

5,0

Psychologist

Nurse 3,1

Sociologist

Physiotherapist 7,7

MD 8,0

5,2

Weighted average 2.6

A

40

The teacher profession has not sufficiently high status

Successful positioning of the teacher profession1. Working with children2. Intellectual stimulation3. Salary and career progression

Best practice – England Sweden

Recruiting programs

▪ In a survey from 2006 uppersecondary school teacherranks as the 44th and primary/lowersecondary school teacher 52nd most attractive professions

SOURCE: Profession status and gender Gothenburg University

Late 90’s: 92nd most popular

occupation among 25-35 year

2005: The most popular

1. Ambassadör 2. Läkare 3. Domare4. Professor 5. Advokat 6. Pilot 7. VD 8. Forskare 9. Civilingenjör 10. Statsråd 11. Idrottsproffs 12. Civilekonom 13. Veterinär 14. Datakonsult 15. Filmproducent 16. Tandläkare 17. Aktiemäklare 18. Riksdagsledamot 19. Ingenjör 20. Psykolog 21. Programledare

TV 22. Skattedirektör 23. Revisor 24. Webbdesigner 25. Journalist

51. Skolkurator 52. Grundskolelärare53. Reseledare 54. Akupunktör 55. Elektriker 56. Fackliga ombudsmän 57. Byggnadsarbetare 58. Kriminalvårdare59. Snickare 60. Frisör 61. Socialsekreterare 62. Trädgårdsmästare 63. Dansare 64. Bibliotekarie 65. Förskolelärare 66. Lokförare 67. Kosmetolog 68. Bilmontör 69. Bagare 70. Bilreparatör71. Lantbrukare72. Barnskötare73. Skräddare/ sömmerska74. Kontorssekreterare75. Metallarbetare

26. Personalchef 27. Författare28. Officer 29. Dataoperatör 30. Reklamare (AD)31. Skådespelare 32. Präst 33. Apotekare 34. Polis 35. Banktjänsteman36. Brandman37. Sociolog 38. Meteorolog 39. Fotomodell 40. Flygvärdinna41. Barnmorska 42. Miljövårdsinspektör 43. Guldsmed 44. Gymnasielärare

45. Kock46. Sjukgymnast 47. Rockmusiker48. Sjuksköterska 49. Kronofogde 50. Konstnär

A

41

In-service training programs for teachers tend to lack clear priority and classroom focus

Best practice - Aspire (USA), Shanghai (China)

In-service training programs

Sweden

▪ 5-7 “professional development days”per year for which some contentis planned by the municipalityand some by the principal

▪ Professional development often ad-hoc – based on requests from individual teachers

▪ A lot of professional development is used by the center to inform or review plans or initiatives or to build administrative skills such as handling IT-systems for absence reporting

▪ Training in classroom settings is non-existent

▪ Teachers often required to compensate for their overtime on professional development days

B

SOURCE: Interviews, Research report Högskolan i Kristianstad

In-service training programs are:▪ Data driven

▪ Continuous and integrated withother process developmentsuch as coaching and planning

▪ Classroom centered

▪ Collaborative

42

Case study 2: Top-performers take professional

development inside the classroom and make it routine

Peer observation Peer observation

All teachers in All teachers in Shanghai are Shanghai are required to visit required to visit and observe at and observe at least eight lessons least eight lessons by colleagues by colleagues each termeach term

Lesson studyLesson study

Teachers in both Teachers in both Shanghai and Shanghai and Japan work in Japan work in teams to analyze teams to analyze and develop and develop model lessonsmodel lessons

Demonstration Demonstration

lessons lessons

Teachers Teachers demonstrate demonstrate excellent practice excellent practice to a wider group of to a wider group of instructors, instructors, followed by followed by discussion and discussion and feedback sessionsfeedback sessions

Professional development in Shanghai and Japan

In service training programs

B

42

Case study 2: Top-performers take professional

development inside the classroom and make it routine

Peer observation Peer observation

All teachers in All teachers in Shanghai are Shanghai are required to visit required to visit and observe at and observe at least eight lessons least eight lessons by colleagues by colleagues each termeach term

Lesson studyLesson study

Teachers in both Teachers in both Shanghai and Shanghai and Japan work in Japan work in teams to analyze teams to analyze and develop and develop model lessonsmodel lessons

Demonstration Demonstration

lessons lessons

Teachers Teachers demonstrate demonstrate excellent practice excellent practice to a wider group of to a wider group of instructors, instructors, followed by followed by discussion and discussion and feedback sessionsfeedback sessions

Professional development in Shanghai and Japan

In service training programs

B

43

Best practice – Boston (USA), Ontario (Canada)

Collaborative planning

Sweden

Teacher

”We never have time to talk about the standard teaching in the teams anymore. The time is taken up by practical issues concerning culture days, students with

social problems, and evaluations or some plan we should give input on.”

