Preparing learners for their future, not our past
40
Preparing learners for their future, not our past Hong Kong, December 2019 Andreas Schleicher
Transcript of Preparing learners for their future, not our past
Preparing learners for their future,
not our past
Hong Kong, December 2019
Andreas Schleicher
PISA 2018
Participating countries and economies over time
2000 (+) – 41 participating
Participating countries and economies over time
2018 – 79 participating
OECD average reading score
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
Reading literacy in PISAS
tud
en
t p
erf
orm
an
ce
2009 2012 20152006 20182000 2003
9%…can distinguish between fact and opinion, based on implicit cues pertaining to the content or source of the information7%
2000
OECD average
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
Reading literacy in PISAS
tud
en
t p
erf
orm
an
ce
2009 2012 20152006 20182000 2003
36% enrolled
73% enrolled
55% enrolled
65% enrolled
B-S-J-Z (China)Singapore
Macao (China)Hong Kong (China)*EstoniaCanada FinlandIrelandKoreaPolandSwedenNew Zealand United States*United KingdomJapanAustralia Chinese TaipeiDenmark NorwayGermanySlovenia BelgiumFrancePortugal*
Czech Republic Netherlands*AustriaSwitzerland
CroatiaLatviaRussia ItalyHungaryLithuania IcelandBelarusIsraelLuxembourgUkraineTurkey
Slovak RepublicGreeceChileMalta
Serbia
United Arab EmiratesRomania UruguayCosta Rica Moldova
MontenegroMexico Bulgaria JordanMalaysia
BrazilColombiaBrunei DarussalamQatarAlbaniaBosnia and HerzegovinaArgentinaPeruSaudi ArabiaThailandNorth MacedoniaBaku (Azerbaijan)Kazakhstan
GeorgiaPanama
Indonesia
Morocco
LebanonKosovo
Dominican RepublicPhilippines
OECD average
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
2009 2012 20152006 20182000 2003
36% enrolled
73% enrolled
Poverty need not be destinyS
tud
en
t p
erf
orm
an
ce
B-S-J-Z (China)Singapore
Macao (China)Hong Kong (China)*EstoniaCanada FinlandIrelandKoreaPolandSwedenNew Zealand United States*United KingdomJapanAustralia Chinese TaipeiDenmark NorwayGermanySlovenia BelgiumFrancePortugal*
Czech Republic Netherlands*AustriaSwitzerland
CroatiaLatviaRussia ItalyHungaryLithuania IcelandBelarusIsraelLuxembourgUkraineTurkey
Slovak RepublicGreeceChileMalta
Serbia
United Arab EmiratesRomania UruguayCosta Rica Moldova
MontenegroMexico Bulgaria JordanMalaysia
BrazilColombiaBrunei DarussalamQatarAlbaniaBosnia and HerzegovinaArgentinaPeruSaudi ArabiaThailandNorth MacedoniaBaku (Azerbaijan)Kazakhstan
GeorgiaPanama
Indonesia
Morocco
LebanonKosovo
Dominican RepublicPhilippines
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80F
inla
nd
Icela
nd
Baku
(A
zerb
aija
n)
Norw
ay
Ire
land
Denm
ark
Cana
da
Port
ug
al
New
Ze
ala
nd
Esto
nia
Pola
nd
Sw
ede
nU
nited
Kin
gd
om
Koso
vo
Latv
iaA
lban
iaM
exic
oG
eo
rgia
United
Sta
tes
Bosn
ia a
nd H
erz
eg
ovin
aS
au
di A
rab
iaM
ala
ysia
Austr
alia
Kaza
kh
sta
nC
osta
Ric
aB
ela
rus
Phili
ppin
es
Jo
rdan
Mo
nte
neg
roM
oro
cco
Ch
ileIn
do
ne
sia
Ma
ca
o (
Ch
ina
)M
old
ova
Ru
ssia
Th
aila
nd
Do
min
ican R
ep
ub
licU
kra
ine
Gre
ece
Colo
mb
iaF
ran
ce
Kore
aC
hin
ese
Taip
ei
Lithu
ania
Pan
am
aC
roa
tia
B-S
-J-Z
(C
hin
a)
Uru
gua
yM
alta
Bra
zil
Ho
ng
Kon
g (
Chin
a)
Peru
Bru
ne
i D
aru
ssala
mN
ort
h M
ace
don
iaS
inga
po
reL
uxe
mb
ou
rgJa
pa
nS
witze
rla
nd
Arg
en
tin
aS
loven
iaR
om
ania
Serb
iaB
elg
ium
Italy
Qata
rT
urk
ey
Czech R
ep
ub
licH
ung
ary
Slo
vak R
epu
blic
Germ
any
Bulg
aria
Un
ited
Ara
b E
mira
tes
Neth
erla
nds
Leb
ano
nIs
rael
Between-school variation Within-school variation
