Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
The key drivers of high performance systems –Australia
Barry McGawChair, Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority
International perspectives on U.S. education policy and practice: what can we learn from high performing nations?
Asia Society/Council of Chief State School Officers Symposium
Washington, DC, 27-28 April 2010
Quality of Australian education
Mean reading results (PISA 2000)Australia tied for 2nd with 8 othersamong 42 countries.
• OECD (2003), Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow: Further results from PISA 2000, Fig. 2.5, p.76.
Trends in PISA reading performance
2000 2003 2006475
500
525
550
575
Poland
Finland
Hong KongChina
CanadaNew Zealand
Korea
Australia
Trends in Australian reading performances
PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
95th %ile
5th %ile
90th %ile
10th %ile
75th %ile
25th %ile
Mean
OECD (2007), PISA 2006: science competencies for tomorrow’s world, Vol. 1 - analysis, Fig. 6.21, p.319.
Countries ahead of Australia in PISA 2006
CanadaFinland
Hong KongKorea
New Zealand
Reading
Mathematics Science
CanadaFinland
Hong KongKoreaMacao
Netherlands
Switzerland
Taiwan
CanadaFinlandHong Kong
Story line
• Quality– Australia ranks high among OECD and other countries– The competition is not standing still
Equity in Australian education
Social background & reading literacy
SocialAdvanta
gePISA Index of social
background
HighR
ead
ing
lit
era
cy
Low
Two indices of relationship
Correlation or variance accounted for
Social gradient: Magnitude of increment in achievement associated with an increment in social background (on average)
Correlation: How well the regression line summarises the relationship
Source: OECD (2001) Knowledge and skills for life, Appendix B1, Table 8.1, p.308
Social gradient
Australia
AustriaBelgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
NetherlandsNew Zealand
Norway
Poland
PortugalSlovak Republic
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
-15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0
Social equity (OECD regression slope - country regression slope
Scie
nce
liter
acy
Social gradients for science (PISA 2006)
OECD (2007) PISA 2006: science competencies for tomorrow’s world, Vol 1 – analysis, Figure 4.6, p.184.
High qualityLow equity
High quality
High equity
Low qualityLow equity
Low quality
High equity
United States
United Kingdom
Turkey
SwitzerlandSweden
SpainSlovak Republic
Portugal
Poland
Norway
New ZealandNetherlands
Mexico
Luxembourg
Korea
Japan
Italy
Ireland
Iceland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Denmark
Czech Republic
Canada
BelgiumAustria
Australia
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
-10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Social equity (% variation accounted for: OECD-country)
Scie
nce
liter
acy
Correlations for science (PISA 2006)
OECD (2007) PISA 2006: science competencies for tomorrow’s world, Vol 1 – analysis, Figure 4.6, p.184.
High qualityLow equity
High quality
High equity
Low qualityLow equity
Low quality
High equity
Variation in science performance (PISA 2006)
Germany
Austria
Netherlands
Japan
Greece
TurkeyKorea
United States
Mexico
New Zealand
Canada
Denmark
Poland
Norway
Finland -80.0
-60.0
-40.0
-20.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0Variation of performance within schools
Australia
32%68%
Variation of performance
between schools
Explained by SESNot explained by SES
Story line
• Quality– Australia ranks high among OECD and other countries– The competition is not standing still
• Equity– Social background & educational differences related
more strongly than in some other comparable countries
Current reforms in Australian education
The past and the future
• Reasons for past success– Diffused among 6 states, 2 territories– Diffused among govt (67%) and non-govt (33%) schools– Systematic initiatives in govt schools systems
• Current reforms to build upon best practices– Development of a national curriculum– Monitoring of system and schools– Reporting on school performance– Improving resource levels
Development of a national curriculum
Development of a national curriculum
• History– Federation with State but not local curricula– Range from syllabuses to frameworks– Moves towards national approach since 1989
• Rationale– Common needs of young Australians in C21,
including those who cross state borders– We could do better working together to improve
quality and equity– Globalisation and international competition
Curriculum development stages
Design Paper
Shape Papers
www.acara.edu.au
Shape of the Australian Curriculum (15pp)
Shape of the Australian Curriculum: English (16pp), Math (14pp), Science (13pp), History (16pp)
DraftFinal
ImplementationOther subjectsfollowing
Australian Curriculum: English, Math, Science, History
Structure of curriculum
• Subjects/learning areas• General capabilities
– literacy, numeracy, information and communication technology literacy, thinking skills, creativity, self management, teamwork, intercultural understanding, ethical behaviour and social competence (likely to be restructured as developmental continua developed)
• Cross-curriculum dimensions– Indigenous history and culture, Sustainability, Asia
and Australia’s engagement with Asia
www.australiancurriculum.edu.au
(Section deleted here.)
Content descriptions
GeneralCapabilities
OtherDimensions
Content elaborations Achievement standards with links to annotated samples of students’ work further down page
Facility to restrict grade range
Teacher’s selected curriculum Potential resource material identified via meta-data in curriculum website.
Teacher forum
A concept, not yet a reality
Story line
• Quality– Australia ranks high among OECD and other countries– The competition is not standing still
• Equity– Social background & educational differences related
more strongly than in some other comparable countries
• Curriculum– Clear, brief, explicit, setting high expectations for all
Monitoring of system and schools
Monitoring system and schools
• Sample-based monitoring– International – OECD PISA and IEA studies– National survey cycle
• Science, Civics & Citizenship, ICT literacy• More could be added as Australian Curriculum implemented
• Full cohort assessment– Literacy and numeracy (Grades 3, 5, 7, 9)
Reporting on school performance
Primary school with disadvantaged students
Index of socio-educational advantage (ICSEA) almost
1 std dev below mean
Dark green indicating school mean more
than 0.5 std dev above mean in 60 schools with students from
similar social backgrounds (SIM)
Dark green indicating school mean more
than 0.5 std dev above national mean (ALL)
www.myschool.edu.au
Focusing on distribution not minimum acceptable level
Graphs show percentages of students in bands on test (in this case reading) for school (dark brown) its 60 similar schools (mid-brown) all schools (light brown)
Disadvantaged school outperforming similar schools
School better than comparison school:
>.5 SD – dark tan
>.2 and <.5 SD – light tanSchool worse than comparison school:
>.5 SD – dark purple
>.2 and <.5 SD – light purple
Improving resource levels
Improving resource levels
• A pre-election Dec ‘07 commitment to computers in schools
• Post-global financial crisis stimulus spending on school buildings
• Increased recurrent funding– Federal government near doubling of school funding– Funding targeted to disadvantaged schools, identified
empirically– New Australian Institute for Teaching and School
Leadership
Story line• Quality
– Australia ranks high among OECD and other countries– The competition is not standing still
• Equity– Social background & educational differences related more strongly than in
some other comparable countries
• Curriculum– Clear, brief, explicit, setting high expectations for all– Buy in from States and Territories
• Accountability– System and school-level to promote improvement– Some opposition from public school teacher unions at present
• Resources– Targeted to improve the disadvantaged– Improved funding for all
Thanks.www.acara.edu.au
www.australiancurriculum.edu.au
www.myschool.edu.au
