ISTP 2014 - Equity, Excellence and Inclusiveness in Education
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
24 gostaram•17,940 visualizações
Presentation for the 2014 International Summit on the Teaching Profession, by Andreas Schleicher, Acting Director for the Directorate of Education and Skills, and Special Advisor on Education Policy to the Secretary-General, OECD
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a ISTP 2014 - Equity, Excellence and Inclusiveness in Education
Semelhante a ISTP 2014 - Equity, Excellence and Inclusiveness in Education (20)
Mais de EduSkills OECD
Mais de EduSkills OECD (20)
Último
Último (20)
ISTP 2014 - Equity, Excellence and Inclusiveness in Education
- 1. ISTP 2014 Equity, excellence and inclusiveness in education Wellington, 28 March Andreas Schleicher
- 2. 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Being Employed High wages Good to excellent health Participation in volunteer activities High levels of political efficacy High levels of trust 2 Skills transform lives and drive economies Odds ratio Increased likelihood of positive outcomes for adults with higher literacy skills (scoring at PIAAC Level 4/5 compared with those scoring at Level 1 or below)
- 3. 33 Inequality in skills relates to how wealth is shared in nations
- 4. 44 Australia Austria Canada Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Ireland Italy Japan KoreaNetherlands Norway Poland Slovak Republic Spain Sweden United States Flanders (Belgium) England/N. Ireland (UK) 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 1.41.451.51.551.61.651.7 Literacy skills inequality (9th/1st decile) Income inequality (Gini coefficient) Low income inequality Low skills inequality High income inequality Low skills inequality High income inequality High skills inequality Low income inequality High skills inequality Average Average Inequality in skills relates to how wealth is shared in nations
- 5. 55 The false choice between equity and excellence The false choice between equity and excellence Some evidence from PISA 2012
- 6. Singapore Hong Kong-ChinaChinese Taipei Korea Macao-China Japan Liechtenstein Switzerland Netherlands Estonia Finland Canada Poland Belgium Germany Viet Nam Austria Australia IrelandSlovenia DenmarkNew Zealand Czech Republic France United Kingdom Iceland LatviaLuxembourg Norway Portugal ItalySpain Russian Fed.Slovak Republic United States LithuaniaSwedenHungary Croatia Israel Greece SerbiaTurkey Romania Bulgaria U.A.E. Kazakhstan Thailand Chile Malaysia Mexico 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 Mean score High mathematics performance Low mathematics performance … Shanghai-China performs above this line (613) … 12 countries perform below this line Average performance of 15-year-olds in Mathematics Fig I.2.13 Source: PISA 2012
- 7. Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High mathematics performance Low mathematics performance Average performance of 15-year-olds in mathematics Strong socio-economic impact on student performance Singapore Hong Kong-ChinaChinese Taipei Korea Macao-China Japan Liechtenstein Switzerland Netherlands Estonia Finland Canada Poland Belgium Germany Viet Nam Austria Australia IrelandSlovenia DenmarkNew Zealand Czech Republic France United Kingdom Iceland LatviaLuxembourg Norway Portugal ItalySpain Russian Fed.Slovak Republic United States LithuaniaSwedenHungary Croatia Israel Greece SerbiaTurkey Romania Bulgaria U.A.E. Kazakhstan Thailand Chile Malaysia Mexico
- 8. AustraliaAustria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland 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 Serbia Romania Bulgaria United Arab Emirates Kazakhstan Thailand Malaysia 02468101214161820222426 2012 Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Strong socio-economic impact on student performance
- 9. AustraliaAustria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US 2012 Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Strong socio-economic impact on student performance
- 10. AustraliaAustria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US
- 11. AustraliaAustria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Singapore Shanghai Singapore 2003 - 2012
- 12. 1515 Fostering resilience The country where students go to class matters more than what social class students come from
- 13. 1616 PISA mathematics performance by decile of social background 300325350375400425450475500525550575600625650675 Mexico Chile Greece Norway Sweden Iceland Israel Italy UnitedStates Spain Denmark Luxembourg Australia Ireland UnitedKingdom Hungary Canada Finland Austria Turkey Liechtenstein CzechRepublic Estonia Portugal Slovenia SlovakRepublic NewZealand Germany Netherlands France Switzerland Poland Belgium Japan Macao-China HongKong-China Korea Singapore ChineseTaipei Shanghai-China Source: PISA 2012