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f th
e t
ota
l va
ria
tio
n i
n p
erf
orm
an
ce
ac
ros
s O
EC
D c
ou
ntr
ies
Can the closest school be always the best school?Variation in reading performance between and within schools
Fig II.4.1
Performance variation between schools
Performance variation within schools
Learning time ≠ learning outcomes
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Fin
lan
dG
erm
any
Sw
itze
rla
nd
Sw
ed
en
Esto
nia
Ne
w Z
ea
land
Ja
pa
nC
zech R
epublic
Ma
ca
o (
Ch
ina
)N
eth
erla
nd
sIr
ela
nd
Fra
nce
Un
ite
d K
ing
do
mA
ustr
alia
No
rwa
yIc
ela
nd
Ca
na
da
Be
lgiu
mS
love
nia
Ho
ng
Ko
ng
(C
hin
a)
La
tvia
OE
CD
ave
rag
eL
ith
ua
nia
Uru
gu
ay
Lu
xe
mb
ou
rgP
ort
ug
al
Slo
va
k R
ep
ub
licD
en
ma
rkP
ola
nd
Hu
ng
ary
Sin
gap
ore
Au
str
iaU
nite
d S
tate
sC
hin
ese
Ta
ipe
iIs
rae
lC
roa
tia
Ko
rea
Ru
ssia
Bu
lgaria
Gre
ece
Ita
lyT
urk
ey
Ch
ileB
razil
Co
lom
bia
Me
xic
oC
osta
Ric
aM
on
ten
eg
roP
eru
Qa
tar
Un
ite
d A
rab
Em
ira
tes
Th
aila
nd
Dom
inic
an R
epublic
Sco
re p
oin
ts in
read
ing
per
ho
ur
of
learn
ing
tim
e
Hours
Time in school
Learning out of school
Productivity
Note: Learning time is based on reports by 15-year-old students in the same country/economy in response to the PISA 2015 questionnaire,
Productivity is measured by score points in reading per hour of total learning time
Beyond reading, math and science
Growth mindset
Chile
Montenegro
Japan
Mexico
Kazakhstan
Hungary
France
Canada
Serbia
Macao (China)
Jordan
United States
Argentina
Denmark
Malaysia
LebanonMorocco
Ireland
Ukraine
Brunei Darussalam
Slovenia
Israel
Qatar
Italy
Australia
Peru
Croatia
Germany
Panama
Malta
Dominican Republic
AustriaRussia
Albania
Czech Republic
Iceland
Bulgaria
Estonia
Sweden
LatviaSwitzerland
Singapore
Korea
Moldova
New Zealand
Hong Kong (China)
Colombia
Turkey
NetherlandsLithuania
Georgia
B-S-J-Z (China)
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Thailand Baku (Azerbaijan)
Romania
Finland
Poland
Kosovo
Portugal
BrazilCosta Rica
United Arab Emirates
Slovak Republic
Uruguay
Indonesia
Chinese Taipei
Saudi Arabia
Greece
Philippines
Luxembourg
Belarus
United Kingdom
R² = 0.47
330
380
430
480
530
25 35 45 55 65 75 85
Ave
rag
e r
ea
din
g s
co
re
Percentage of students who disagreed or strongly disagreed that their intelligence cannot change very much (%)
OE
CD
ave
rag
e
OECD average
Growth mindset and reading performance
Fig II.14.3
More students holding a growth mindset
Hig
he
r pe
rform
ance
Similar relationship within most countries (Figure III.14.2)
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Motivation to mastertasks
Self-efficacy Fear of failure Learning goals Value of school
Ch
an
ge in
th
e i
nd
ex
Growth mindset and student attitudesChange in the following indices when students disagreed or strongly disagreed that "your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much“:
Fig III.14.5
All linear regression models account for
students' and schools' socio-economic profile
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Boys Girls Disadvantaged Advantaged Without an immigrantbackground
With an immigrantbackground
Sco
re-p
oin
td
iffe
ren
ce
Growth mindset matters more for some groupsStudents who disagreed or strongly disagreed that "your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much", by the following groups of students
Gender Socio-economic status Immigrant background
Fig III.14.4
To thrive in the VUCA world, students need to learn tonavigate oneself towards the world of well-being- well-beingof oneself, of others and of the planet.
