Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
11
Education Policy Outlook
OECD-EC-Latvia Workshop
Achieving Quality Education for all in Latvia:
Exploring National Pathways through the
Lens of International Evidence
Diana ToledoProject Leader, Directorate for
Education and Skills, OECD
Today, because of rapid economic and social change,
schools have to prepare students for jobs that have not yet
been created, technologies that have not yet been invented
and problems that we don't yet know will arise.
Andreas Schleicher, OECD
How is Latvia preparing its population to succeed
in a world of change?
Acquiring strong skills’
foundations
Developing skills for life
The Education Policy Outlook: Latvia Strengths, Challenges and key policies today
Equity and Quality
Preparing Students for the Future
School Improvement
Evaluation and
Assessment
Governance
Funding
STUDENTS
INSTITUTIONS
SYSTEM
The Education Policy Outlook: Latvia Strengths, Challenges and key policies today
Equity and Quality
Preparing Students for the Future
School Improvement
Evaluation and
Assessment
Governance
Funding
STUDENTS
INSTITUTIONS
SYSTEM
INCLUSIVE: All students can reachat least a minimum
level of competencies
FAIR: The students’ personal or social circunstancesdo not hinder their opportunities to reach their
educational potential
An educationsystem isequitativewhen it is
both…
Eliminate system level obstacles to
equity
Support low performing
disadvantaged schools
Invest early and through upper secondary education
Policies to achieve more equitable education
systems and reduce dropout
7
Some countries
combine
excellence with
equity
Singapore
Japan
EstoniaChinese Tapei FinlandMacao (China)
CanadaViet Nam
Hong Kong (China)B-S-J-G (China) KoreaNew ZealandSlovenia
AustraliaUnited KingdomGermany
Netherlands
Switzerland
IrelandBelgium DenmarkPolandPortugal NorwayUnited StatesAustriaFrance
SwedenCzech Rep.
Spain LatviaRussia
Luxembourg ItalyHungary LithuaniaCroatia Iceland
IsraelMaltaSlovak Rep.
Greece
ChileBulgaria
United Arab EmiratesUruguay
Romania
Moldova Turkey
Trinidad and TobagoThailandCosta Rica QatarColombia Mexico
MontenegroJordanIndonesia Brazil
Peru
Lebanon
Tunisia
FYROMKosovo
Algeria
Dominican Rep. (332)
350
400
450
500
550
Me
an
sc
ien
ce
pe
rfo
rma
nc
eSTUDENTS: Latvia is overall an equitable system, with performance around
OECD average
High performance
High equity
Low performance
Low equityLow performance
High equity
High performance
Low equity
Hig
her
pe
rfo
man
ce
More equity
STUDENTS: Latvia has average PISA performance in science, with high
overall equity, but demographic challenges
Key strengths
• System-level policies favour equity (e.g. long duration of compulsory education, low repetition, delayed tracking).
• High coverage and enrolment rates in ECEC for 3-4 y/o among OECD countries.
• High upper secondary education graduation rates.
• Significant efforts to make VET more attractive and relevant to labour-market.
Key challenges
• Need for greater quality in ECEC, addressing gaps in coverage.
• Gender performance gap is high (boys score lower than girls in PISA 2015).
• High urban-rural performance gap in education across the country.
• Largely school-basedupper sec. education, stark divide between general and vocational pathways.
• Likely future skillsshortage in STEM and health.
Key policy responses
• The Cabinet Regulation on Family Daycare Registration (2013)
• The Guideline for the Optimisation of the Network of Vocational Education Institutions (2010-2015)
• Youth Guarantee
• Reform of Vocation Education Curricula (2008-20)
• ECEC Quality: orientation, structure, interactions, operations, quality or performance standards, community outreach…
• Ex: Canada (Early Learning and Development Framework, 2014)
• Attracting and supporting quality staff to mostdisadvantaged schools
• Ex: Korea, Australia (RAIS, Queensland)
• Promoting a school environment of high expectations for all (e.g. socio-economic or cultural background, gender).
