OECD EMPLOYER BRAND
Playbook
1
Strong performers and suc-cessful reformers in PISA 2012Lessons for Sweden
Andreas SchleicherStockholm, 18 February 2014
What do 15-year-old Swedes know……and what can they do with what they know?
Of the 65 countries in PISA 40 improved at least in one of the three subjects – Sweden saw a decline
3
02468101214161820222426
AustraliaAustria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
IcelandIreland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Singapore
Hong Kong-ChinaChinese Taipei
Macao-China
Liechtenstein
Viet Nam
Latvia
Russian Fed.Lithuania
Croatia
SerbiaRomania
Bulgaria United Arab Emirates
KazakhstanThailand
Malaysia
2012Shanghai-China
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
Strong socio-economic impact on student
performance
High student performance
Low student performance
AustraliaAustria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
IcelandIreland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech Rep.DenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak Rep.SloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUKUS
2012
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
Strong socio-economic impact on student
performance
AustraliaAustria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
IcelandIreland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech Rep.DenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak Rep.SloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUKUS
Port
ug
al
Sp
ain
Sw
itze
rlan
d
Belg
ium
Kore
a
Lu
xem
bou
rg
Germ
an
y
Gre
ece
Jap
an
Au
stra
lia
Un
ited
Kin
gd
om
New
Zeala
nd
Fra
nce
Neth
erl
an
ds
Den
mark
Italy
Au
stri
a
Cze
ch
Rep
ub
lic
Hu
ng
ary
Norw
ay
Icela
nd
Irela
nd
Mexic
o
Fin
lan
d
Sw
ed
en
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Pola
nd
Slo
vak R
ep
ub
lic
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
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
Ratio of teachers' salary to earnings for full-time, full-year workers with tertiary education aged 25-64 (2011 or latest available year)
Sp
ain
Ko
rea
Lu
xem
bo
urg
Po
rtu
ga
l
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
d
Ca
na
da
Ge
rma
ny
Fin
lan
d
Isra
el
En
gla
nd
Au
stra
lia
De
nm
ark
Be
lgiu
m (
Fl.)
OE
CD
ave
rag
e
EU
21
ave
rag
e
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Be
lgiu
m (
Fr.
)
Ire
lan
d
Sw
ed
en
Slo
ven
ia
Fra
nce
Sco
tlan
d
Po
lan
d
Ch
ile
No
rwa
y
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Est
on
ia
Au
stri
a
Italy
Hu
ng
ary
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
lic
Ice
lan
d
Slo
vak
Re
pu
blic
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Ratio
EU/US
AustraliaAustria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
IcelandIreland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech Rep.DenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak Rep.SloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUKUS
AustraliaAustria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
IcelandIreland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech Rep.DenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak Rep.SloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUKUS
Singapore
Shanghai
Singapore
2003 - 2012 Germany, Turkey and Mexico improved both their mathematics performance and equity levels
Math teaching ≠ math teachingPISA = reason mathematically and understand, formulate, employ
and interpret mathematical concepts, facts and procedures
14
15
Viet N
am
Shang
hai-C
hina
Urugu
ay
Hong
Kong-
China
Portu
gal
Serbi
a
Singa
pore
Japa
n
Costa
Rica
Tunisi
a
Czech
Rep
ublic
Korea
Qatar
Unite
d Sta
tes
Irela
