OECD EDUCATION POLICY OUTLOOK: EQUITY AND QUALITY IN EDUCATION

Beatriz PontSenior Policy AnalystOECD Directorate for Education and Skills

CEPS  3 November 2014

Quality in education

Key levers for change and improvement

Equity and quality

Equity and quality

PreparingstudentsPreparingstudents

Evaluationand assess.Evaluationand assess.

Schoolimproveme

nt

Schoolimproveme

nt

How can schoolsbest delivereducation for 

studentachievement?

How to best measure to

improve schoolsystem’s outcomes

Is the system conducive to equityfor its students?

Is the system preparing

students for the future?

How is policy makingorganised to be effective?

Improving equity and reducing school failure is a policy priority

There is a need for clear policy responses

Countries face challenges in adopting and implementing policies to improve equity in education

There is increasing evidence that equity and quality can go together and there are many different policies and strategies to improve equity

All countries are confronted with equity challenges, and they can be of different types

4

High performing systems combine equity with quality

Socially equitable distribution of learning

opportunities

Strong socio-economic

impact on student performance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Singap

ore

Chinese Taipei

Hon

g Ko

ng‐China

Korea

Japa

nSw

itzerland

Belgium

Nethe

rland

sGerman

yPo

land

Cana

daFinlan

dNew

 Zealand

Australia

Austria

Fran

ceCzech Re

public

OEC

D average

United Kingdo

mLuxembo

urg

Icelan

dSlovak Rep

ublic

Ireland

Portugal

Den

mark

Italy

Norway

Israel

Hun

gary

United States

Swed

enSpain

Russian…

Greece

Chile

Brazil

Mexico

%

Equity does not necessarily hamper qualityTab I.2.1a

UK

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. 

Likelihood of positive social and economic outcomes among highly literate adults

6 Benefits of high literacy Likelihood of positive outcomes among highly literate adults, 

PIAAC 2012

Key levers for change and improvementThe Education Policy Outlook : A window into countries’ 

education systems

Equity and quality

Equity and quality

Preparingstudents for the 

future

Preparingstudents for the 

future

Schoolimprovement

Schoolimprovement

Evaluationand 

assessment

Evaluationand 

assessment

Key levers for change and improvementThe Education Policy Outlook: A window into countries’ 

education systems

Equity and quality

Equity and quality

Preparingstudents for the 

future

Preparingstudents for the 

future

Schoolimprovement

Schoolimprovement

Evaluationand 

assessment

Evaluationand 

assessment

Is the system equitable for its

students?

Reducing school failure pays off

Education failure imposes high costs to individuals and to society

It limits capacity of economies to grow and innovate

Damages social cohesion and mobility and is expensive:

Higher public health expendituresHigher welfare, increased criminality

.. and the crisis has brought equity to the forefront

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

          Korea

          Ja

pan

          Switzerland

2.5     Belgium

3.9     Nethe

rland

s‐3.9    German

y‐7.7    Polan

d3.7     Can

ada

5.5     Finland

7.6     New

 Zealand

5.3     Australia

          Austria

0.7     OEC

D average

 2003

5.7     France

4.4     Czech Rep

ublic

2.6     Luxem

bourg

6.5     Icelan

d7.5     Slovak Re

public

          Irelan

d‐5.2    Portugal

          Den

mark

‐7.3    Italy

          Norway

5.1     Hun

gary

          United States

9.8     Swed

en          Spa

in‐10.2  Turkey

          Greece

‐11.2  M

exico

Proportion of 15 year olds that do not reach a minimum level  (below level 2), PISA 2003 and 2012

The challenge: that all students reach a minimum

The challenge: to reduce dropout rates% of individuals who have not completed upper secondary education by age group

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80Ko

rea

Slov

ak R

epub

licCz

ech R

epub

licPo

land

Slov

enia

Cana

daSw

eden

Finlan

dSw

itzer

land

Austr

iaUn

ited S

tates

Israe

lEs

tonia

Germ

any

Hung

ary

Irelan

dDe

nmar

kCh

ileFr

ance

Luxe

mbou

rgNo

rway

Belgi

umAu

strali

aNe

therla

nds

Unite

d King

dom

OECD

aver

age

New

Zeala

ndGr

eece Italy

Icelan

dSp

ainPo

rtuga

lMe

xico

Turke

y

Perce

ntage

of po

pulat

ion

25-34 25-64

The challenge: to reduce the risk of low achievement due to personal circumstances (fairness)

Relative risk of scoring below in bottom quarter depending on personal circumstances, PISA 2012

