View
213
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
11M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Schule 2.0
München, 19 November 2011Prof. Andreas Schleicher
Advisory of the OECD Secretary-General on Education PolicyOECD Directorate for Education
22M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Immer mehr Menschen erreichen immer höhere Bildungsziele
33M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
1995
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
Graduate supply
Cost
per
stu
dent
44M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
1995
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
Graduate supply
Cost
per
stu
dent
United States
Finland
Deutschland
55M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2000
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
United Kingdom
66M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2001
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
Australia
77M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2002
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
88M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2003
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
99M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2004
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
1010M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2005
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
1111M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2006
Expe
ndit
ure
per
stud
ent
at t
ertia
ry le
vel (
USD
)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
1212M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2007 Ex
pend
itur
e pe
r st
uden
t at
ter
tiary
leve
l (U
SD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
1313M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2008 Ex
pend
itur
e pe
r st
uden
t at
ter
tiary
leve
l (U
SD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
Finland
Deutschland
1414M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0AustraliaAustriaBelgiumCanadaChileCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandIsraelItalyJapanKoreaLuxembourgMexicoNetherlandNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited States
A world of change – higher education
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
30,000.0
2008 Ex
pend
itur
e pe
r st
uden
t at
ter
tiary
leve
l (U
SD)
Tertiary-type A graduation rate
United States
15151515O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
yE
DP
C, 1
5 N
ovem
ber
2011
Tra
nsla
ting
bett
er s
kills
into
be
tter
so
cia
l and
eco
nom
ic o
utc
omes
The composition of the global talent pool has changed…
Countries’ share in the population with tertiary education, for 25-34 and 55-64 year-old age groups, percentage (2009)
55-64-year-old population 25-34-year-old population
About 39 million people who attained tertiary level
About 81 million people who attained tertiary level
16161616O
EC
D S
kills
Str
ateg
yE
DP
C, 1
5 N
ovem
ber
2011
Tra
nsla
ting
bett
er s
kills
into
be
tter
so
cia
l and
eco
nom
ic o
utc
omes
United States, 35.8
Japan, 12.4
China, 6.9Germany, 6.3
United Kingdom, 5.3
Canada, 4.2
France, 3.5
Brazil, 3.5
Spain, 2.1Italy, 1.9
Mexico, 1.8
Australia, 1.7
Korea, 1.6other, 12.9
55-64-year-old population
United States, 20.5
Japan, 10.9
China, 18.3
Germany, 3.1United Kingdom, 4.4
Canada, 3.1France, 4.1
Brazil, 4.5
Spain, 3.5
Italy, 2.0
Mexico, 3.9
Australia, 1.6
Korea, 5.7
other, 14.5
25-34-year-old population
The composition of the global talent pool has changed…
Countries’ share in the population with tertiary education, for 25-34 and 55-64 year-old age groups, percentage (2009)
1717M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0 Nie zuvor haben die, die gut gebildet sind, so gute Lebenschancen gehabt
wie heute
1818C
ounci
l, 1
8 S
ep
tem
ber
20
08
Ed
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
DenmarkSwedenNorway
New ZealandFranceTurkey
GermanyAustralia
SpainAustria
BelgiumFinlandCanada
OECD averageKorea
IrelandHungary
PolandCzech RepublicUnited States
ItalyPortugal
-250,000 -150,000 -50,000 50,000 150,000 250,000 350,000 450,000
7,34218,802
23,30640,036
40,26041,090
48,02448,714
55,69560,51963,414
64,66469,235
82,00785,586
104,410127,691
146,539146,673
169,945173,889
186,307
Direct cost Gross earnings benefits Income tax effect Social contribution effect
Transfers effect Unemployment effect Net present value in USD equivalent
USD equivalentA8.3
Components of the private net present value for a male with higher education
Net present value in
USD equivalent
35K$56K$ 367K$105K$27K$ 26K$ 170K$
1919C
ounci
l, 1
8 S
ep
tem
ber
20
08
Ed
uca
tion a
t a G
lance
TurkeyDenmark
SwedenNorway
SpainKorea
CanadaNew Zealand
FranceAustria
AustraliaPortugal
OECD averageFinlandPoland
GermanyItaly
IrelandHungaryBelgium
United StatesCzech Republic
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000
10,34614,23617,19717,85119,75221,28023,875
28,19336,73037,586
47,36850,27151,95455,61257,221
63,60463,756
74,21994,80496,186100,119
160,834
Public cost and benefits for a male obtaining post-secondary education
Public benefit
s
Public
costs
Net present value, USD equivalent
(numbers in orange show
negative values)
USD equivalent
2020M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Neue Herausvorderungen
2121M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Stabil DynamischMärkte
National GlobalWettbewerb
Hierarchisch VernetztOrganisationsformen
Massenproduktion Flexible Produktion –embedded services
Produktion
Mechanisierung Digitalisierung, Miniaturisierung
Wachstumsimpulse
„Economies of scale“
Innovation, ZeitnäheWettbewerbsvorteil
Einzelbetrieb „Co-petition” – AllianzenFirmenmodell
Vollbeschäftigung „Employability”Politische Ziele
Klare Identität im berufsspezifischen Kontext
Konvergenz und Transformation
Berufsprofile
Berufsspezifisch Multi-dimensionalKompetenzen
Formale Qualifikation
Lebensbegleitendes Lernen
Bildung
Neue HerausforderungenGestern Heute
2222M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Zusammenhang zwischen Erwachsenenkompetenzen und
individuellem und sozialen Erfolg
2323M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Low skills and social outcomes
Odds are adjusted for age, gender, pand immigration status.