nd
Mex
ico
Norway
Kazak
hsta
n
Roman
ia
Alban
ia
Indo
nesia
Belgi
um
Thaila
nd
Russia
n Fed
erat
ion
Slova
k Rep
ublic
Germ
any
Luxe
mbo
urgChi
le
Finla
nd
Slove
nia
Switzer
land
Liec
hten
stein
Icela
nd0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Ind
ex
of
ex
po
su
re t
o w
ord
pro
ble
ms
Students' exposure to word problems Fig I.3.1a
Formal math situated in a word problem, where it is obvious to
students what mathematical knowledge and skills are needed
16
Sweden
Tunisi
a
Switzer
land
Luxe
mbo
urg
Nethe
rland
s
Costa
Rica
Liec
hten
stein
Indo
nesia
Unite
d Kin
gdom
Lith
uani
a
Austra
lia
OECD ave
rage
Thaila
nd
Finla
nd
Colom
bia
PeruIsr
ael
Belgi
um
Polan
d
Spain
Greec
e
Slove
nia
Hunga
ry
Kazak
hsta
n
Canad
a
Estoni
a
Latvi
a
Japa
n
Croat
ia
Russia
n Fed
erat
ion
Jord
an
Singa
pore
Icela
nd0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Ind
ex
of
ex
po
su
re t
o f
orm
al m
ath
em
ati
cs
Students' exposure to conceptual understanding Fig I.3.1b
17
Czech
Rep
ublic
Shang
hai-C
hina
Urugu
ay
Costa
Rica
Japa
nIta
ly
Norway
Hong
Kong-
China
Serbi
a
Croat
ia
Slova
k Rep
ublic
Unite
d Kin
gdom
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mon
tene
gro
Slove
nia
OECD ave
rage
Hunga
ry
New Z
eala
nd
Turke
y
Russia
n Fed
erat
ion
Icela
nd
Spain
Liec
hten
stein
Austra
lia
Brazil
PeruChi
le
Roman
ia
Nethe
rland
s
Colom
bia
Kazak
hsta
n
Mex
ico
Thaila
nd0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Ind
ex
of
ex
po
su
re t
o a
pp
lied
ma
the
ma
tic
sStudents' exposure to applied mathematics Fig I.3.1c
18
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0430
450
470
490
510
Index of exposure to applied mathematics
Me
an
sc
ore
in m
ath
em
ati
cs
rarely sometimes frequentlynever
Relationship between mathematics performance and students' exposure to applied mathematics
Fig I.3.2
The dream of social mobility
In some countries it is close to a reality
19
20
Shang
hai-C
hina
Mac
ao-C
hina
Singa
pore
Chine
se T
aipe
i
Liec
hten
stein
Estoni
a
Polan
d
Finl
and
Portu
gal
Turk
ey Italy
Latvi
a
Austra
lia
Austri
a
Czech
Rep
ublic
Unite
d Kin
gdom
Fran
ce
Icela
nd
Russia
n Fe
d.
Croat
ia
Sweden
Slova
k Rep
ublic
Serbi
aIsr
ael
Roman
ia
Indo
nesia
Kazak
hsta
n
Brazil
Chile
Mon
tene
gro
Argen
tina
Peru
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
%
Percentage of resilient students
More than 40% resilient Between 20%-40% of resilient students Less than 20%
Fig II.2.4
Socio-economically disadvantaged students not only score lower in mathematics, they also report lower levels of engagement, drive, motivation and self-beliefs. Resilient students break this link and share many characteristics of advantaged high-achievers.
The share of immigrant students in OECD countries increased from 9% in 2003 to 12% in 2012…
…while the performance disadvantage of immigrant students shrank by 11 score points during the same period (after accounting for socio-
economic factors)
21
23
Hu
ng
ary
-
Au
stra
lia -
Ma
cao
-Ch
ina
Slo
vak
Re
pu
blic
-
Tu
rke
y
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
d -
Ire
lan
d
Ca
na
da
La
tvia
Ho
ng
Ko
ng
-Ch
ina
Un
ited
Kin
gd
om
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Th
aila
nd
Ru
ssia
n F
ed
era
tion
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
lic
OE
CD
ave
rag
e 2
00
3 -
Lu
xem
bo
urg
Po
rtu
ga
l
No
rwa
y
Italy
+
Lie
chte
nst
ein
Gre
ece
Ice
lan
d
Sp
ain
Ge
rma
ny
-
Bra
zil
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Sw
ed
en
Au
stri
a
Be
lgiu
m -
Sw
itze
rla
nd
-
De
nm
ark
Fra
nce
Me
xico
Fin
lan
d
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
2012 2003
Sc
ore
po
int
dif
fere
nc
e (
wit
ho
ut-
wit
h im
mig
.)
