Despite increased funding and many reforms, most education systems are still seeking ways to better prepare their students for a world in which technological change and the digital revolution are changing the way we work, live and relate to one another. Education systems that have succeeded in improving student outcomes show that the way forward is by making teachers the top priority. The adaptability of education systems and their ability to evolve ultimately depends on enabling teachers to transform what and how students learn. This requires strong support and training for teachers, both before and after they enter the profession, with new forms of professional development to help teachers engage in more direct instruction and adapt it to the needs of their diverse classrooms. Education systems need to perform well in two dimensions: excellence and equity. Many high performers do well on both, demonstrating that they are not mutually exclusive. To do so requires specific measures to overcome factors that can hinder student performance, such as socio-economic background, immigrant status and gender.
2. The kind of things that
are easy to teach are
now easy to automate,
digitize or outsource
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 2009
Routine manual
Nonroutine manual
Routine cognitive
Nonroutine analytic
Nonroutine interpersonal
Mean task input in percentiles of 1960 task distribution
5. Trends in science performance (PISA)
2006 2009 2012 2015
OECD
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
Country average science performance
Studentperformance
6. Trends in science performance
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
2006 2009 2012 2015
Country average science performance
7. Spending per student and learning outcomes
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Estonia
Israel
Poland
Korea
Portugal
New Zealand
Canada
Germany
Spain
France
Italy
Singapore
Finland
Japan
Slovenia Ireland
Iceland
Netherlands
Sweden
Belgium
UK
Australia
Denmark
United States
Austria
Norway
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Viet Nam
Jordan
Peru
Thailand
Malaysia
Uruguay
Turkey
Colombia
Tunisia
Mexico
Montenegro
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Croatia
Lithuania
Latvia
Hungary
Shanghai-China
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
0 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000 120 000 140 000 160 000 180 000 200 000
Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (USD, PPPs)
Low spending High spending
PISAMathPerformance
8. Learning time and student performance
Figure II.6.23
Finland
Germany Switzerland
Japan Estonia
Sweden
Netherlands
New Zealand
Macao
(China)
Iceland
Hong Kong
(China) Chinese Taipei
Uruguay
Singapore
Poland
United States
Israel
Bulgaria
Korea
Russia Italy
Greece
B-S-J-G (China)
Colombia
Chile
Mexico
Brazil
Costa
Rica
Turkey
Montenegro
Peru
Qatar
Thailand
United
Arab
Emirates
Tunisia
Dominican
Republic
R² = 0.21
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
35 40 45 50 55 60
PISAsciencescore
Total learning time in and outside of school
OECD average
OECD average
OECDaverage
9. Learning time and science performance
Figure II.6.23
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Finland
Germany
Switzerland
Japan
Estonia
Sweden
Netherlands
NewZealand
Australia
CzechRepublic
Macao(China)
UnitedKingdom
Canada
Belgium
France
Norway
Slovenia
Iceland
Luxembourg
Ireland
Latvia
HongKong(China)
OECDaverage
ChineseTaipei
Austria
Portugal
Uruguay
Lithuania
Singapore
Denmark
Hungary
Poland
SlovakRepublic
Spain
Croatia
UnitedStates
Israel
Bulgaria
Korea
Russia
Italy
Greece
B-S-J-G(China)
Colombia
Chile
Mexico
Brazil
CostaRica
Turkey
Montenegro
Peru
Qatar
Thailand
UnitedArabEmirates
Tunisia
DominicanRepublic
Scorepointsinscienceperhouroftotallearningtime
Hours Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time
11. Memorisation is less useful as problems become more
difficult (OECD average)
R² = 0.81
0.70
1.00
300 400 500 600 700 800
Difficulty of mathematics item on the PISA scale
Source: Figure 4.3
2
Difficult problem
Easy problem
Greater
success
Less
success
Odds ratio
12. Control strategies are always helpful but less so as problems
become more difficult (OECD average)
R² = 0.31
0.95
1.20
300 400 500 600 700 800
Difficulty of mathematics item on the PISA scale
Source: Figure 5.2
13
Difficult problem
Greater
success
Less
success
Easy problem
Odds ratio
13. Elaboration strategies are more useful as problems
become more difficult (OECD average)
R² = 0.82
0.80
1.50
300 400 500 600 700 800
Difficulty of mathematics item on the PISA scaleSource: Figure 6.2
4
Difficult
problem
Greater
success
Less
success
Easy problem
Odds ratio
14. Teaching and learning strategies in mathematics
5
R² = 0.10
More
teacher-
directed
instructionTeaching
More
memorisation
Learning
OECD
average
More
elaboration
More
student-oriented
instruction
Chinese Taipei
Vietnam
Macao-China Korea
Hong-Kong
China
Singapore
Japan
Shanghai- China
Ireland
Hungary
France
Croatia
United
Kingdom
Australia
New Zealand
Uruguay
Israel
19. Singapore
Japan
EstoniaChinese Tapei Finland
Macao (China)
CanadaViet Nam
Hong Kong (China)B-S-J-G (China) KoreaNew ZealandSlovenia
Australia United KingdomGermany
Netherlands
Switzerland
Ireland
Belgium DenmarkPolandPortugal NorwayUnited StatesAustriaFrance
Sweden
Czech Rep.