It is about making your own decisions rather than having others
decide for you; actingrather than to be acted
upon; it’s about shaping your own future
Student Agency: • the belief that students have the will
and the ability to positively influence their own lives and the world around them.
• the capacity to set a goal, reflect and act responsibly to effect change.
Learning Compass: Competencies
• Knowledge
• Skills
• Attitudes
and values
15
Learning compass: Knowledge
• Disciplinary
• Interdisciplinary
• Epistemic
• Procedural
16
Learning compass: Skills
• Cognitive & meta-
cognitive
• Social & emotional
• Physical & practical
17
Transformative competencies
• Creating new value
• Taking responsibility
• Reconciling tensions & dilemmas
18
Implications for pedagogy
• Anticipation
• Action
• Reflection
19
What school life means for students’ life
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
It was clear to me that the teacherliked teaching us
The enthusiasm of the teacherinspired me
It was clear that the teacher likes todeal with the topic of the lesson
The teacher showed enjoyment inteaching
Sco
re-p
oin
t d
iffe
ren
ce i
n r
ead
ing
compared to students who reported “strongly disagree”
Disagree Agree Strongly agree
Teacher enthusiasm and reading performance Fig III.5.3
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
Czech R
ep
ub
licJo
rdan
Russia
Isra
el
Geo
rgia
United
Kin
gd
om
Alb
an
iaU
nited
Ara
b E
mira
tes
Bela
rus
Hu
ng
ary
Qata
rB
ulg
aria
Pola
nd
B-S
-J-Z
(C
hin
a)
Ukra
ine
Ire
land
Port
ug
al
Latv
iaK
oso
vo
Slo
vak R
epu
blic
Serb
iaA
ustr
alia
Ho
ng
Kon
g (
Chin
a)
Ma
lta
Italy
Luxe
mb
ou
rgC
hin
ese
Taip
ei
Fra
nce
Bosn
ia a
nd H
erz
eg
ovin
aS
inga
po
reM
on
ten
eg
roA
ustr
iaL
ithu
ania
Rom
ania
OE
CD
ave
rag
eM
oro
cco
Germ
any
Gre
ece
Sw
ede
nN
ew
Ze
ala
nd
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Fin
land
Sw
itze
rla
nd
Ne
the
rla
nds
Tu
rkey
Sau
di A
rab
iaM
old
ova
De
nm
ark
Cro
atia
Kaza
kh
sta
nB
elg
ium
Vie
t N
am
Kore
aS
pa
inS
loven
iaM
ala
ysia
Esto
nia
Th
aila
nd
Norw
ay
Bra
zil
Icela
nd
Ma
ca
o (
Ch
ina
)P
hili
ppin
es
Bru
ne
i D
aru
ssala
mB
aku
(A
zerb
aija
n)
Ja
pa
nC
osta
Ric
aC
hile
Ind
one
sia
Me
xic
oP
eru
Uru
gua
yD
om
inic
an R
ep
ub
licC
olo
mb
iaA
rgen
tin
aP
an
am
a
Change in index associated with a one-unit increase in the index of teacher enthusiasm
Index of disciplinary climate Index of motivation to master tasks
Ch
an
ge i
n i
nd
ex
Students reported a better disciplinary climate/more perseverance when their teacher showed more enthusiasm
Fig III.5.4
R² = 0.09R² = 0.10
R² = 0.03
R² = 0.12
R² = 0.18
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Ave
rag
e r
ea
din
g s
co
re
Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that the above behaviours hinder student learning "a lot"