Low

risk

Hig

h ris

k

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

Hun

gary

New

 Zealand

Fran

ce

Israel

Belgium

German

y

Luxembo

urg

Chile

Den

mark

Austria

Portug

al

Czech Re

public

Spain

Poland

OEC

D average

Australia

Ireland

Switzerland

Greece

Sloven

ia

United States

Nethe

rland

s

Japa

n

Swed

en

Italy

Finlan

d

United…

Mexico

Cana

da

Norway

Turkey

Korea

Icelan

d

Estonia

Relative risk of sc

oring in bottom quarter in

 PISA 

mathe

matics 2

012

Students in the bottom quarter of the ESCS index Immigrant students

The mathematics gap between immigrant and native students

% of students above baseline level (level 3 or above by immigrant status, PISA 2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Hon

g Ko

ng‐China

Singap

ore

Liechten

stein

Switzerland

Nethe

rland

sMacao

‐China

Estonia

Finlan

dGerman

yBe

lgium

Cana

daAu

stria

Luxembo

urg

Den

mark

Fran

ceIre

land

Sloven

iaAu

stralia

Czech Re

public

New

 Zealand

OEC

D average

Icelan

dUnited Kingdo

mNorway

Spain

Portug

alLatvia

Italy

Swed

enRu

ssian Fede

ratio

nUnited States

Hun

gary

Israel

Croa

tiaGreece

Serbia

Kazakh

stan

Malaysia

Mon

tene

gro

Mexico

United Arab

 Emira

tes

Costa Rica

Brazil

Argentina

Jordan

Qatar

Percen

tage of stude

nts a

bove th

e baseline level 

(Level 3 or a

bove)  

Non‐immigrant students Second‐generation students First‐generation students

Policies to achieve more equitable education systems and reduce dropout

Invest early and through upper secondary

Support low performing 

disadvantaged schools

Eliminate system level obstacles to 

equity

1) Avoid system level policies that hinder equity

More equitable 

system level policies

ECECAustralia/Canada/Chile/Mexico/Nordic/France/

Spain

Comprehensive education and postpone tracking

Nordic/Austria/Germany

Equivalent upper secondary pathways

Nordic/Alberta Manage school choice to avoid 

inequities Neths/Chile

Make funding responsive to 

needs Chile/Netherlands/Australia/On

tario

Policy options to postpone tracking to upper secondary

Comprehensive school to upper secondary

Suppress low-level tracksSuppress low-level tracks

Limit selection to specific subjects or flexible settings

Upper secondary pathways

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Austria

Czech Re

public

Belgium

Slovak Rep

ublic

Finland

Nethe

rland

sSw

itzerland

Sloven

iaLuxembo

urg

Italy

Swed

enNorway

Germany

China

Russian Fede

ratio

nAu

stralia

Denm

ark

Poland

OEC

D average

France

Spain

Turkey

New

 Zealand

Portugal

Israel

Ireland

Chile

Iceland

Estonia

Greece

United Kingdo

mHu

ngary

Korea

Japan

Brazil

Mexico

Canada

India

Percen

tage of stude

nts

General Vocational

Braz

il

India

Enrolment in upper secondary by programme

Upper secondary pathways: promote more work‐oriented skills

Academic and vocational tracks 

should be 

equivalent to ensure 

transferability and avoid dead ends

VET should provide high level 

generic skills in addition to professional

Guidance and counselling 

services need to engage more fully 

with the 

world of work

+ strategies for those at risk of dropping out

Manage school choice

Opt for higher quality 

schools, and might foster efficiency, spur 

innovation and raise quality overall. 

Choice can result in a greater sorting and 

segregationof students by ability, income and ethnic 

background. 

Choice

Equity

-1,50

-1,30

-1,10

-0,90

-0,70

-0,50

-0,30

-0,10

0,10

0,30

0,50

Mex

ico

New

Zea

land

Turk

eyU

nite

d S

tate

sA

ustra

liaC

hile

Sw

eden

Isra

elIre

land

Gre

ece

Pola

ndC

anad

aJa

pan

OE

CD

ave

rage

Luxe

mbo

urg

Icel

and

Bel

gium

Fran

ceS

witz

erla

ndP

ortu

gal

Spai

nD

enm

ark

Italy

Cze

ch R

epub

licN

ethe

rland

sE

ston

iaH

unga

ryS

love

nia

Aus

tria

Sin

gapo

reKo

rea

Ger

man

yU

nite

d K

ingd

omN

orw

ayFi

nlan

d

Mea

n in

dex

diffe

renc

e

Difference between socio-economically disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged schools

Educational resources are more problematic in disadvantaged schools in most countries