Teacher

” At this school it is only the math teachers that use the same tests but no

one plan lessons jointly”

~7.5 % of the teachers’ time (between 07.00

and 17.00) are used for planning of

lessons, little, if any, of this time is used in

collaboration

Planning of lessons is not prioritized and oftendone without input from colleagues

C

SOURCE: Interviews, Research report Högskolan i Kristianstad, McKinsey 2010

45

The core of collaborative practice is intentional instruction

SOURCE: Interviews

Teachers analyse student data to understand needs

Teachers work together to plan lessons and student support

Teachers build a shared range of effective instructional strategies

Intentional instructionAssess

impact

Share methods and impact

Analyze student data

Plan instruction

Teach

Teacher assesses impact on student learning

Teacher uses the planned lesson and strategies

“Were are precise but not prescriptive…we are trying to cultivate intentional teaching,

where a teacher can tell you why she is using a particular strategy for a particular student need” – Student Achievement Officer

44

Case study 1: developing collaborative planningBASED ON BOSTON EXPERIENCE

We made the time for it

Effective teacher collaboration

We used real and

meaningful data

We interjected expertise

We taught teachers

how to collaborate

• Boston scheduled Common Planning Time,

• Built it into the school schedule (who meets, how fits in day, etc)

• This took significant leadership time (principal, teacher leader, coach)

• It was someone’s role to prepare analysis beyond a single class (e.g. 4th grade math trends) – principal, analyst, teacher leader

• Helped teachers prioritise what data to use (e.g. student achievement data)

• Sought to create data-rich school environments (e.g. data in teacher lounges)

• It had to be facilitated and modelled by a capable principal, coach, teacher leader, or administrator…it was a new behaviour!

• Session agendas were linked to a school improvement objectives (e.g. improving math)

• Built root cause problem solving skills

• Followed up on strategies from one meeting to next

• Teachers came across issues for which solutions were not apparent

• Encourage teacher research if teachers have experience and skills to do it,

• Otherwise the administration, coach, or principal may need to source and interject expertise

“We found that In-school collaborative practice required greater support, not less”

Collaborative planning

C

44

Case study 1: developing collaborative planningBASED ON BOSTON EXPERIENCE

We made the time for it

Effective teacher collaboration

We used real and

meaningful data

We interjected

expertise

We taught teachers

how to collaborate

• Boston scheduled Common Planning Time,

• Built it into the school schedule (who meets, how fits in day, etc)

• This took significant leadership time (principal, teacher leader, coach)

• It was someone’s role to prepare analysis beyond a single class (e.g. 4th grade math trends) – principal, analyst, teacher leader

• Helped teachers prioritize what data to use (e.g. student achievement data)

• Sought to create data-rich school environments (e.g. data in teacher lounges)

• It had to be facilitated and modelled by a capable principal, coach, teacher leader, or administrator…it was a new behaviour!

• Session agendas were linked to a school improvement objectives (e.g. improving math)

• Built root cause problem solving skills

• Followed up on strategies from one meeting to next

• Teachers came across issues for which solutions were not apparent

• Encourage teacher research if teachers have experience and skills to do it,

• Otherwise the administration, coach, or principal may need to source and interject expertise

“We found that In-school collaborative practice required greater support, not less”

Collaborative planning

C

45

The core of collaborative practice is intentional instruction

SOURCE: Interviews

Teachers analyze student data to understand needs

Teachers work together to plan lessons and student support

Teachers build a shared range of effective instructional strategies

Intentional instructionAssess

impact

Share methods and impact

Analyze student data

Plan instruction

Teach

Teacher assesses impact on student learning

Teacher uses the planned lesson and strategies

“Were are precise but not prescriptive…we are trying to cultivate intentional teaching, where a teacher can tell you why she is using a particular strategy for a particular student need” – Student Achievement Officer

