Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education

1. Programme for International Student Assessment Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education Francesca Borgonovi Early Childhood and Schools Division, EDU OECD

2. Foundation skills for the future • Rapid pace of change in most work environments requires strong foundation skills even in relatively routine manual occupations • Strong foundation skills are needed to make the most of computerisation and digitisation • Literacy to understand descriptions of new procedures for rapidly changing tasks • Numeracy to be able to understand the basic mathematics that permeates models used by computers

3. Advanced skills for the future • Expert thinking and ability to solve problems with no rules-based solutions • Complex communication and the ability of interacting with humans to acquire information, explain it and lead others to action.

4. Skill use by occupational groups Source: PIAAC Field trial

5. Skill mismatch by occupational groups Source: PIAAC Field trial

6. How the demand for skills has changedEconomy-wide measures of routine and non-routine task input (US) Mean task input as percentiles of the 1960 task distribution The dilemma of schools: The skills that are easiest to teach and test are also the ones that are easiest to digitise, automate and outsource (Levy and Murnane)

7. Implications for education systems • Technology can change the nature of work faster than people can change their skills • Education systems need to proactively and continuously re-think about how to develop the advanced skills that will be needed in the unpredictable labour markets and societies of the future

8. A world of change in the global talent poolApproximated by percentage of persons with high school or equivalent qualfications in the age groups 55-64, 45-55, 45-44 und 25-34 years % 1 13 1 27 1. Excluding ISCED 3C short programmes 2. Year of reference 2004 3. Including some ISCED 3C short programmes 3. Year of reference 2003.

9. PISA in brief PISA countries in 2003 2000 2001 2006 2009 1998 Coverage of world economy 83% 77% 81% 85% 86% 87% • Methods… • Target population 15-year-old students • Random samples • PISA 2009: over half a million students… ….representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 74 countries/economies • 2 hour paper and pencil test in reading, mathematics and science • Item types- constructed response and multiple choice; real life tasks • Student background questionnaire • their personal background, their schools and their engagement with learning and school • School and system background questionnaires • school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences .

10. PISA... a (relatively) long story • PISA in 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2009 • PISA 2012 – In the field • PISA 2015– Work in Progress • Focus on students’ capacity to extrapolate from what they know and creatively apply their knowledge in novel situations • Less emphasis on whether they can reproduce what they were taught

11. Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education • Quality of Learning outcomes • Equity of learning opportunities • Factors that make a difference

12. Quality of Learning Outcomes • High performance • Increasing performance over time • The learning outcomes of poor performing and top performing students

13. Quality of Learning Outcomes • High performance • Increasing performance over time • The learning outcomes of poor performing and top performing students

14. High reading performance Average performanceof 15-year-olds in reading … 17 countries perform below this line Low reading performance

15. Performance in reading (2009) 539 495

16. Quality of Learning Outcomes • High performance • Increasing performance over time • The learning outcomes of poor performing and top performing students

17. Change in reading performance between 2000 and 2009 Reading performance improved Score point change Reading performance declined

18. Quality of Learning Outcomes • High performance • Increasing performance over time • The learning outcomes of poor performing and top performing students

19. Percentage of students below proficiency Level 2 in reading between 2000 and 2009 2000 2009

20. Percentage of top performers in reading between 2000 and 2009 2009 2000

21. Equity of learning opportunities • Are students held back because of their socio-economic condition? • The role of schools: between and within school differences in performance • The performance of students with an immigrant background • Gender gap

22. Equity of learning opportunities • Are students held back because of their socio-economic condition? • The role of schools: between and within school differences in performance • The performance of students with an immigrant background • Gender gap

23. Measures of the relationship between socio-economic background and reading performance

24. Percentage of resilient students among disadvantaged students % Resilient student: Comes from the bottom quarter of the socially most disadvantaged students but performs among the top quarter of students internationally (after accounting for social background) Less than 15% resilient students among disadvantaged students More than 30% resilient students among disadvantaged students Between 15%-30% of resilient students among disadvantaged students

25. Equity of learning opportunities • Are students held back because of their socio-economic condition? • The role of schools: between and within school differences in performance • The performance of students with an immigrant background • Gender gap

26. Student performance PISA Index of socio-economic background Disadvantage Advantage School performance and socio-economic background Denmark Private school Public school in rural area Public school in urban area 700

27. Student performance PISA Index of socio-economic background Disadvantage Advantage School performance and socio-economic background Finland Private school Public school in rural area Public school in urban area 700

28. Student performance PISA Index of socio-economic background Disadvantage Advantage School performance and socio-economic background Germany Private school Public school in rural area Public school in urban area 700

29. Variability in student performance Variance

30. Variability in student performance between and within schools Variance Performance differences between schools Performance variation of students in schools

31. Equity of learning opportunities • Are students held back because of their socio-economic condition? • The role of schools: between and within school differences in performance • The performance of students with an immigrant background • Gender gap

32. Immigrants and reading performance Mean reading performance Second-generation students Native students First-generation students

33. Equity of learning opportunities • Are students held back because of their socio-economic condition? • The role of schools: between and within school differences in performance • The performance of students with an immigrant background • Gender gap

34. Gender Gap in Reading(PISA 2009, girls - boys) Girls perform better

35. Gender Gap in Mathematics(PISA 2009, girls - boys) Boys perform better

36. Factors that make a difference

37. What factors make a difference? • For the individual student • Reading for enjoyment • Very strongly related to performance in all countries • 37% of students in OECD countries on average do not read for enjoyment • Diversity of reading materials • Better readers tend to read a diversity of materials • Knowledge of strategies • High-performing countries are generally those whose students know how to summarise information well • And for system and school policies……

38. High reading performance 2009 Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik High average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance High social equity Strong socio-economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities • Early selection and institutional differentiation • High degree of stratification • Low degree of stratification Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity Low reading performance

40. What does it all mean?

41. Some lessons from successful systems

42. Find out more about PISA at… • www.oecd.org/pisa • PISA In Focus • www.oecd.org/pisa/infocus Email: Francesca.Borgonovi@oecd.org