Advantaged and private schools reported better educational resources

Disadvantaged and public schools reported better educational resources

Fig IV.3.8

Make funding more responsive to needs

Take into consideration 

that the instructional 

costs of disadvantaged students may be 

higher

Targeting resources to areas with a 

high concentration of low performing disadvantaged 

students

Policies to achieve more equitable education systems and reduce dropout

Invest early and through upper secondary

Support low performing 

disadvantaged schools

Eliminate system level obstacles to 

equity

Insufficient systemic support

Schools’ inadequate response to student needs

Insufficient support for 

staff

Poor manageme

nt

Impact of student’s socio‐

economic backgroun

d

Wider range of abilities

Challenging school climate

Poor school 

environments

Disadvantaged schools are confronted to multiple challenges

Demanding learning 

environment

Inadequate support systems

Students may have different opportunities depending on schools they attend

24

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

Nethe

rland

sHu

ngary

Belgium

Luxembo

urg

Germany

Sloven

iaAu

stria

Israel

Japan

Greece

Slovak Rep

ublic

Italy

Ireland

Korea

Portugal

OEC

D average

Czech Re

public

New

 Zealand

Chile

United States

Mexico

United Kingdo

mAu

stralia

Spain

Turkey

Denm

ark

Poland

Switzerland

Canada

Iceland

Swed

enEstonia

Finland

Norway

Students in socio‐economically disadvantaged schools

Students in socio‐economically average schools

Students in socio‐economically advantaged schools

Relative risk of scoring in the bottom quarter of the performance distribution, PISA 2012

2)  Support low performing disadvantaged schools

Supporting disadvantaged 

schools

General strategies 

IRL/FIN/AUST/N. ZEAL/GER

Supportive school 

climates/dataH. 

PERF./DK/FR

Quality professionalsAUSTR/NOR

Effective classroom strategies

Parental and community engagementMX/NETH

Examples of systemic support to disadvantaged groups/schools

•OFIP targeted support to schools•2002/03- 2010/11: from 19% to 6% reduction .

Ontario

•Smarter schools national partnership for disadvantaged schools

•Aboriginal and torres islanders action plan.

Australia

•Ireland Delivering Equality of Opportunity (DEIS, 2005)

•System for identifying levels of disadvantage and providing tailored support

•n Schools (DEIS, 2005):

Ireland

•Maori and pasifika islanders strategy

•Cultural competencies for teachers

New Zealand

•Action programme to promote equal opportunity in education(2013) lower gender differences, impact of SES and disadvantaged.

•One year preparatory education for immigrants (2014).

Finland

•Québec “Act differently”:•Database of effective practices for intervention to develop schools’ expertise (189 schools in 2007/08).

•School boards, through resources and coordination, support the school leadership team.

Quebec

Quality teaching in disadvantaged schools: a key challengeRelationship between school average socio‐economic background and teachers

‐0,5 ‐0,4 ‐0,3 ‐0,2 ‐0,1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3

AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanada

Czech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFrance

GermanyGreece

HungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItaly

JapanKorea

MexicoNetherlandsNew Zealand

NorwayPoland

PortugalSpain

SwedenSwitzerland

United KingdomUnited StatesOECD average

Disadvantaged schools tend to have higher proportions of full‐time teachers…

…But a fewer proportion of them have an advanced university degree

Studentsattendingmore 

advantagedschoolstend to enjoy a higher

proportion of high

quality, full‐time 

teachers

Disadvantaged schools face difficulties in attracting and retaining staff

• Teachers in schools with higher proportions of low-SES or minority students have higher propensity to leave.

United States

• Rural schools with higher proportions of aboriginal students are seen as less desirable, making it harder to recruit and retain teachers.

Australia

• School leaders report that it is difficult to recruit and retain teachers to work in schools with children born abroad.

Japan

• Teachers in schools with higher proportions of low socio-economic status students have higher propensity to leave.

New Zealand

• Schools with higher levels of minority students harder to staff and teachers are significantly more likely to leave.

Norway

• Better qualified teachers are less likely to teach in schools containing minority and disadvantaged children.

France

More effective classroom strategies for disadvantaged students

Effective classroom strategies

Diversified and flexible pedagogic strategies

Summative and

formative assessment

Curriculum with high

expectations

Policies to achieve more equitable education systems and reduce dropout

Invest early and through upper secondary

Support low performing 

disadvantaged schools

Eliminate system level obstacles to 

equity

No single model for success in the implementation of education reforms Reforms are specific to country’s education system context. 

Some factors for effective implementation:

Placing the student and learning at the centre; 

Invest in capacity‐building;  Leadership and coherence;  Stakeholder engagement;  Clear and actionable plans. 

Main sources for further information at OECD

Education Policy Outlookwww.oecd.org/edu/policyoutlook.htmwww.oecd.org/edu/equity

Context

Reforms

Challenges

Education Policy Outlook: Country ProfilesA comparative OECD insight into a country’s context, challenges and policy responses

For further information at OECD Education: Beatriz Pont, beatriz.pont@oecd.org

www.oecd.org/edu/policyoutlook.htm

www.oecd.org/pisa