Spain in a comparative perspective Spain in a comparative perspective

Madriid, 15 Julyy 2013

S Strong perform mers and successful reform mers Andreas Schle A eicher

11

Programme for International Student Assessment

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

ANZOG 2013


22

EU

The crisis has amplified the value of a good education

S Strong perform mers and successful reform mers Andreas Schle A eicher % 30

Norway Austria Germany Sw witzerland Czech Republic Ne etherlands Australia Brazil Korea Japan Belgium Luxxembourg New w Zealand Russian Federation Sweden Israel United Kingdom Hungary Finland Iceland Poland Slovenia OECD D average Mexico France Unite ed States Canada Denmark Italy EU21 1 average Slovak Republic Chile Ireland Turkey Estonia Portugal Spain Greece

ANZOG 2013

33

A tertiary education is an advantage, particularly during an economic downturn

Unemployment rates for 25-64 year-olds tertiary educated people (2005, 2008 and 2011)

2011 2008 2005

25

20

15

10

5

0

Chart A5.2-3

S Strong perform mers and successful reform mers Andreas Schle A eicher % 30

Korea Mexico Chile Brazil Norway Ne etherlands Australia Luxxembourg New w Zealand Austria Israel Iceland Sw witzerland Turkey Denmark Italy Sweden United Kingdom Finland Canada Belgium OECD D average Slovenia France Portugal Germany Russian Federation EU 21 1 average United States Poland Greece Czech Republic Ireland Hungary Estonia Spain Slovakk Republic

ANZOG 2013

44

Adults with no upper secondary education suffer even more in weak labour markets

Unemployment rates for 25-64 year-olds with below upper secondary education (2005, 2008 and 2011) 2011 2008 2005

25

20

15

10

5

0

Chart A5.2-1



55

PISA 2009 in brief

PISA countries in 2001 2003 2000 2009 2006 1998



Coverage world economy 83% Over half a million of students… 81% 77% 86% 85% 87% 

representing 28 million ll 15 15-year-olds ld in 74 4* countries/economies /

… took an internationally agreed 2-hour test… Goes beyond testing whether students can reproduce what they were taught… … to assess students’ capacity p y to extrapolate p from what they y know and creatively apply their knowledge in novel situations



… and responded to questions on… 



their h personall background, b k d their h schools h l and their engagement with learning and school

Parents principals and system leaders provided data on Parents, on… 

*

school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences . Data for Costa Rica, Georgia, India, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Venezuela and Vietnam will be published in December 2011

Australia 2009 Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Strong socioItaly economic impact on Japan student performance Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland l d Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland UK 55 US


66

High reading performance


Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities

45

35

Low reading performance

25

1

High reading performance Australia Belgium Canada High average performance High average performance Chile Czech Rep Large socio-economic disparities High social equity Denmark Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Strong socioSocially equitable Italy economic impact on distribution of learning Japan student performance opportunities Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland l d Portugal Spain Low average performance Low average performance Sweden High social equity SwitzerlandLarge socio-economic disparities UK US Low reading performance



77

2009

Durchschnittliche S hül l i Schülerleistungen iim Bereich Mathematik

Contribution of various factors to salary cost of teachers per student att the th upper secondary d level l l of f education d ti (2010) US$

Contribution of estimated class size Contribution of instruction time

In USD

Spain has above-average statutory class sizes but high fragmentation of subjects to low Spain has contributes fourth-highest student/staff ratio hours number of instruction but below below-average average share of math and science

4 000 3 000 2 000 1 000 0

Contribution of teaching time Contribution of teachers teachers' salary

-11 000 -2 000

Estonia E

Slovak Re epublic

Chile

Hu ungary

Turkey T

Poland P

Czech Re epublic

Israel

Slo ovenia

Ic celand

Finland F

Korea

En ngland

Italy

United S States

Canada C

France F

Irreland

Netherlands

Ausstralia

Norway N

Austria A

Germany

Spain

Portugal

-3 000 Belgium m (Fl.)



88

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 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 -500

Mexico M

Czech Re epublic

Hu ungary

Korea

Ic celand

France F

Irreland

United S States

Portugal

Japan

Spain

Italy

Ausstralia

Finland F

Denmark

-1000 Austria

Londo on, 10. Septem mber 2012 Andreas S Schleicher

Education E n at a Glan nce 2012 2

99

Contribution of various factors to the change in the salary cost of teacher per stud nt att th student the llower ssecondary c nd llevell (2000, (2000 2010)



10 10

UK

Students in OECD countries receive an average of 7 751 hours of instruction during primary and lower secondary education, most of which is compulsory Number of intended instruction hours in public institutions (2011) Primary education

Lower secondary education

Compulsory instruction time

Non-compulsory instruction time

Compulsory instruction time

Non-compulsory instruction time

Turkey Hungary Estonia Russian Federation Korea Czech Republic Slovenia Poland Sweden Finland Austria Belgium (Fl.) Greece Slovak Republic Indonesia Japan Germany Italy Belgium (Fr.) EU21 average OECD average Norway England Denmark Chile Canada Mexico Portugal France Israel Iceland Luxembourg Spain Netherlands Ireland Australia