- 14. 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 2003 2003 2003 2012 2012 2012 18 Don’t close achievement gaps the wrong way Performance differences between top and bottom quarter of socio-economic distribution Quarter of most disadvantaged students PISAperformance(mathematics) Quarter of most privileged students Source: PISA 2012
- 15. 1919 The rising demand for advanced skills -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 % Evolution of employment in occupational groups defined by PIAAC problem-solving skills Employment of workers with advanced problem-solving skills Employment of workers with poor problem-solving skillsEmployment of workers with medium-low problem-solving skills (PIAAC) Source:PIAAC 2011
- 16. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Shanghai-China Singapore ChineseTaipei HongKong-China Korea Liechtenstein Macao-China Japan Switzerland Belgium Netherlands Germany Poland Canada Finland NewZealand Australia Estonia Austria Slovenia VietNam France CzechRepublic OECDaverage UnitedKingdom Luxembourg Iceland SlovakRepublic Ireland Portugal Denmark Italy Norway Israel Hungary UnitedStates Lithuania Sweden Spain Latvia RussianFederation Croatia Turkey Serbia Bulgaria Greece UnitedArabEmirates Romania Thailand Qatar Chile Uruguay Malaysia Montenegro Kazakhstan Albania Tunisia Brazil Mexico Peru CostaRica Jordan Colombia Indonesia Argentina % Building excellence Percentage of top performers in mathematics20 Tab I.2.1a 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 Source: PISA 2012
- 17. 2121Lessonsfromhighperformers Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Excellence, Equity and Inclusiveness
- 18. 2222Lessonsfromhighperformers Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Attract, nurture and retain high quality teachers for the schools in greatest need Allocate resources equitably Make high quality early- childhood education accessible Encourage autonomy in the context of accountability Avoid segregation and stratification Use assessment and evaluation to identify and support struggling students and schools
- 19. 2323 Align the resources with the challenges Countering disadvantage without rewarding underperformance
- 20. 2626 Align the resources with the challenges Hong Kong-China Brazil Uruguay Croatia Latvia Chinese Taipei Thailand Bulgaria Jordan Macao-China UAE Argentina Indonesia Kazakhstan Peru Costa Rica Montenegro Tunisia Qatar Singapore Colombia Malaysia Serbia Romania Viet Nam Shanghai-China USA Poland New Zealand Greece UK Estonia Finland Slovak Rep. Luxembourg Germany AustriaFrance Japan Turkey Sweden Hungary Australia Israel Canada Ireland Chile Belgium SpainDenmark Switzerland Iceland Slovenia Portugal Norway Mexico Korea Italy R² = 0.19 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 -0.500.511.5 Mathematicsperformance(scorepoints) Equity in resource allocation (index points) Greater equityLess equity Adjusted by per capita GDP Countries with better performance in mathematics tend to allocate educational resources more equitably Source: PISA 2012
- 21. 2727 Adequate resources to address disadvantage Disadvantaged schools reported more teacher shortage Advantaged schools reported more teacher shortage -0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 Korea Estonia Israel Latvia Slovenia Italy Poland Singapore Argentina Netherlands Portugal Colombia France Finland Tunisia Macao-China Spain Greece Switzerland Norway RussianFed. Japan Austria Montenegro Croatia Canada OECDaverage Germany Denmark Hungary UnitedKingdom Luxembourg HongKong-China Belgium Iceland VietNam Ireland UnitedStates Chile CzechRepublic Serbia Turkey Mexico Indonesia Uruguay Shanghai-China SlovakRepublic Sweden Brazil NewZealand Australia ChineseTaipei Meanindexdifference Difference between socio-economically disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged schools A shortage of qualified teachers is more of concern in disadvantaged schools
- 22. 2828 Align the resources with the challenges Incremental cost Administrative discretion Formula funding Countering disadvantage without rewarding underperformance
- 23. 3232 Reflect student demography among teachers …it helps not just minority students but everyone to better appreciate diversity and other peoples’ cultures
- 24. 33 33 33 Prepare for work in disadvantaged schools Preparation Prepare teachers for work in disadvantage Provide mentoring in disadvantage Improve working conditions Career and financial incentives • Reinforce initial teacher training including curriculum content for disadvantage • Strengthening diagnostic capacity • Include practical field experience • Both new and experienced teachers benefit • Pedagogical and relational strategies
- 25. 34 34 34 Attractive employment and careers Careers Effective employment conditions Building careers around teaching in tough contexts Professional development to address diversity Educate the teacher educators • Attracting talent • Flexible employment • Enhance mobility • Transparency in teacher labour market
