11H
arva
rd K
enne
dy S
choo
lA
ndre
as S
chle
iche
r, 26
Jul
y 20
12A
chie
vem
ent G
row
th
Achievement GrowthFindings from international comparisons
and policy implicationsHarvard Kennedy School, 26 July 2012
Andreas SchleicherSpecial advisor to the Secretary-General on Education Policy
Deputy Director for Education
Programme for International Student Assessment
22H
arva
rd K
enne
dy S
choo
lA
ndre
as S
chle
iche
r, 26
Jul
y 20
12A
chie
vem
ent G
row
th
1998PISA countries in 20002001200320062009
77%81%83%85%86%Coverage of world economy 87%
In 2009 over half a million students representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 74* education
systems took the PISA test
PISA - an internationally agreed 2-hour test that goes beyond testing whether students can reproduce what they were taught…
…to assess students’ capacity to extrapolate from what they know and creatively apply their knowledge in novel situations
33H
arva
rd K
enne
dy S
choo
lA
ndre
as S
chle
iche
r, 26
Jul
y 20
12A
chie
vem
ent G
row
thAverage performanceof 15-year-olds in reading – extrapolate and apply
High reading performance
Low reading performance … 17 countries perform below this line
1525354555440.000
460.000
480.000
500.000
520.000
540.000
560.000Shanghai-China
KoreaFinlandHong Kong-China
Singapore CanadaNew ZealandJapanAustralia
NetherlandsBelgium Norway, EstoniaSwitzerlandPoland, IcelandUnited States LiechtensteinSwedenGermany,IrelandFrance, Chinese TaipeiDenmarkUnited KingdomHungary,
PortugalMacao-China ItalyLatviaSlovenia GreeceSpainCzech RepublicSlovak Republic, Croatia
IsraelLuxembourg,Austria Lithuania
TurkeyDubai (UAE) Russian Federation
Chile
Serbia
NortheastMidwest
WestSouth
Urban schools
Suburban schools
Performance distribution in US18% do not reach baseline Level 2 (16% when excluding immigrants) (Finland 6%, Canada 9%)
Economic cost: 72 trillion $10% are top performers (Shanghai 20%)
55H
arva
rd K
enne
dy S
choo
lA
ndre
as S
chle
iche
r, 26
Jul
y 20
12A
chie
vem
ent G
row
thAverage performanceof 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply
Low average performanceLarge socio-economic disparities
High average performanceLarge socio-economic disparities
Low average performanceHigh social equity
High average performanceHigh social equity
Strong socio-economic impact on
student performance
Socially equitable distribution of
learning opportunities
High reading performance
Low reading performance
66H
arva
rd K
enne
dy S
choo
lA
ndre
as S
chle
iche
r, 26
Jul
y 20
12A
chie
vem
ent G
row
thDurchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik
Low average performanceLarge socio-economic disparities
High average performanceLarge socio-economic disparities
Low average performanceHigh social equity
High average performanceHigh social equity
Strong socio-economic impact on
student performance
Socially equitable distribution of
learning opportunities
High reading performance
Low reading performance
AustraliaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUKUS
2009
1525354555
2009
77H
arva
rd K
enne
dy S
choo
lA
ndre
as S
chle
iche
r, 26
Jul
y 20
12A
chie
vem
ent G
row
thDurchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik
Low average performanceLarge socio-economic disparities
High average performanceLarge socio-economic disparities
Low average performanceHigh social equity
High average performanceHigh social equity
Strong socio-economic impact on
student performance
Socially equitable distribution of
learning opportunities
High reading performance
Low reading performance
AustraliaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUKUS
2009
88H
arva
rd K
enne
dy S
choo
lA
ndre
as S
chle
iche
r, 26
Jul
y 20
12A
chie
vem
ent G
row
th
Portu
gal
Spain
Switz
erlan
d
Belg
ium
Kore
a
Luxe
mbo
urg
Germ
any
Gree
ce
Japa
n
Aust
ralia
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
New
Zeala
nd
Fran
ce
Neth
erlan
ds
Denm
ark
Italy
Aust
ria
Czec
h Re
publ
ic
Hung
ary
Norw
ay
Icela
nd
Irelan
d
Mexic
o
Finlan
d
Swed
en
Unite
d St
ates
Polan
d
Slov
ak R
epub
lic
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Salary as % of GDP/capita Instruction time 1/teaching time 1/class sizePo
rtuga
l
Spain
Switz
erlan
d
Belg
ium
Kore
a
Luxe
mbo
urg
Germ
any
Gree
ce
Japa
n
Aust
ralia
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
New
Zeala
nd
Fran
ce
Neth
erlan
ds
Denm
ark
Italy
Aust
ria
Czec
h Re
publ
ic
Hung
ary
Norw
ay
Icela
nd
Irelan
d
Mexic
o
Finlan
d
Swed
en
Unite
d St
ates
Polan
d
Slov
ak R
epub
lic
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Difference with OECD average