Level 5 Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 11.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6Has fair to poor health
Does not volunteer for charity or non-profit organizations
Poor understanding of po-litical issues facing coun-try
Poor level of general trust
Higher propensity of be-lieving people try to take of advantage of others
Lower propensity to reciprocate
Poor political efficacy
Odds ratios
2424M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Zukunftskompetenzen
2525M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0Veränderungen in der Nachfrage nach KompetenzenEconomy-wide measures of routine and non-routine task input
(US)
1960 1970 1980 1990 200240
45
50
55
60
65 Routine manual
Nonroutine manual
Routine cognitive
Nonroutine analytic
Nonroutine inter-active
(Levy and Murnane)
Mean t
ask
inp
ut
as
perc
en
tile
s of
the 1
960
task
dis
trib
uti
on
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
2626M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Skills for the 21st century
The great collaborators and orchestrators The more complex the globalised world
becomes, the more individuals and companies need various forms of co-ordination and management
The great synthesisers Conventionally, our approach to problems was
breaking them down into manageable bits and pieces, today we create value by synthesising disparate bits together
The great explainers The more content we can search and access,
the more important the filters and explainers become
2727M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Skills for the 21st century The great versatilists
Specialists generally have deep skills and narrow scope, giving them expertise that is recognised by peers but not valued outside their domain
Generalists have broad scope but shallow skills Versatilists apply depth of skill to a progressively widening
scope of situations and experiences, gaining new competencies, building relationships, and assuming new roles.
They are capable not only of constantly adapting but also of constantly learning and growing
The great personalisers A revival of interpersonal skills, skills that have atrhophied
to some degree because of the industrial age and the Internet
The great localisers Localising the global
2828P
ISA
OE
CD
Pro
gram
me
for
Inte
rnat
iona
l Stu
dent
Ass
essm
ent
Brie
fing
of C
ounc
il
14 N
ovem
ber
2007
HandlungsfelderSome policy levers that emerge from international comparisons
2929M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Some students learn at high levels
All students need to learn at high levels
Student inclusion
Routine cognitive skills, rote learning
Learning to learn, complex ways of
thinking, ways of workingCurriculum, instruction and assessment
Few years more than secondary
High-level professional knowledge workers
Teacher quality
‘Tayloristic’, hierarchical
Flat, collegial
Work organisation
Primarily to authorities
Primarily to peers and stakeholders
Accountability
Schule 2.0
The old bureaucratic system The modern enabling system
3838M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Commitment to universal achievement
Goals, gateways,
instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentives and
accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning system
Coherence
Lessons from PISA on successful
education systems
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…
…as opposed to a belief that students have different destinations to be met with different expectations, and selection/stratification as the approach to heterogeneity
Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom
3939M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0School performance and social background
GermanyStu
dent
perf
orm
ance
AdvantagePISA Index of socio-economic background
Disadvantage
Private school Public school in rural area Public school in urban area
700
-2 -1 0 1 2200
493
Score
4040M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Commitment to universal achievement
Goals, gateways,
instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentives and
accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning system
Coherence
Lessons from PISA on successful
education systems
Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the system and aligned with high stakes gateways and instructional systems
Well established delivery chain through which curricular goals translate into instructional systems, instructional practices and student learning (intended, implemented and achieved)
High level of metacognitive content of instruction
4141M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Commitment to universal achievement
Goals, gateways,
instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentives and
accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning system
Coherence
Lessons from PISA on successful
education systems
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
4242M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Lessons from PISA on successful
education systems
Commitment to universal achievement
Goals, gateways,
instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentives and
accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning system
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
4343M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Systems with more accountability Systems with less
accountability
480
490
500
Schools with less autonomy
Schools with more autonomy
495
School autonomy in re-source 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
4646M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Commitment to universal achievement
Goals, gateways,
instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentives and
accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning system
Coherence
Lessons from PISA on successful
education systems 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
4747M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Commitment to universal achievement
Goals, gateways,
instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentives and
accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning system
Coherence
Lessons from PISA on successful
education systems
A learning system An outward orientation of the system to
keep the system learning, international benchmarks as the ‘eyes’ and ‘ears’ of the system
Recognising challenges and potential future threats to current success, learning from them, designing responses and implementing these
4848M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Commitment to universal achievement
Goals, gateways,
instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentives and
accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning system
Coherence
Lessons from PISA on successful
education systems
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)
4949M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0Then Now
Learning a place Learning an activity
Prescription Informed profession
Delivered wisdom User-generated wisdom
Uniformity Embracing diversity
Conformity Ingenious
Curriculum-centred Learner-centred
Provision Outcomes
Bureaucratic look-up Devolved – look outwards
Management Leadership
Public vs private Public with private
Culture as obstacle Culture as capital
5050M
ünch
en,
19 N
ovem
ber
201
1S
chu
le 2
.0
Thank you !
www.oecd.org; www.pisa.oecd.org– All national and international publications– The complete micro-level database
email: pisa@oecd.org
Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org
…and remember:
Without data, you are just another person with an opinion
Recommended