3. Para qué
• Teoría:
– Mejorar nuestra comprensión de la educación
para mejorarla
• Práctica:
– Informar la toma de decisiones:
• Políticas
• (Profesionales)
4. familia Políticas públicas
pares
escuela
resultados
efectos
5. familia Políticas públicas
pares
escuela Variables contextuales
Variables
institucionales/regulatorias
resultados
resultados
efectos
6. Equidad y modelos de gobierno
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
autónomo centralizado federal municipal OCDE
Variación entre centros en los resultados de cultura científica (2006)
Variación intra centros en los resultados de cultura científica (2006) 6
8. Ayer y hoy
teoría
preguntas
descripción de
métodos políticas y análisis
del juego de
actores
datos fenomenología de
disponibles sistemas y
estructuras
9.
10. Ayer y hoy
teoría
contexto
comportamiento entradas
dinámico de los
preguntas
sistemas procesos
descripción de resultados
métodos políticas y análisis
del juego de Evaluación de sistemas
actores
datos fenomenología de
disponibles sistemas y
estructuras
11. Cuatro medidas de equidad
• Acceso: provisión de servicios
• Procesos: tratamiento educativo
• Resultados: compensación de desventajas
• Efectos: acceso a competencias básicas
13. Percentage of students frequently using a computer:
At home
Netherlands
No se pueden tener 15 años sin estar conectado
Turkey
Japan 100 Iceland
Norway
Chile 80 Sweden
Greece 60 Denmark
Ireland 40 Canada
Slovak Republic 20 Australia
0
Poland Finland
Hungary Korea
Italy Belgium
Czech Republic Switzerland
OECD Germany
Spain Austria
New Zealand Portugal
14. Paradoja de la equidad de acceso
3
2
1
0
Equal start SES effect ICT effect
Low SES High SES
15. Procesos: equidad de tratamiento educativo
120
100 Variación de resultados dentro
de las escuelas
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40 Variación de resultados entre
escuelas
-60
-80
22 21 31 8 15 7 6 13 1 9
-100 21-25 19-24 3-10 10-20 5-9 4-9 11-16 9-11
s
n
o
y
n
aly
om
d
y
a
te
wa
de
x ic
pa
lan
an
re
gd
It
a
Ja
Ko
rm
e
r
Me
Fin
St
Sw
No
Kin
Ge
d
ite
d
ite
Un
Un
17. Compensación de desventajas
Alto
Finland Korea United Kingdom
Sweden Norway Spain
600 Germany
Rendimiento de los alumnos
550
500
450
400
350
Bajo 300
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Desventaja Ventaja
Índice PISA de contexto social
20. Pero no basta
De la evaluación de sistemas a la
evaluación de políticas
21. Un programa de investigación
comparativa en educación
1. Causalidad (series temporales)
22. It is not as it used to be
Approximated by percentage of persons with high school or equivalent qualfications
in the age groups 55-64, 45-55, 45-44 und 25-34 years
1990s 1980s 1970s 1960s
100
%
90
1
80 13
70
60
50
40
30
20
1 27
10
0
Netherlands
Slovenia
Greece
Switzerland
Germany
Finland
Iceland
Belgium
Italy
Russian Federation4
EU19 average
France
Ireland
Korea
Mexico
Estonia
Israel
Norway
Spain
Austria3
Poland
Brazil2
Slovak Republic
Chile2
United Kingdom3
OECD average
United States
Turkey
Sweden
Denmark
Luxembourg
Hungary
Canada
New Zealand
Australia
Portugal
Czech Republic
1. Excluding ISCED 3C short programmes 2. Year of reference 2004
3. Including some ISCED 3C short programmes 3. Year of reference 2003.
23. Australia
A world of change – college education
Austria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Greece
Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Cost per student
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden Graduate supply
United Kingdom
United States Tertiary-type A graduation rate
24. A world of change – college education
Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)
Cost per student
United States
Sweden
Germany
Japan
Graduate supply
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
25. A world of change – college education
Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)
Australia
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
26. A world of change – college education
Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
27. A world of change – college education
Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
28. A world of change – college education
Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
29. A world of change – college education
Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
30. A world of change – college education
Expenditure per student at tertiary level (USD)
United States
Sweden
Australia
Germany
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
31. Poland raised its reading performance by 28 PISA points, equivalent to ¾
Between PISA 2000 and 2003
Poland delayed the separation-of
of a school year What happened?
% students into different school
types
Level 1 Below Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
beyond the age of 15 years
90
70
In 2003, performance
variation among schools had Between 2000 and 2003
50 fallen from 51% to 16% showed the second-largest
of
increase in reading (17 points)
the variation of student
performance and a further 11 point
30 increase since 2003
But did this lead to genuine
improvements of school
10
performance?
10 Most of that increase resulted
from smaller proportions at the
bottom level (23% in 2000, and
30 three-quarters in vocational
tracks, 17%in 2003)
Poland 2000
Poland 2003
Poland 2006
OECD 2006
Did this harm
the better performers?
OECD (2007), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2006 , Table 6.1a
32. -10 0 10 20
21
KOR KOR
20
GRC GRC
13
MEX MEX
11
ESP ESP
11
AUT AUT
9
ISL ISL
8
CZE CZE
8
PRT PRT
8
HUN HUN
7
DEU DEU
7
BEL BEL
6
FRA FRA
IRL 5 IRL
DNK 5 DNK
POL 4 POL
SWE 4 SWE
AUS 3 AUS
ITA 3 ITA
NOR 3 NOR
JPN 1 JPN
CHE 1 CHE
FIN 1 FIN
CAN 0 CAN
NZL -8 NZL
OECD-24 6 OECD-24
33. Change (2006-2000) in reading
40
scores LUX
KOR
30
POL
20
DEU
10
HUN
CHE
PRT
FIN 0
-0,02 DNK -0,01 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05
CAN OECD-26
NZL BEL CZE
-10 IRL
SWE MEX
AUS
GRC AUT
ITA
-20 FRA
NOR
ISL
JPN
GBR
-30
ESP
-40
Change (2006-2000 in inequality (coefficient of variation) of reading scores
34. Un programa de investigación
comparativa en educación
1. Causalidad (series temporales)
2. Black box
35. Efectos de una selección de variables sobre los resultados
School principal’s positive
evaluation of quality of
Schools with more competing
educational materials
schools
(gross only)
(gross only)
Schools with greater autonomy
(resources)
(gross and net)
School activities to promote
One additional hour of self-
science learning
study or homework
(gross and net)
One additional hour of science
(gross and net)
learning at school
School results and net)publicly
(gross posted
(gross and net)
Academically selective schools
(gross and net) but no system-
wide effect
Schools practicing ability
One additional hour ofnet)
grouping (gross and out-of-
Each additionallessons public
school 10% of
School principal’s perception
(gross and net)
funding
that lack of qualified teachers
(gross only) Effect after accounting for the
hinders instruction
(gross only)
socio-economic background
Measured effect of students, schools and
countries
OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies from Tomorrow’s World, Table 6.1a
36. Un programa de investigación
comparativa en educación
1. Causalidad (series temporales)
2. Black box
– valor añadido
– estrategias efectivas dentro del aula
– la docencia,
• Una profesión basada en la docencia
• La formación del profesorado
37. Más y mejores evidencias Otras herramientas
Mayor complejidad Otra formación
Ventana de Masa crítica
oportunidad