Students without an immigrant background perform better
Students with an immigrant background perform better
Change between 2003 and 2012 in immigrant students' mathematics
performance – before accounting for students’ socio-economic statusFig II.3.5
It is not just about poor kids in poor neighbourhoods…
…but about many kids in many neighbourhoods
25
26
Alban
ia
Icela
nd
Norway
Estoni
a
Spain
Polan
d
Kazak
hsta
n
Mex
ico
Costa
Rica
Mal
aysia
New Z
eala
nd
Greec
e
Unite
d Kin
gdom
Austra
lia
Portu
gal
Chile
Roman
ia
Switzer
land
Urugu
ay
U.A.E
.
Serbi
a
Korea
Singa
pore
Italy
Czech
Rep
ublic
Bulga
riaQat
ar
Germ
any
Slova
k Rep
ublic
Belgi
um
Liec
hten
stein
Chine
se T
aipe
i100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Variability in student mathematics performance between and within schools
Vari
ati
on
in
stu
den
t p
erf
orm
an
ce a
s %
of
OEC
D a
vera
ge
vari
ati
on
Fig II.2.7
OECD average
OECD average
Performance variation of students within schools
Performance differences between schools
Between-school differences are still small in Sweden, but they increased from 831 index points in 2003 to 1042 index points in 201258% of between-school differences are explained by social factors
28H
on
g K
on
g-C
hin
a
Ko
rea
+L
iech
ten
ste
in
Ma
cao
-Ch
ina
+Ja
pa
n
Sw
itze
rla
nd
B
elg
ium
-N
eth
erl
an
ds
-G
erm
an
y
Po
lan
d +
Ca
na
da
-F
inla
nd
-N
ew
Ze
ala
nd
-A
ust
ralia
-A
ust
ria
O
EC
D a
vera
ge
20
03
-F
ran
ce
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
lic -
Lu
xem
bo
urg
Ic
ela
nd
-S
lova
k R
ep
ub
lic
Ire
lan
d
Po
rtu
ga
l +
De
nm
ark
-Ita
ly +
No
rwa
y -
Hu
ng
ary
U
nite
d S
tate
s
Sw
ed
en
-S
pa
in
La
tvia
R
uss
ian
Fe
de
ratio
n
Tu
rke
y
Gre
ece
T
ha
ilan
d
Uru
gu
ay
-T
un
isia
B
razi
l M
exi
co
Ind
on
esi
a 0
10
20
30
40
2012 2003%
Percentage of top performers in mathematics in 2003 and 2012
Fig I.2.23
Across OECD, 13% of students are top performers (Level 5 or 6). They can develop and work with models for complex situations, and work strategically with advanced thinking and reasoning skills
30
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
*-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
medium-low level of prob-lem-solving
Low level of problem-solving
Medium-high level of prob-lem-solving
%• Evolution of employment in
occupational groups defined by problem-solving skills
Excellence matters
3131Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers
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
3232Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers
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
3333Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers
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
A commitment to education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore 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
34
-0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
481.366786279212
517.501096817955
561.241096454551
391.459888954175
499.749902827587
452.973426858907
409.291567937716
493.934230896316
520.545521676786518.750335282979
394.329333356314
471.131460759248
490.571021411359
481.644744006327489.845098037208
513.525055819928
478.823277433358
505.540743249801
498.95788231768
559.824796201498
494.98467432064426.737491293011
536.406918234208
447.984414978954 478.260635903011
477.044455015488504.150766311124
466.48143014931
518.078519433354
501.497460196644438.738259877415
385.595556395556
422.632355405519
538.134494733918
U.A.E.