High performing systems often prioritize the quality of teachers over the size of classes
Contribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher compensation costsper student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004)
Percentage points
99H
arva
rd K
enne
dy S
choo
lA
ndre
as S
chle
iche
r, 26
Jul
y 20
12A
chie
vem
ent G
row
thDurchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik
Low average performanceLarge socio-economic disparities
High average performanceLarge socio-economic disparities
Low average performanceHigh social equity
High average performanceHigh social equity
Strong socio-economic impact on
student performance
Socially equitable distribution of
learning opportunities
High reading performance
Low reading performance
AustraliaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUKUS
2009
1010H
arva
rd K
enne
dy S
choo
lA
ndre
as S
chle
iche
r, 26
Jul
y 20
12A
chie
vem
ent G
row
thDurchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik
Low average performanceLarge socio-economic disparities
High average performanceLarge socio-economic disparities
Low average performanceHigh social equity
High average performanceHigh social equity
Strong socio-economic impact on
student performance
Socially equitable distribution of
learning opportunities
High reading performance
Low reading performance
AustraliaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUKUS
2000
1111H
arva
rd K
enne
dy S
choo
lA
ndre
as S
chle
iche
r, 26
Jul
y 20
12A
chie
vem
ent G
row
thDurchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik
Low average performanceLarge socio-economic disparities
High average performanceLarge socio-economic disparities
Low average performanceHigh social equity
High average performanceHigh social equity
Strong socio-economic impact on
student performance
Socially equitable distribution of
learning opportunities
High reading performance
Low reading performance
AustraliaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUKUS
2000
Other rapid improvers in reading:Peru, Indonesia, Latvia, Israel and Brazil
Rapid improvers in mathematics:Mexico, Brazil, Turkey, Greece, Portugal, Italy
and GermanyRapid improvers in science:
Qatar, Turkey, Portugal, Korea, Brazil, Colombia, Italy, Norway, United States, Poland
1212H
arva
rd K
enne
dy S
choo
lA
ndre
as S
chle
iche
r, 26
Jul
y 20
12A
chie
vem
ent G
row
th
-2 -1 0 1 2350
643
School performance and socio-economic background United States
Stud
ent p
erfo
rman
ce
AdvantagePISA Index of socio-economic background
Disadvantage
Private school Public school in rural area Public school in urban area
1313H
arva
rd K
enne
dy S
choo
lA
ndre
as S
chle
iche
r, 26
Jul
y 20
12A
chie
vem
ent G
row
th
Changes in performance by type of taskIncrease percentage correct
Multiple-choice - reproducing knowledge
Open-ended - constructing knowledge
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.81.71.7
6.5
OECD Japan
OECD OECDJapan
Japan
1414H
arva
rd K
enne
dy S
choo
lA
ndre
as S
chle
iche
r, 26
Jul
y 20
12A
chie
vem
ent G
row
th
Policies and practicesLearning climateDisciplineTeacher behaviourParental pressureTeacher-student relationshipsDealing with heterogeneityGrade repetitionPrevalence of trackingExpulsionsAbility grouping
(all subjects)Standards /accountabilityNat. examinationStandardised tests
Policy
System
R
School
R
Equity
E
1515H
arva
rd K
enne
dy S
choo
lA
ndre
as S
chle
iche
r, 26
Jul
y 20
12A
chie
vem
ent G
row
thAverage school systems High performers in PISA
Some students learn at high levels All students learn
at high levels
Uniformity Embracing diversity
Curriculum-centred Learner-centred
Low status of theteaching profession
Countries attract and develop high quality teachers
Prescription Informed profession
Delivered wisdom User-generated wisdom
Provision Outcomes
Bureaucratic look-up Devolved – look outwards
Administrative control and
accountability Professional forms of
work organisation
Standardise distribution of
resources
Attract the most talented teachers to the most challenging classrooms
Management Leadership
Public vs private Public with private
Idiosyncratic reforms Alignment of policies, coherence over time, fidelity of implementation
1616H
arva
rd K
enne
dy S
choo
lA
ndre
as S
chle
iche
r, 26
Jul
y 20
12A
chie
vem
ent G
row
th
Thank you !
Find out more about PISA at… OECD www.pisa.oecd.org
– All national and international publications– The complete micro-level database
Email: [email protected]
…and remember:Without data, you are just another person with an opinion