Upload
nguyenkhuong
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
OECD EMPLOYER BRAND Playbook
1
10 things policymakers should know about learning goals and assessment
Andreas Schleicher St. Petersburg, May 2014
2 2 Benchmark globally
Lesson 1 In a global economy, the benchmark for educational success is no longer solely
improvement by national standards, but the best performing education systems internationally
A world of change – higher education
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1995
Expen
diture
per
stu
den
t at
ter
tiar
y le
vel (U
SD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate (%)
Cost
per
stu
dent
Graduate supply
A world of change – higher education
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1995
Expen
diture
per
stu
den
t at
ter
tiar
y le
vel (U
SD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate (%)
Cost
per
stu
dent
Graduate supply
United States
A world of change – higher education
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2000
Expen
diture
per
stu
den
t at
ter
tiar
y le
vel (U
SD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
United Kingdom
A world of change – higher education
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2001
Expen
diture
per
stu
den
t at
ter
tiar
y le
vel (U
SD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2002
Expen
diture
per
stu
den
t at
ter
tiar
y le
vel (U
SD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2003
Expen
diture
per
stu
den
t at
ter
tiar
y le
vel (U
SD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2004
Expen
diture
per
stu
den
t at
ter
tiar
y le
vel (U
SD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2005
Expen
diture
per
stu
den
t at
ter
tiar
y le
vel (U
SD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2006
Expen
diture
per
stu
den
t at
ter
tiar
y le
vel (U
SD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2007
Expen
diture
per
stu
den
t at
ter
tiar
y le
vel (U
SD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2008
Expen
diture
per
stu
den
t at
ter
tiar
y le
vel (U
SD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2009
Expen
diture
per
stu
den
t at
ter
tiar
y le
vel (U
SD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
A world of change – higher education
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2010
Expen
diture
per
stu
den
t at
ter
tiar
y le
vel (U
SD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
Iceland
Poland
UK
A world of change – higher education
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2010
Expen
diture
per
stu
den
t at
ter
tiar
y le
vel (U
SD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
US
17 17 Don’t sacrifice validity gains for efficiency gains
Lesson 2
The kinds of things that are easy to teach and test are also easy to digitise,
automate and outsource
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 2009
Routine manual
Nonroutine manual
Routine cognitive
Nonroutine analytic
Nonroutine interpersonal
Mean task input in percentiles of 1960 task distribution
18 Changes in the demand for skills Trends in different tasks in occupations (United States)
Source: Autor, David H. and Brendan M. Price. 2013. "The Changing Task Composition of the US Labor Market: An Update of Autor, Levy, and Murnane (2003)." MIT Mimeograph, June.
19 19 Monitor excellence and equity jointly
Lesson 3
The false choice between equity and excellence
Singapore
Hong Kong-China Chinese Taipei Korea
Macao-China Japan Liechtenstein Switzerland
Netherlands Estonia Finland Canada Poland Belgium Germany Viet Nam
Austria Australia Ireland Slovenia Denmark New Zealand
Czech Republic France United Kingdom Iceland Latvia Luxembourg Norway
Portugal Italy Spain Russian Fed. Slovak Republic United States Lithuania Sweden Hungary Croatia
Israel
Greece Serbia Turkey
Romania Bulgaria U.A.E. Kazakhstan Thailand
Chile Malaysia Mexico
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580Mean score
High mathematics performance
Low mathematics performance
… Shanghai-China performs above this line (613)
… 12 countries perform below this line
Average performance of 15-year-olds in
Mathematics Fig I.2.13
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
High mathematics performance
Low mathematics performance
Average performance of 15-year-olds in
mathematics
Strong socio-economic impact on student
performance
Singapore
Hong Kong-China Chinese Taipei Korea
Macao-China Japan Liechtenstein Switzerland
Netherlands Estonia Finland Canada Poland Belgium Germany Viet Nam
Austria Australia Ireland Slovenia Denmark New Zealand
Czech Republic France United Kingdom Iceland Latvia Luxembourg Norway
Portugal Italy Spain Russian Fed. Slovak Republic United States Lithuania Sweden Hungary Croatia
Israel
Greece Serbia Turkey
Romania Bulgaria U.A.E. Kazakhstan Thailand
Chile Malaysia Mexico