• Ex: Canada (Ontario)
• Equivalent value of academic pathways: permeability, career guidance, tackling dropout (certification, WBL..)
Some policy choices
The Education Policy Outlook: Latvia Strengths, Challenges and key policies today
Equity and Quality
Preparing Students for the Future
School Improvement
Evaluation and
Assessment
Governance
Funding
STUDENTS
INSTITUTIONS
SYSTEM
INSTITUTIONS: How to strengthen the teaching profession in Latvia?
How can I improve?
What do I need to improve?
Why do I want to
improve?
Three key questions of the teaching profession. …
Teacher incentivesand stimuli
Teacher training
Teacher appraisal(and schoolevaluation)
Differentiatingteaching and
school leadership
• The various components of assessment and evaluation frameworks include…
• ...and the coherenceof the framework as a whole also matters.
Evaluation and assessmentBased on SYNERGIES FOR BETTER LEARNING
System
Schools
Teachers
Students
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Kore
a
Fin
land
Me
xic
o
Alb
ert
a…
Fla
nde
rs…
Ne
therl
and
s
Austr
alia
Engla
nd
(U
K)
Isra
el
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Ch
ile
Ave
rage
No
rwa
y
Japa
n
La
tvia
Serb
ia
Bulg
aria
De
nm
ark
Pola
nd
Icela
nd
Esto
nia
Bra
zil
Ita
ly
Czech…
Port
ug
al
Spain
Sw
ede
n
Fra
nce
Slo
vak…
Perc
en
tag
e o
f te
ach
ers
Fig II.3.314
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that teaching professionis a valued profession in society, TALIS 2014
School improvement: Latvia has a shared challenge of improving the status of the
teaching profession
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Ita
ly
Ma
laysia
Abu D
hab
i (U
AE
)
La
tvia
Ro
man
ia
Sin
gapo
re
Pola
nd
Slo
vak R
epub
lic
Bulg
aria
Ch
ile
Serb
ia
Engla
nd
(U
K)
Port
ug
al
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Czech R
epu
blic
Esto
nia
Kore
a
Isra
el
Ave
rage
Fla
nde
rs (
Belg
ium
)
Alb
ert
a (
Can
ada
)
Cro
atia
Bra
zil
Ne
therl
and
s
Me
xic
o
Cypru
s1,2
Japa
n
Austr
alia
De
nm
ark
No
rwa
y
Fra
nce
Spain
Fin
land
Icela
nd
Sw
ede
n
Feedback is provided to teachers based on a thorough assessment of their teaching
Teacher appraisal and feedback have little impact upon the way teachers teach in the classroom
Teacher appraisal and feedback are largely done to fulfil administrative requirements
Evaluation and Assessment: Latvia has a shared challenge of ensuring
effective appraisal
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that :
INSTITUTIONS: Teachers and school leaders remain key; making an effective
use of information across the system also matters.
Key strengths
• School leaders have high autonomy.
• Professional development activities for principals are among the most frequent in OECD countries.
• Latvia is making efforts to strengthen its information system (SEIS) by 2020, linking it further as well to tertiary education.
Key challenges
• Further differentiate professional development activities between teachers and schools principals.
• Improving teaching conditions to make the profession more attractive.
• Lack of information systems to track student’s performance.
• Ensuring reliability of the Information System
•
Key policy responses
• Per-student funding and the new teacher remuneration scheme
• The Comprehensive Education Teachers Further Education Project (2010-2013)
• New school performance indexes
• Establishment of the Quality Agency for Higher Education
• European Social Fund Project
• Why, What: Establishing career and improvementpathways.
• Ex: Australia, New Zealand, Canada (Ontario), Singapore…
• How: Effective professional development from the start (ongoing, include training, practice and feedback, and provide adequate time and follow-up support, linked to school goals).
• Ex: Induction exists in 2/3 of OECD countries (Japan, Shanghai, China).