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000 10 000instruction 12hours 000 Total number of intended Chart D1.1


0 China Chile Japan Israel Korea Turkey Ind donesia Arrgentina United K Kingdom Brazil Ireland Australia A France Spain OECD a average Ge ermany Belgiu um (Fr.) Hungary H Portugal P De enmark United d States EU21 a average Czech R Republic Mexico Finland Italy Slovenia S Poland Iceland Austria Slovak R Republic Russian… R Estonia Greece Luxem mbourg


11 11 On average in OECD countries, class size increases by two or more students between primary and lower secondary education

Average class size in educational institutions, by level of education (2011)

Number of students per classroom

Primary education

Lower secondary education

60

50

40

30

20

10

Chart D2.2

EU/U S Spa ain Korrea Luxembou urg Portug gal New Zeala and Cana ada Germa any Finla and Isra ael Engla and Austra alia Denma ark Belgium (F Fl.) OECD avera age EU21 avera age Netherlan nds Belgium (F Fr.) Irela and Swed den Sloven nia Fran nce Scotla and Pola and Ch hile Norw way United Stattes Eston nia Austtria Ita aly Hunga ary Czech Repub C blic Icela and Slovak Repub S blic



12 12

Ratio of teachers' salary to earnings for full-time, full-year workers with tertiary education aged 25-64 (2011 or latest available year)

In only 6 countries were relative salaries for teachers higher than those of comparably educated workers Ratio 1,5

But teacher salaries in the EU rose by 20% between 2000 and 2011 (in contrast in the US they remained stable)

1,0

0,5

0,0

Chart D3.1-2




13 13

2009





14 14

2000





15 15

2000





16 16

2000


40

60

80

100

Va ariance Strong S perform mers and successful reform mers 40

20 Andreas Schle A eicher

20

0

Argentina Trinidad and Tobago Italy Qatar Turkey Bulgaria Israel Panama Germany Peru Hungary Dubai (UAE) Austria Belgium uxembourg Lu Neetherlands Japan Chile Uruguay Greece Brazil Czech Republic Slovenia Romania Croatia Serbia United States Mexico Singapore Jordan Kyrgyzstan Colombia Montenegro Hong K Kong‐China Albania Tunisia Slovaak Republic Liechtenstein Kazakhstan K Maacao‐China Ireland United d Kingdom Chin nese Taipei Korea Switzerland Australia Neew Zealand Portugal Shangghai‐China Azerbaijan A Russian FFederation Canada Sweden Lithuania Indonesia Spain Poland Estonia Latvia Iceland Thailand Denmark Norway Finland


17 17 Variability in student performance between and within schools

100

80

60

Performance differences between schools

Performance variation of students within schools

ANZOG 2013


18 18

Policy

Policies and practices

R

R System

E School

Equity

Learning climate Discipline



Teacher behaviour



Parental pressure Parental pressure



Teacher‐student relationships



Dealing with heterogeneity Grade repetition





 

Prevalence of tracking p Expulsions







Ability grouping (all subjects)







St d d / Standards /accountability t bilit Nat. examination

 

High impact on outcomes



19 19

Quick wins

Must haves

Catching g up p with the top-performers p p Low feasibility y

High g feasibility y

Money pits

Low hanging fruits Low impact on outcomes




20 20

Quick wins

Must haves

Commitment to universal achievement

Capacity at point of delivery

C h Coherence

Incentive structures and accountability

Resources where they yield most Gateways, instructional systems y

Low feasibility y


Money pits





21 21 

Quick wins Must haves A commitment to education and the belief Commitment universaland that competencies can betolearned Incentive structures achievement therefore f all children can achieve and accountability Capacity

Universal educational standards and at point of delivery personalisation as the approach to Resources heterogeneity in the student bodyyield most body. where they  Clear articulation who is responsible for Gateways, ensuring student success and to whom instructional systems y C h Coherence Low feasibility y


Money pits




22 22

High impact on outcomes Quick wins

Must haves


Incentive structures  Clear ar goals goa s that are ar shared shar and across th the accountability Capacity system and aligned with high stakes at point of delivery Resources examinations and instructional systems where they yield most  Well established delivery chain through which curricular goals translate into Gateways, instructional systems y systems, y , instructional practices p instructional and student C h Coherence learning (intended, implemented and achieved)  Use evaluation to raise educational attainment: Low feasibility High y g feasibility y track individuals and cohorts over time to inform policy changes.  High level of metacognitive content of instruction Money pits





23 23 

Quick wins

Must haves

I Incentives, i accountability, bili k knowledge l d management

Commitment to universal  Aligned incentive structures Incentive structures achievement and accountability For students Capacity How gateways affect the strength, direction, clarity and nature of at point of delivery the incentives operating onResources students at each stage of their education Degree to which students incentives to take tough courses and wherehave they yield most study hard Gateways, Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing well instructional systems y For teachers C h Coherence 