- 26. 35 35 35 Achieving equity in devolved school systems The question is not how many charter schools you have but how you enable every teacher to assume charter-like autonomy
- 27. 36 36 36 Hong Kong-China Brazil Uruguay Albania Croatia Latvia Lithuania Chinese Taipei ThailandBulgaria Jordan Macao-China UAE Argentina Indonesia Kazakhstan Peru Costa Rica Tunisia Qatar Singapore Colombia Malaysia Serbia Romania Viet Nam Shanghai-China USA Poland New Zealand Greece UK Estonia Finland Slovak Rep. Luxembourg Germany Austria Czech Rep. France Japan Turkey Sweden Hungary Australia Israel Canada Chile Belgium Netherlands Spain Denmark Switzerland Iceland Slovenia Portugal Norway Korea Italy R² = 0.13 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Mathematicsperformance(scorepoints) Index of school responsibility for curriculum and assessment (index points) Countries that grant schools autonomy over curricula and assessments tend to perform better in mathematics Source: PISA 2012
- 28. No standardised math policy Standardised math policy455 460 465 470 475 480 485 Less school autonomy More school autonomy 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 Source: PISA 2012
- 29. Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more collaboration Teachers don't participate in management Teachers participate in management455 460 465 470 475 480 485 Less school autonomy More school autonomy Score points School autonomy for resource allocation x System's level of teachers participating in school management Across all participating countries and economies Fig IV.1.17 Source: PISA 2012
- 30. Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more accountability arrangements School data not public School data public 464 466 468 470 472 474 476 478 Less school autonomy More school autonomy Score points School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's level of posting achievement data publicly Fig IV.1.16 Source: PISA 2012
- 31. 41 41 41 School choice - what parents value
- 32. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Mexico Macao-China Chile Korea HongKong-China Portugal Italy Germany Belgium(Fl.Comm.) Hungary % All parents Parents in the bottom quarter of socio-economic status Parents in the top quarter of socio-economic status A school’s particular approach to teaching is not a determining factor when parents choose a school for their child Percentage of parents who reported that a particular approach to pedagogy is a very important criterion when choosing a school for their child Fig IV.4.5 Source: PISA 2012
- 33. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Chile Mexico Portugal Korea Macao-China Croatia HongKong-China Hungary Germany Belgium(Fl.Comm.) % All parents Parents in the bottom quarter of socio-economic status Parents in the top quarter of socio-economic status Financial aid for school is a greater concern among disadvantaged parents Percentage of parents who reported that the availability of financial aid, such as a school loan, scholarship or grant, is a very important criterion when choosing a school for their child Fig IV.4.5 Privileged parents value financial assistance less Disadvantaged parents value financial assistance more Source: PISA 2012
- 34. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Korea Chile Portugal Mexico Macao-China Croatia HongKong-China Germany Italy Hungary Belgium(Fl.Comm.) % All parents Parents in the bottom quarter of socio-economic status Parents in the top quarter of socio-economic status Advantaged families tend to seek out schools whose students are high achievers Percentage of parents who reported that students’ high academic achievement is a very important criterion in choosing a school for their child Fig IV.4.5 Privileged parents care much more about high standards While disadvantaged parents worry about other things more Source: PISA 2012
- 35. 51 51 51 Square school choice with equity Financial incentives for schools Assistance for disadvantaged parents Controlled choice Financial incentives Inform parents Foster collaboration among teachers and schools Use student and school assessments • Provide support for teachers to exercise leadership in developing and improving professional practice • Help teachers to be heard and to influence policy making, including on the content and structure of the curriculum • Support teachers in setting the direction of their own professional development and in contributing to the professional development of their colleagues • Enhance the key role teachers play in building collaborative relationships with parents and the wider community • Promote the role of teachers in pupil assessment, teacher appraisal and school evaluation • Enable teachers to participate in activities that lead to the creation and transfer of professional knowledge.