514.745238582901522.971758192682
484.319297801971
388.431709907139
375.114451681749
500.026756625414
431.798408505078
368.102547127357
406.999866988793
530.931003950397
409.626613284347
387.824629620249
492.795697239492
501.127422390953
376.4483986347
573.468314296641
487.063181343903
489.373070348755
376.488601072821
420.512967619054
413.281466667708
534.96508297892
553.766659143613
448.859130247604
Russian Fed.
444.554242787643
511.338207501182
485.321181012553
612.675536305453
f(x) = 138.160916953927 x + 477.587612682211R² = 0.368631715648504
Mean index of mathematics self-efficacy
Me
an
ma
the
ma
tic
s p
erf
orm
an
ce
OE
CD
av
era
ge
Countries where students have stronger beliefsin their abilities perform better in mathematics
Fig III.4.5
Sweden
35 Motivation to learn mathematics
Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements:
I enjoy reading about mathematics
I look forward to my mathematics lessons
I do mathematics because I enjoy it
I am interested in the things I learn in mathematics
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Sweden Shanghai-China OECD average
%
Fig III.3.9
UKB
36Perceived self-responsibility for failure in mathematics
Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements:
I’m not very good at solving mathematics problems
My teacher did not explain the concepts well this week
This week I made bad guesses on the quiz
Sometimes the course material is too hard
The teacher did not get students interested in the material
Sometimes I am just unlucky
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Sweden Shanghai-China OECD average
%
Fig III.3.6
USB
The parent factorStudents whose parents have high educational expectations for them tend
to report more perseverance, greater intrinsic motivation to learn mathematics, and more confidence in their own ability to solve mathematics problems than students of similar background and academic performance,
whose parents hold less ambitious expectations for them.
37
4141Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers
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
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 …
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Ho
ng
Ko
ng
-Ch
ina
Th
aila
nd
Vie
t Na
m
Sin
ga
po
re
Lie
chte
nst
ein
Sw
itze
rla
nd
Au
stri
a
Ko
rea
Italy
Alb
an
ia
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
d
Isra
el
Slo
vak
Re
pu
blic
Co
sta
Ric
a
Tu
nis
ia
Ch
ine
se T
aip
ei
Au
stra
lia
Tu
rke
y
Ca
na
da
Est
on
ia
Jord
an
Ro
ma
nia
Pe
ru
La
tvia
Uru
gu
ay
Ire
lan
d
Ice
lan
d
Lith
ua
nia
Arg
en
tina
Sw
ed
en
No
rwa
y
Fin
lan
d
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Students in schools whose principals reported that "students' records of academic per-formance" or "recommendations of feeder schools" is always considered for admission
%
Most schools look at students’ past academic performance when considering admission
Fig IV.1.6
B
4343Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers
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
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 …
Ko
rea
Isra
el
La
tvia
Slo
ven
ia
Po
lan
d
Arg
en
tina
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Co
lom
bia
Fra
nce
Tu
nis
ia
Qa
tar
Th
aila
nd
Gre
ece
Ro
ma
nia
Ru
ssia
n F
ed
.
Au
stri
a
Cro
atia
U.A
.E.