Make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation  Improve their own performance Low feasibility y 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 p innovation – communication within the system y and spread pits with Money stakeholders around it Low hanging fruits A capable centre with authority and legitimacy to act Low impact on outcomes

School autonomy, accountability and student performance



24 24

Impact of school autonomy on performance in systems with and without PISA score in reading

accountability arrangements

500

495 490

School autonomy in resource allocation S h ls with Schools ith m more autonomy ut n m 480

Schools with less autonomy Systems S t with ith more accountability

Systems with less accountability

System’s accountability arrangements



25 25

How much autonomy individual schools have over curr curricula cula and assessment Establishing student assessment policies, OECD average

Only "regional regional and/or national education authority"

Spain

Choosing which textbooks are used, used OECD average Spain

Both "principals p p and/or teachers" and "regional and/or national education authority"

Determining course content, OECD average Spain

Only "principals and/or teachers"

Deciding which courses are offered, OECD average Spain p

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



26 26

How much autonomy individual schools have over resource allocat allocation on Selecting teachers for hire, OECD… Spain

Only "regional and/or national education authority"

Firing teachers, OECD average Spain

Establishing teachers’ starting… Spain

Both "principals and/or teachers" and "regional and/or national education authority"

Determining teachers’ salaries… Spain p

Formulating the school budget,… Spain

Only "principals and/or teachers"

Deciding on budget allocations… Spain

0%

20%

40%

60%

80% 100%



27 27

Local responsibility and system-level y m prescription p p T Trend d in i OECD countries t i

System-level prescription ‘Tayloristic’ work organisation

Schools today The industrial model, detailed prescription of what schools do

Schools tomorrow?

Building capacity

Fi l d today Finland t d Every school an effective school

Schools leading reform Teachers as ‘knowledge workers’



28 28

Standardised exams and student performance PISA score in reading

500

490

School autonomy in resource allocation Schools with more autonomy

483

480 Systems with standards-based exams

Systems without standards based standards-based exams

System’s accountability arrangements

Schools S h l with i h lless autonomy


29 29

Public and private schools Observed performance difference

Government schools

Government m dependent p private p

Difference after accounting for socio-economic Government independent private background of students and schools -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

%


Australia Austria Canada Chile Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Fi l d Finland Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States Argentina Brazil Hong Kong-China Kong China Indonesia Jordan Russian Federation Shanghai-China Singapore Chinese Taipei

Score point difference

Private schools perform better Public schools perform better




30 30

Quick wins

Must haves

Commitment to universal Investing resources where Incentive they can structures make achievement most of a difference and accountability Capacity 

 Alignment of resources with key challenges (e.g. at point of delivery attracting the Resources most talented teachers to the most challenging challen where in they classrooms) yield most  Effective spending choices that Gateways, prioritise high instructional systems y quality q y teachers over smaller classes C h Coherence

Low feasibility y


Money pits


31



31Capacity 



 


at the point of delivery

Quick wins

Must haves

Att ti d l i and d retaining t i i hi h quality lit Attracting, developing high universal teachers and school Commitment leaders and ato work Incentive structures achievement organisation in which they can use their and accountability Capacity potential at point of delivery Instructional leadership and human resource Resources management in schools where they yield most Keeping teaching an attractive profession Gateways, System-wide career development instructional systems y C h Coherence Low feasibility y


Money pits



32 32

High impact on outcomes Quick wins

Must haves





Resources  Coherence of policies andwhere practices they yield most  Alignment of policies Gateways, across all aspects of the system instructional systems y C h Coherence  Coherence of policies over sustained periods of time Low feasibility High y g feasibility y  Consistency of implementation  Fidelity of implementation (without excessive control)

Money pits





33 33

Quick wins

Must haves



C h Coherence



Low feasibility y


Money pits





34 34

Quick wins

Must haves



C h Coherence



Low feasibility y


Money pits




35 35

Average school systems

High performers in PISA

Some students learn at high h gh levels



All students learn at h high gh levels

Uniformity y



Embracing g diversity y

Curriculum-centred



Learner-centred

Learning a place



Learning an activity

Low status of the t teaching hin profession p f ssi n



Countries attract and develop high quality teachers

Prescription



Informed profession

Delivered wisdom



User-generated wisdom

Keeping learning beyond school



36 36

C Cross-sectional i l skill-age kill profiles fil for f youths h by b education d i and d work k status Mean skill score 320 310 300

Youth in education and work

Youth in education

290 280 270 260 250 240 230

Not in education, not in i work k

220 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Age Lineal (In education only)

Lineal (In education and work)

Lineal (NEET)



37 37 Find out more about PISA at…  OECD www.pisa.oecd.org www pisa oecd org – All national and international publications – The complete micro micro-level level database



Thank you !

Email: Andreas [email protected] Schleicher@OECD org

… and remember remember: Without data, you are just another person with an opinion