Spain in a comparative perspective. Policy lessons from top-performers
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
0 gostou•557 visualizações
Presentación del Director de Educación de la OCDE, Andreas Schleicher en la Comisión de Educación, Cultura y Deporte del Congreso de los Diputados. 15 de julio de 2013.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Destaque
Destaque (18)
Semelhante a Spain in a comparative perspective. Policy lessons from top-performers
Semelhante a Spain in a comparative perspective. Policy lessons from top-performers (20)
Mais de Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa
Mais de Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa (20)
Último
Último (20)
Spain in a comparative perspective. Policy lessons from top-performers
- 1. 11Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Spain in a comparative perspective Policy lessons from top-performers Madrid, 15 July 2013 Andreas Schleicher Special advisor to the Secretary-General on Education Policy Deputy Director for Education Programme for International Student Assessment
- 2. 66Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance Australia Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US 125354555 2009
- 3. 77Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance Australia Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US 2009
- 4. 88Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher -3 000 -2 000 -1 000 0 1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000 Belgium(Fl.) Portugal Spain Germany Austria Norway Australia Netherlands Ireland France Canada UnitedStates Italy England Korea Finland Iceland Slovenia Israel CzechRepublic Poland Turkey Hungary Chile SlovakRepublic Estonia Contribution of estimated class size Contribution of teaching time Contribution of instruction time Contribution of teachers' salary US$ Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student at the upper secondary level of education (2010) In USD Spain has above-average statutory class sizes but high fragmentation of subjects contributes to low student/staff ratio Spain has fourth-highest number of instruction hours but below-average share of math and science
- 5. 99 London,10.September2012 AndreasSchleicher EducationataGlance2012 Contribution of various factors to the change in the salary cost of teacher per student at the lower secondary level (2000, 2010) -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Austria Denmark Finland Australia Italy Spain Japan Portugal UnitedStates Ireland France Iceland Korea Hungary CzechRepublic Mexico Contribution of teachers' salary Contribution of instruction time Contribution of teaching time Contribution of estimated class size Change in salary cost between 2000 and 2010 In equivalent USD using PPPs
- 6. 1313Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance Australia Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US 2009
- 7. 1414Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance Australia Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US 2000
- 8. 1515Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High reading performance Low reading performance Australia Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK US 2000
- 9. 18181818ANZOG2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Policies and practices Learning climate Discipline Teacher behaviour Parental pressure Teacher-student relationships Dealing with heterogeneity Grade repetition Prevalence of tracking Expulsions Ability grouping (all subjects) Standards /accountability Nat. examination Policy System R School R Equity E
- 10. 1919Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 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
- 11. 2020Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 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, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most Coherence
- 12. 2121Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 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, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most Coherence A commitment to education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve Universal educational standards and personalisation as the approach to heterogeneity in the student body. Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom
- 13. 2222Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 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, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most Coherence Clear goals that are shared across the system and aligned with high stakes examinations and instructional systems Well established delivery chain through which curricular goals translate into instructional systems, instructional practices and student learning (intended, implemented and achieved) Use evaluation to raise educational attainment: track individuals and cohorts over time to inform policy changes. High level of metacognitive content of instruction
- 14. 2323Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 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, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most Coherence 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
- 15. 2424Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Schools with less autonomy Schools with more autonomy 480 490 500 Systems with more accountability Systems with less accountability 495 School autonomy in resource allocation System’s accountability arrangements PISA score in reading School autonomy, accountability and student performance Impact of school autonomy on performance in systems with and without accountability arrangements
- 16. 2525Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Establishing student assessment policies, OECD average Spain Choosing which textbooks are used, OECD average Spain Determining course content, OECD average Spain Deciding which courses are offered, OECD average Spain Only "regional and/or national education authority" Both "principals and/or teachers" and "regional and/or national education authority" Only "principals and/or teachers" How much autonomy individual schools have over curricula and assessment
- 17. 2626Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher How much autonomy individual schools have over resource allocation 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Selecting teachers for hire, OECD… Spain Firing teachers, OECD average Spain Establishing teachers’ starting… Spain Determining teachers’ salaries… Spain Formulating the school budget, OECD… Spain Deciding on budget allocations within… Spain Only "regional and/or national education authority" Both "principals and/or teachers" and "regional and/or national education authority" Only "principals and/or teachers"
- 18. 2828Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Schools with less autonomy Schools with more autonomy 480 490 500 Systems with standards-based exams Systems without standards-based exams 483 School autonomy in resource allocation System’s accountability arrangements PISA score in reading Standardised exams and student performance
- 19. 3030Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 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, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most Coherence Investing resources where they can make most of 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
- 20. 3131Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 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, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most Coherence 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
- 21. 3232Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 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, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most Coherence 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)
- 22. 3333Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 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, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most Coherence
- 23. 3434Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher 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, instructiona l systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most Coherence
- 24. 3535Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Average 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 Learning a place Learning an activity Low status of the teaching profession Countries attract and develop high quality teachers Prescription Informed profession
- 25. 3636Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Keeping learning beyond school Cross-sectional skill-age profiles for youths by education and work status 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Age Linear (In education only) Linear (In education and work) Linear (NEET) Mean skill score Youth in education Youth in education and work Not in education, not in work
- 26. 3737Madrid,15July2013Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformers AndreasSchleicher Thank you ! Find out more about PISA at… OECD www.pisa.oecd.org – All national and international publications – The complete micro-level database Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org … and remember: Without data, you are just another person with an opinion
Notas do Editor
- We started to develop PISA in 1998 with 28 OECD countries, but since then country participation has grown and our latest PISA assessment covers 74 education systems that make up 86% of the world economy. Coverage in China and India is still patchy though, in China we have now covered 12 provinces and in India we are working in two states only.One aspect that makes PISA stand apart from traditional school tests is that PISA puts less emphasis on whether students can reproduce what they were taught, but focuses on their capacity to extrapolate from what they know and creatively apply what they know in novel situations. Some people complain that PISA is unfair, because it confronts students with tasks they have not dealt with before, but if you take that line, then you should consider life unfair, because in this fast-changing world, that is precisely what will expect students later in life. You will see that in the callout box.Students also provided data on their socio-economic context, their schools and their attitudes and engagement with school and learning.In addition, PISA collected data from parents, principals and system leaders to yield insights on school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences.
- The yellow bar on this chart shows you the performance variability among schools. The larger the bar, the more school quality varies. The orange bar tells you about performance variation within schools.What the yellow bar tells you is that the quality of schools differs greatly in countries such as Italy, Turkey, Israel or Germany, while in Finland the yellow bar is very short, virtually every school performs at high levels. Now you might say Finland is a special case because it is not so heterogeneous, but then take Shanghai, a socio-economically every heterogeneous province and you see also here a fairly consistent high level of performance among schools. That has not come about by chance, but is the result of a concerted effort to convert “weaker schools” into stronger schools. If you are a successful school principal in a high performing school in Shanghai, you will get a salary raise, but they then put you in a disadvantaged school to create another success. And you will not be alone but you can take part of your teachers with you. Listen to how the Director of the Education Bureau in Pudong explains that success.
- Let me briefly summarise the influences that we have measured in PISA.