Ge
rma
ny
Hu
ng
ary
Lu
xem
bo
urg
Be
lgiu
m
Jord
an
Vie
t Na
m
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
lic
Tu
rke
y
Ind
on
esi
a
Sh
an
gh
ai-
Ch
ina
Sw
ed
en
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
d
Ch
ine
se T
aip
ei-0.5
-0.3
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
Difference between socio-economically disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged schools
Me
an
ind
ex
dif
fere
nc
eTeacher shortage is more of concern in disadvantaged schools
Disadvantaged and public schools reported more teacher shortage
Advantaged and private schoolsreported more teacher shortage
Fig IV.3.5
B
4545Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers
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
Incentives, accountability, knowledge management 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
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
No standardised math policy
Standardised math policy
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
Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more collaboration
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
Teachers don't participate in management
Teachers participate in management
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
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
464
466
468
470
472
474
476
478
School data not public
School data public
Score points
School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's level of posting achievement data publicly
Fig IV.1.16
Fin
lan
d
Uru
gu
ay
Gre
ece
+
Sw
itze
rla
nd
+
Ire
lan
d +
Be
lgiu
m +
Sw
ed
en
+
Jap
an
+
Ge
rma
ny
+
No
rwa
y +
Italy
+
Hu
ng
ary
+
Slo
vak
Re
pu
blic
Tu
nis
ia
De
nm
ark
+
OE
CD
ave
rag
e 2
00
3 +
Sp
ain
Au
stra
lia +
Lu
xem
bo
urg
+
Lie
chte
nst
ein
+
Ne
the
rla
nd
s +
La
tvia
-
Ko
rea
+
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
d +
Ice
lan
d +
Bra
zil
+
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Ma
cao
-Ch
ina
+
Au
stri
a +
Ind
on
esi
a
Tu
rke
y +
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
lic +
Me
xico
Ho
ng
Ko
ng
-Ch
ina
+
Th
aila
nd
+
Po
rtu
ga
l +
Ru
ssia
n F
ed
era
tion
+
Po
lan
d
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
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
51
Written specification of the school's curriculum and educational goals
Written specification of student-performance standards
Systematic recording of data, including teacher and student attendance and graduation rates, test results and professional development of teachers
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 a period of at least six months with the aim of improving the school
Implementation of a standardised policy for mathematics
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that their schools have the following for quality assurance and improvement:
Sweden Singapore OECD average
%
Quality assurance and school improvement Fig IV.4.14
5252Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers
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
0 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000 120 000 140 000 160 000 180 000 200 000300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
511.338208
385.595556
368.102547
426.737491
420.512968
409.291568
447.984415
376.488601
387.824630
413.281467409.626613
391.459889
438.738260
422.632355
471.131461478.823277
490.571021
477.044455
612.675536
481.644744
498.957882520.545522
466.481430
517.501097
553.766659
487.063181
499.749903
518.070400513.525056
484.319298
494.984674
485.321181
573.468314
518.750335
536.406918
501.127422501.497460492.795697
522.971758
478.260636
514.745239
UK
504.150766500.026757
481.366786
505.540743
489.373070
530.931004
489.845098R² = 0.369063315519053R² = 0.00587924272458274
Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (USD, PPPs)
Ma
the
ma
tic
s p
erf
orm
an
ce
(s
co
re p
oin
ts)
Cumulative expenditure per student less than USD 50 000
Cumulative expenditure per student USD 50 000 or more
Fig IV.1.8
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
375
386368
388376
427
410
409
439
445
421
388
491
423
479
613
471
376
453466
477478
481482
484485 487489 490
493494
495499500500501
501504506 514515
518 518519521 523536538
554561
573
R² = 0.0502966708290409
R² = 0.09219426518075
Teachers' salaries relative to per capita GDP (%)
Ma
the
ma
tic
s p
erf
orm
an
ce
(s
co
re p
oin
ts)
Among high-income countries high-performers pay teachers more
Per capita GDP less than USD 20 000
Per capita GDP over USD 20 000
Fig IV.1.10
Among low-income countries a host of other resources are the
principal barriers
In 33 countries schools where a higher share of principals reported that
teacher shortages hinder learning tend to show lower performance
-0.500.511.5300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700R² = 0
Equity in resource allocation (index points)
Ma
the
ma
tic
s p
erf
orm
an
ce
(s
co
re p
oin
ts)
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
30% of the variation in math performance across OECD countries is
explained by the degree of similarity of educational resources between
advantaged and disadvantaged schools
OECD countries tend to allocate at least an equal, if not a larger, number of teachers per student to disadvantaged schools; but disadvantaged schools tend to have great difficulty in attracting qualified teachers.
5757Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers
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
Coherence of policies and practices 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
5858Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers
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
5959Le
sson
s fr
om h
igh
perf
orm
ers 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 workingCurriculum, 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
Average education systems High performers
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