Australia Austria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep. Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Singapore
Hong Kong-China Chinese Taipei
Macao-China Liechtenstein
Viet Nam
Latvia
Russian Fed. Lithuania
Croatia
Serbia Romania
Bulgaria United Arab Emirates Kazakhstan
Thailand Malaysia
02468101214161820222426
2012 Shanghai-China
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
Strong socio-economic impact on student
performance
Australia Austria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep. Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US
2012
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
Strong socio-economic impact on student
performance
Australia Austria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep. Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US
25 25 Spend wisely to make a difference
Lesson 4
Not more money but better spending choices make a difference
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Port
ugal
Spai
n
Swit
zerl
and
Belg
ium
Kore
a
Luxe
mbo
urg
Germ
any
Gree
ce
Japa
n
Aus
tral
ia
Uni
ted
King
dom
New
Zea
land
Fran
ce
Net
herl
ands
Den
mar
k
Ital
y
Aus
tria
Czec
h Re
publ
ic
Hun
gary
Nor
way
Icel
and
Irel
and
Mex
ico
Finl
and
Swed
en
Uni
ted
Stat
es
Pola
nd
Slov
ak R
epub
lic
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
Australia Austria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep. Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland 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
28 28 Keep track of ‘added value’
Lesson 5 The country where students go to class matters more than what social class students come from
School performance and socio-economic background: Brazil 29
Advantage PISA Index of socio-economic background Disadvantage
Stu
dent
per
form
ance
Brazil
30
Vietnam
Desempeño del colegio y nivel socioeconómico
Ventaja Índice de PISA de nivel socioeconómico Desventaja
Des
empe
ño d
e lo
s es
tudi
ante
s
School performance and socio-economic background: Brazil 31
Advantage PISA Index of socio-economic background Disadvantage
Stu
dent
per
form
ance
Brazil
32 32 Resilience in education PISA performance by decile of social background
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
600
625
650
675
Mex
ico
Chile
Gre
ece
Norw
aySw
eden
Icel
and
Isra
elItal
yU
nited
Sta
tes
Spai
nD
enm
ark
Luxe
mbourg
Aust
ralia
Irel
and
United
Kin
gdom
Hungar
yCan
ada
Finla
nd
Aust
ria
Turk
eyLi
echte
nst
ein
Cze
ch R
epublic
Esto
nia
Port
ugal
Slove
nia
Slova
k Rep
ublic
New
Zea
land
Ger
man
yN
ether
lands
Fran
ceSw
itze
rlan
dPola
nd
Bel
giu
mJa
pan
Mac
ao-C
hin
aH
ong K
ong-C
hin
aKore
aSi
ngap
ore
Chin
ese
Taip
eiSh
anghai
-Chin
a
Source: PISA 2012
33
33 Provide a data-rich school environment to combat inequities
National and school
data
School-based
strategies for
analysis
Data for supporting
learning
34 34 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
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
35 35 Le
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 system Coherence
36 36 Le
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 system Coherence
Lesson 6: Believe that 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
37 37 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
37
37 High expectations for all students
United States
Poland
Hong Kong-China
Brazil
New Zealand
Greece
Uruguay
United Kingdom
Estonia Finland
Albania
Croatia
Latvia
Slovak Republic Luxembourg
Germany
Lithuania
Austria
Czech Republic
Chinese Taipei
France Thailand
Japan
Turkey Sweden
Hungary Australia
Israel
Canada
Ireland Bulgaria
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
Mea
n m
athe
mat
ics
perf
orm
ance
PISA mean index of mathematics self-efficacy
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Countries where students have stronger beliefs in their abilities perform better in mathematics
Source: PISA 2012
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
%
Russian Federation United States OECD average
Fig III.3.6 38
39
39
39 A continuum of support
Make learning central, encourage engagement and responsibility
Be acutely sensitive to individual differences
Provide continual assessment with formative feedback
Be demanding for every student
Ensure that students feel valued and included and learning is collaborative
40 40 Le
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 system Coherence
Lesson 7: Have 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 …
41 41 Le
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 system Coherence
Lesson 8: Build 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 …
42 42 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Luxe
mbo
urg
Jord
anTh
aila
ndTu
rkey
Sha
ngha
i-Chi
naIs
rael
Col
ombi
aP
eru
Chi
leN
ethe
rland
sM
exic
oG
erm
any
Vie
t Nam
Rus
sian
Fed
.U
rugu
ayN
orw
ayK
azak
hsta
nIn
done
sia
Bel
gium Ita
lyM
alay
sia
Aus
tralia
Bra
zil
Icel
and
U.A
.E.