Spain Latvia Russia
Luxembourg Italy
Hungary LithuaniaCroatia Iceland
IsraelMalta
Slovak Rep.
Greece
Chile
Bulgaria
United Arab EmiratesUruguay
Romania
Moldova Turkey
Trinidad and Tobago ThailandCosta Rica QatarColombia Mexico
MontenegroJordan
Indonesia Brazil
Peru
Lebanon
Tunisia
FYROM
Kosovo
Algeria
Dominican Rep. (332)
350
400
450
500
550
Meanscienceperformance
Higherperfomance
Science performance and equity in PISA (2015)
Some countries
combine excellence
with equity
High performance
High equity
Low performance
Low equity
Low performance
High equity
High performance
Low equity
More equity
20. Poverty is not destiny – Learning outcomes and social background
by international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)
280
330
380
430
480
530
580
630
DominicanRepublic40
Algeria52
Kosovo10
Qatar3
FYROM13
Tunisia39
Montenegro11
Jordan21
UnitedArabEmirates3
Georgia19
Lebanon27
Indonesia74
Mexico53
Peru50
CostaRica38
Brazil43
Turkey59
Moldova28
Thailand55
Colombia43
Iceland1
TrinidadandTobago14
Romania20
Israel6
Bulgaria13
Greece13
Russia5
Uruguay39
Chile27
Latvia25
Lithuania12
SlovakRepublic8
Italy15
Norway1
Spain31
Hungary16
Croatia10
Denmark3
OECDaverage12
Sweden3
Malta13
UnitedStates11
Macao(China)22
Ireland5
Austria5
Portugal28
Luxembourg14
HongKong(China)26
CzechRepublic9
Poland16
Australia4
UnitedKingdom5
Canada2
France9
Korea6
NewZealand5
Switzerland8
Netherlands4
Slovenia5
Belgium7
Finland2
Estonia5
VietNam76
Germany7
Japan8
ChineseTaipei12
B-S-J-G(China)52
Singapore11
Scorepoints
Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile
Figure I.6.7
% of students
in the bottom
international
deciles of
ESCS
OECD median student
22. Differences in educational resources
between advantaged and disadvantaged schools
Figure I.6.14
-3
-2
-2
-1
-1
0
1
1
CABA(Argentina)
Mexico
Peru
Macao(China)
UnitedArabEmirates
Lebanon
Jordan
Colombia
Brazil
Indonesia
Turkey
Spain
DominicanRepublic
Georgia
Uruguay
Thailand
B-S-J-G(China)
Australia
Japan
Chile
Luxembourg
Russia
Portugal
Malta
Italy
NewZealand
Croatia
Ireland
Algeria
Norway
Israel
Denmark
Sweden
UnitedStates
Moldova
Belgium
Slovenia
OECDaverage
Hungary
ChineseTaipei
VietNam
CzechRepublic
Singapore
Tunisia
Greece
TrinidadandTobago
Canada
Romania
Qatar
Montenegro
Kosovo
Netherlands
Korea
Finland
Switzerland
Germany
HongKong(China)
Austria
FYROM
Poland
Albania
Bulgaria
SlovakRepublic
Lithuania
Estonia
Iceland
CostaRica
UnitedKingdom
Latvia
Meanindexdifferencebetweenadvantaged
anddisadvantagedschools
Index of shortage of educational material Index of shortage of educational staff
Disadvantaged schools have more
resources than advantaged schools
Disadvantaged schools have fewer
resources than advantaged schools
23. -40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Staff
resisting
change
Teachers
being too
strict with
students
Teachers
not meeting
individual
students’
needs
Teacher
absenteeism
Teachers
not being
well
prepared for
classes
Student use
of alcohol or
illegal drugs
Students
intimidating
or bullying
other
students
Students
skipping
classes
Student
truancy
Students
lacking
respect for
teachers
Score-pointdifference
After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Student and teacher behaviour hindering learning
and science performance
Figure II.3.10
25. 3
0
30
Make learning central, encourage
engagement and responsibility
Be acutely sensitive to individual
differences
Provide continual assessment with
formative feedback
Be demanding for every student with
a high level of cognitive activation
Ensure that students feel valued and
included and learning is collaborative
A continuum of support
28. Professionalism
External forces exerting
pressure and influence
inward on an occupation Internal motivation and
efforts of the members
of the profession itself
Professionalism is the level of autonomy and
internal regulation exercised by members of an
occupation in providing services to society
29. Professionalism
Public confidence in profession and professionals
Professional preparation and learning
Collective ownership of professional practice
Decisions made in accordance with the body of knowledge o the profession
Acceptance of professional responsibility in the name of the profession and accountability towards
the profession
30. Student-teacher ratios and class size
Figure II.6.14
CABA (Argentina)
Jordan
Viet Nam
Poland
United States
Chile
Denmark
Hungary
B-S-G-J
(China)
Turkey
Georgia
Chinese
Taipei
Mexico
Russia
Albania
Hong Kong
(China)
Japan
Belgium
Algeria
Colombia
Peru
Macao
(China)
Switzerland
Malta
Dominican Republic
Netherlands
Singapore
Brazil
Kosovo