• Use of assessment tools and information: generatingit, but also using it effectively to develop a clear commonvision:
• Ex: New Zealand (Assess to Learn (AtoL, moderation).
Some policy choices
The Education Policy Outlook: Latvia Strengths, Challenges and key policies today
Equity and Quality
Preparing Students for the Future
School Improvement
Evaluation and
Assessment
Governance
Funding
STUDENTS
INSTITUTIONS
SYSTEM
Governance: A highly decentralised education system
(Responsibilities for school resources, according to principals reports, PISA 2015)
Czech R
epu
blic
Sw
ede
n
Slo
vak R
epub
lic
Ne
therl
and
s
La
tvia
Esto
nia
Icela
nd
Un
ite
d K
ing
dom
No
rwa
y
De
nm
ark
Pola
nd
Ne
w Z
eala
nd
Austr
alia
Isra
el
Slo
ven
ia
Fin
land
OE
CD
avera
ge
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Sw
itzerl
and
Belg
ium
Ch
ile
Ca
nad
a
Spain
Japa
n
Lu
xe
mbo
urg
Irela
nd
Hu
nga
ry
Austr
ia
Fra
nce
Kore
a
Me
xic
o
Port
ug
al
Germ
any
Ita
ly
Gre
ece
Turk
ey
Principal National education authority² Local or regional education authority¹
Funding: Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15
and science performance
Figure II.6.2
Luxembourg
SwitzerlandNorwayAustria
Singapore
United States
United Kingdom
Malta
Sweden
BelgiumIceland
Denmark
Finland NetherlandsCanada
Japan
Slovenia
Australia
Germany
IrelandFranceItaly
PortugalNew Zealand
Korea
SpainPoland
Israel
Estonia
Czech Rep.Latvia
Slovak Rep.
Russia
CroatiaLithuaniaHungary
Costa Rica
Chinese Taipei
Chile
Brazil
TurkeyUruguay
Bulgaria
MexicoThailand
MontenegroColombia
Dominican Republic
PeruGeorgia
R² = 0,04
R² = 0,36
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Scie
nce p
erf
orm
an
ce (
sco
re p
oin
ts)
Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)
SYSTEM: New funding models need to meet system efficiency needs with
demographic changes in a highly decentralised system
Key strengths
• High degree of autonomy for both public and private schools.
• Efforts to increase teachers’ salaries and spending efficiency, also to make school funding more transparent.
• High share of public expenditure at all
education levels.
•
Key challenges
• The highly fragmented education governance requires municipalities to have greater public accountability.
• The 2008 financial crisis had a strong impact on Latvia, leading to important budget cuts.
• Lower investment in educational institutions at all levels than OECD average.
•
Key policy responses
• Education Development Guidelines (2014-2020)
• New Funding Model for tertiary education.
• Defining national strategies according to need• Ex: Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Iceland
• Setting priorities to guide the system• Ex: Canada, Japan
• Re-organisation of decision-making• Ex: New Zealand, Portugal
• Funding efficiently (SRR): Financial transfers, Human
resources, Physical resources, Targeted programmes
• Ex: Czech Republic, Uruguay, Denmark
Some policy choices
1. With some high coverage, quality needs to reach all students from early on:
Latvia has made important achievements with comparatively less, but
demographic challenges demand more efficacy: preventing and closing
achievement gaps from start and; later on, strengthening education pathways to
develop different quality skills that are relevant to the present and future labour market.
2. Teachers and school leaders remain key to help students succeed: Supporting
them requires helping them to answer continuously 3 questions in their specific
school context: What, How and Why do I need to improve?
3. Accountability and improvement go together for efficiency, but also to
consolidate a shared vision of education system. For a better use of resources,
generating quality information is as important as making it accessible, clear and
relevant to actors so they embed it in their everyday work. In an international context of
increased autonomy, countries understand that doing this through a shared vision of
goals is key to help actors build together stronger and fairer education systems.
CONCLUSIONS: Changing Latvia’s education
system to improve future life opportunities for all