Sin
gapo
reN
ew Z
eala
ndK
orea
Sw
itzer
land
Est
onia
Mac
ao-C
hina
Cos
ta R
ica
OE
CD
ave
rage
Sw
eden
Arg
entin
aTu
nisi
aA
ustri
aQ
atar
Irela
ndC
hine
se T
aipe
iFr
ance
Den
mar
kU
nite
d K
ingd
omH
ong
Kon
g-C
hina
Alb
ania
Japa
nC
anad
aS
lova
k R
epub
licLa
tvia
Gre
ece
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Cze
ch R
epub
licC
roat
iaFi
nlan
dM
onte
negr
oR
oman
iaH
unga
ryLi
thua
nia
Slo
veni
aS
pain
Ser
bia
Por
tuga
lB
ulga
riaP
olan
d
Mea
n in
dex
Mean index Top quarter of this index Bottom quarter of this index
Teacher shortage Fig IV.3.5
43
43
43 Prepare for work in disadvantaged schools
Preparation
Prepare teachers for
work in disadvantage
Provide mentoring in disadvantage
Improve working
conditions
Career and financial
incentives
• Reinforce initial teacher training including curriculum content for disadvantage
• Strengthening diagnostic capacity • Include practical field experience
• Both new and experienced teachers benefit
• Pedagogical and relational strategies
44 44 Le
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 system Coherence
Lesson 9: Align autonomy with accountability 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
45 45 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
45
45 Align autonomy with accountability
The question is not how many charter schools you have but how you enable every teacher to assume charter-like autonomy
46 46 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
46
46
Hong Kong-China
Brazil
Uruguay
Albania
Croatia
Latvia
Lithuania
Chinese Taipei
Thailand Bulgaria
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
Germany Austria
Czech Rep.
France
Japan
Turkey
Sweden
Hungary Australia
Israel
Canada
Chile
Belgium Netherlands
Spain 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
Mat
hem
atic
s pe
rfor
man
ce (s
core
poi
nts)
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
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 management Across 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
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
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
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
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.4.14 50
51
51
51 Square school choice with equity
Financial incentives
for schools
Assistance for disadvantaged
parents
Controlled choice
Financial incentives
Inform parents
Foster collaboration
among teachers and
schools
Use student and school
assessments
52 52 Le
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 system Coherence
Lesson 10: Invest resources where they can make most of 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
53 53 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 Rica Montenegro
Tunisia
Qatar
Singapore
Colombia
Malaysia Serbia
Romania
Viet Nam
Shanghai-China
USA
Poland
New Zealand
Greece
UK
Estonia
Finland Slovak Rep.
Luxembourg
Germany Austria France
Japan
Turkey Sweden Hungary Australia Israel
Canada Ireland
Chile
Belgium
Spain Denmark
Switzerland
Iceland
Slovenia
Portugal Norway
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)
Greater equity Less equity
Adjusted by per capita GDP
Countries with better performance in mathematics tend to allocate educational resources more equitably
Source: PISA 2012
54 54 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
Kor
eaEs
toni
aIs
rael
Latv
iaSl
oven
iaIta
lyPo
land
Sing
apor
eA
rgen
tina
Net
herla
nds
Port
ugal
Col
ombi
aFr
ance
Finl
and
Tuni
sia
Mac
ao-C
hina
Spai
nG
reec
eSw
itzer
land
Nor
way
Rus
sian
Fed
.Ja
pan
Aus
tria
Mon
tene
gro
Cro
atia
Can
ada
OEC
D a
vera
geG
erm
any
Den
mar
kH
unga
ryU
nite
d K
ingd
omLu
xem
bour
gH
ong
Kon
g-C
hina
Bel
gium
Icel
and
Viet
Nam
Irela
ndU
nite
d St
ates
Chi
leC
zech
Rep
ublic
Serb
iaTu
rkey
Mex
ico
Indo
nesi
aU
rugu
aySh
angh
ai-C
hina
Slov
ak R
epub
licSw
eden
Bra
zil
New
Zea
land
Aus
tral
iaC
hine
se T
aipe
i
Mea
n in
dex
diffe
renc
e
Difference between socio-economically disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged schools
A shortage of qualified teachers is more of concern in disadvantaged schools
55
55
55 Reduce tracking and grade repetition
Both vertical and horizontal stratification hurt equity
56 56 Le
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 system Coherence
A final thought 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)
CAN
57 57 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
57
57 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