Finland
Thailand
R² = 0.25
5
10
15
20
25
30
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Student-teacherratio
Class size in language of instruction
High student-teacher ratios
and small class sizes
Low student-teacher ratios
and large class sizes
OECD
average
OECDaverage
33. User-generated wisdom
Recognising both students and adults as resources
for the co-creation of communities, for the design
of learning and for the success of students
34. The past was divided
Teachers and content divided by subjects and student destinations
Schools designed to keep students inside, and the rest of the world outside
35. The future is integrated
Integrated: Emphasising integration of subjects, integration of
students and integration of learning contexts
Connected: with real-world contexts, and permeable to the rich
resources in the community
Less subject-based, more project-based
40. Ingenious
Building instruction from student passions and capacities,
helping students personalise their learning and
assessment in ways that foster engagement and talents.
41. Learning a place
Schools as technological islands, that is technology was deployed
mostly to support existing practices for efficiency gains
42. Learning an activity
Technologies liberating learning from past conventions and connect
learners in new and powerful ways. The past was interactive, the
future is participative
45. Policy levers to teacher professionalism
Knowledge base for teaching
(initial education and incentives for
professional development)
Autonomy: Teachers’ decision-
making power over their work
(teaching content, course offerings,
discipline practices)
Peer networks: Opportunities for
exchange and support needed
to maintain high standards of
teaching (participation in induction,
mentoring, networks, feedback from direct
observations)
Teacher
professionalism
46. Teacher professionalism
Autonomy: Teachers’ decision-
making power over their work
(teaching content, course offerings,
discipline practices)
Knowledge base for teaching
(initial education and incentives for
professional development)
Peer networks: Opportunities for
exchange and support needed
to maintain high standards of
teaching (participation in induction,
mentoring, networks, feedback from direct
observations)
48. Teachers Self-Efficacy and Professional Collaboration
11.40
11.60
11.80
12.00
12.20
12.40
12.60
12.80
13.00
13.20
13.40
Never
Onceayearorless
2-4timesayear
5-10timesayear
1-3timesamonth
Onceaweekormore
Teacherself-efficacy(level)
Teach jointly as a
team in the same class
Observe other
teachers’ classes and
provide feedback
Engage in joint
activities across
different classes
Take part in
collaborative
professional learning
Less
frequently
More
frequently
52. Effective governance…
58
Focuses on processes, not structures
• Number of levels and power at each are not what make or break a good system, but rather the strength of the
alignment across the system, the involvement of actors and the processes underlying governance and reform.
Is flexible and able to adapt to change and unexpected events
• Strengthening a system’s ability to learn from feedback is fundamental
Works through building capacity, stakeholder involvement and open dialogue
• Involvement of more stakeholders only works when there is a strategic vision and a set of processes to harness
their ideas and input
Requires a whole-of-system approach
• Aligning policies, roles and responsibilities to improve efficiency and reduce potential overlap
Harnesses evidence and research to inform policy and reform
• A strong knowledge system combines data, research findings and expert practitioner knowledge. The key is
knowing what to use, when, why and how.
55. 61
Making educational reform happen
• Clear and consistent priorities (across governments and
across time), ambition and urgency, and the capacity to
learn rapidly.
Shared vision
• Appropriate targets, real-time data, monitoring, incentives
aligned to targets, accountability, and the capacity to
intervene where necessary.
Performance management
• Building professional capabilities, sharing best practice and
innovation, flexible management, and frontline ethos
aligned with system objectives.
Frontline capacity
• Strong leadership at every level, including teacher
leadership, adequate process design and consistency of
focus across agencies.
Delivery architecture
56. Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/pisa
– All publications
– The complete micro-level database
Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org
Twitter: SchleicherOECD
Wechat: AndreasSchleicher
Thank you