- 36. 5252 Inclusive learning environments Creating learning environments that meet the needs of all children
- 37. 53 53 53 High expectations for all students United States Poland Hong Kong-China Brazil New Zealand Greece Uruguay United Kingdom Estonia Finland Albania Croatia Latvia Slovak Republic Luxembourg Germany Lithuania Austria Czech Republic Chinese Taipei France Thailand Japan Turkey Sweden Hungary Australia Israel Canada IrelandBulgaria Jordan Chile Macao-China U.A.E. Belgium Netherlands Spain Argentina Indonesia Denmark Kazakhstan Peru Costa Rica Switzerland Montenegro Tunisia Iceland Slovenia Qatar Singapore Portugal Norway Colombia Malaysia Mexico Liechtenstein Korea Serbia Russian Fed. Romania Viet Nam Italy Shanghai-China R² = 0.36 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 Meanmathematicsperformance PISA mean index of mathematics self-efficacy OECDaverage Countries where students have stronger beliefs in their abilities perform better in mathematics Source: PISA 2012
- 38. 56 56 56 A continuum of support for struggling students Make learning central, encourage engagement and responsibility Be acutely sensitive to individual differences Provide continual assessment with formative feedback Be demanding for every student Ensure that students feel valued and included and learning is collaborative
- 39. 58 58 58 A data-rich school environment National and school data School-based strategies for analysis Data for supporting learning
- 40. 59 59 59 Reduce tracking and grade repetition Both vertical and horizontal stratification hurt equity
- 41. 62 62 62 Reach out to communities Use diverse communication channels Ensure balanced communication Reach out to disadvantaged parents Clear guidelines on what is expected from parents
- 42. 63 63 63 Strengthen school leadership Leadership preparation with specialised knowledge on disadvantage Reinforce coaching and strengthen school networks Attract great leaders to tough schools
- 43. 6565Lessonsfromhighperformers 65 65 Thank you Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org – All publications – The complete micro-level database Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org Twitter: SchleicherEDU and remember: Without data, you are just another person with an opinion
Notas do Editor
- The red dot indicates classroom spending per student, relative to the spending capacity of countries, the higher the dot, the more of its GDP a country invests. High salaries are an obvious cost driver. You see Korea paying their teachers very well, the green bar goes up a lot. Korea also has long school days, another cost driver, marked here by the white bar going up. Last but not least, Korea provides their teachers with lots of time for other things than teaching such as teacher collaboration and professional development, which costs money as well. So how does Korea finances all of this? They do this with large classes, the blue bar pulls costs down. If you go to the next country on the list, Luxembourg, you see that the red dot is about where it is for Korea, so Luxembourg spends roughly the same per student as Korea. But parents and teachers in Luxembourg mainly care about small classes, so policy makers have invested mainly into reducing class size, you see the blue bar as the main cost driver. But even Luxembourg can only spend its money once, and the result is that school days are short, teacher salaries are average at best and teachers have little time for anything else than teaching. Finland and the US are a similar contrast.Countries make quite different spending choices. But when you look at this these data long enough, you see that many of the high performing education systems tend to prioritise the quality of teachers over the size of classes.
- (Fig. II.4.5)
- (Fig. II.4.5)
- (Fig. II.4.5)