Collaborative planning

C

46

Coaching for in-service teachers is limited

▪ Expert teachers in priority areas are assignedto four or five schools

▪ Expert teachers on average work with three teachers on any given day

▪ Every process, spanning over three weeks, is based on the principle of see one (the expert teacher runs a demonstration class), share one (the teacher and the expert teacher co-teaches one class), do one (the expert teacher sits in on a class coaching the teacher)

▪ Expert teachers also instruct principals on coaching

▪ Great care is taken to ensure that the teacher remains empowered throughout the process and no individual information is provided by the expert teacher to the principal

Best practice – Long Beach, Ca, USA

Coaching on practice

Sweden

”I try to visit a class of each teacher once per semester but there has been no time

for that so far this year”

Principal (mid march 2011)

Teacher

”After you’ve passed teacher education you rarely, if ever, have another teacher sit through one of

your lessons to give feedback”

80%Successful principals use

80% of their time to develop

and strengthen the work in

the classroom

~1 % of the teachers’ time (between

07.00 and 17.00) are used for

professional development or

coaching and mentoring

D

SOURCE: Interviews

47

The career tracks for teachers are not transparent

and clearly defined

Career Tracks

Junior Teacher

Classroom Teacher(37%1)

Senior Teacher

(50%)

Methodist(12%)

Expert(1%)

▪Coach other teachers in the school

▪Coach other teachers in the district

▪Coach other teachers at national level

▪Contribute to writing national curriculum

1 Includes Junior teachers. Percentages as of 1995/19962 Lithuanian Teachers Qualification Institute. Nomination comes from principal and then approved by municipality first.

Principal’s decision

Principal and municipality decision

Municipality decision

Teachers qualification institutes decision

”I’m not interested in becoming principal. I became a teacher to teach not to be an

administrator.”

Teacher

Sweden Best practice – Lithuania

Teacher

”As a teacher there is basically two career paths, either you become an administrator

(principal) or you go into academia”

▪ Some municipalities are working to developcareer pathways by creating central positions such as development teachers, teacher coaches, teacher researchers etc. positionsare however limited (~50 positions for ~10,000 teachers in Stockholm municipality)

▪ Team leaders and subject developers exist on many schools but wage differentiation is limited at most and recruiting not transparent

SOURCE: Interviews,

E

48

Data is seldom used to guide delivery and identify best practice

Innovation – Teachers need to feel that they’re allowed to experimentIdentification – There need to be mechanisms in place that connect methods to results so good practice can be identifiedCommunication – There needs to be mechanisms in place that spreads good practice quick and efficiently

InnovationTeachers are allowed and encouraged toexperiment

Identification & CommunicationData of results of student groups is connected to individual teachers. Teachers performing high results over time are identified and their methods studied

Identified successful methods are codified with the support of centrally employed developers, piloted on other schools and rolled out system wide if proven successful

InnovationTeachers are allowed and encouraged toexperiment with methods

Identification & communicationResponsibility of identifying and communicating succesful methods not clearly defined� Skolverket is only supposed to support development

work of the municipalities, not to lead it, except when specific knowledge development projects are defined by the ministry. For these projects communication is done ad-hoc for each project through web-sites, books, conferences

� Municipalities (Stockholm): “We single out practices we think is good but we do not actually know what results we can expect from them”. ~100 teachers (out of 10 000 in Stockholm) are directly involved in the didactical method-networks where good practice is spread.

� National association for local authorities and regions have 8 people employed for their whole school development section

� Academia make research on didactical methods but research is not systematic and responsibilities often spread out among many universities (with the exception of NCM – National Center for Mathematics education)

Sweden Long beach

MAP2D

example

Using data to guide delivery

F

49

Synthesis

▪ Sweden is stuck in ”good” performance, losing relative position due to other countries improving

▪ The ”good-to-great journey” has been undertaken successfully by several other systems

▪ Looking at Sweden’s interventions it is still an open question to whether or not Sweden is on the path to great – is there more to do?

50

�Given the gap between Sweden’s performance and aspirations, what have been the barriers to improvement?

�How confident are we that recent and upcoming initiatives will be sufficient to result in a significant improvement of Sweden’s performance within five years time?

�What should we do?

Discussion questions