Teacher behaviour hindering learning and average reading performance
Fig III.7.4
Based on country-level analysis
Teachers not meeting indiviudal students‘ needs
Teacher absenteeism
Staff resisting change
Teachers not being well prepared for classes
Teachers being too strict with students
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Index ofdisciplinary
climate
Index ofexposure to
bullying
Index of sense ofbelonging at
school
Index of teachersupport
Index of teacherfeedback
Index of studentco-operation
Index of studentcompetition
Ch
an
ge
in
stu
de
nts
’ a
ve
rag
e l
ife
sa
tis
fac
tio
n a
ss
oc
iate
d w
ith
a
on
e-u
nit
in
cre
as
e in
th
e s
ch
oo
l-le
ve
l in
dic
es
After accounting for student and school characteristics
Before accounting for student and school characteristics
Students' life satisfaction and school climateChange in the school-level index associated with a one-point change on the student life-satisfaction scale
Fig III.11.7
Gre
ate
r L
ife
Sa
tisfa
ction
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Neth
erla
nds
Denm
ark
Ja
pa
nG
erm
any
Geo
rgia
Austr
iaC
roa
tia
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
licS
witze
rla
nd
Kaza
kh
sta
nU
kra
ine
Belg
ium
Ind
one
sia
Icela
nd
Vie
t N
am
Koso
vo
Bela
rus
Norw
ay
Esto
nia
Nort
h M
ace
don
iaIs
rael
Slo
ven
iaL
ithu
ania
Ma
laysia
Luxe
mb
ou
rgR
ussia
Hu
ng
ary
Gre
ece
Mo
ldova
Alb
an
iaB
-S-J
-Z (
Chin
a)
OE
CD
ave
rag
eF
inla
nd
Uru
gua
yR
om
ania
Th
aila
nd
Me
xic
oC
hin
ese
Taip
ei
Phili
ppin
es
Spa
inU
nited
Ara
b E
mira
tes
Italy
Serb
iaM
aca
o (
Ch
ina
)S
lovak R
epu
blic
Pan
am
aL
atv
iaC
hile
Sw
ede
nA
rgen
tin
aM
on
ten
eg
roP
ola
nd
Leb
ano
nF
ran
ce
Baku
(A
zerb
aija
n)
Bosn
ia a
nd H
erz
eg
ovin
aC
osta
Ric
aP
eru
Do
min
ican R
ep
ub
licQ
ata
rC
olo
mb
iaP
ort
ug
al
Austr
alia
Bulg
aria
Hong
Kon
g (
Chin
a)
Tu
rkey
Bru
ne
i D
aru
ssala
mJo
rdan
New
Ze
ala
nd
Kore
aS
au
di A
rab
iaIr
ela
nd
Sin
ga
po
reM
oro
cco
United
Kin
gd
om
Bra
zil
Ma
lta
United
Sta
tes
Index of student co-operation Index of student competition
Me
an
in
de
x
Student co-operation and competition
Fig III.8.1
Student competition is relatively higher than student co-operationStudent co-operation is relatively higher than
student competition
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Students seemto value co-operation
It seems thatstudents are co-operating with
each other
Students seemto share the
feeling that co-operating witheach other is
important
Students feelthat they are
encouraged toco-operate with
others
Students seemto value
competition
It seems thatstudents are
competing witheach other
Students seemto share thefeeling that
competing witheach other is
important
Students feelthat they are
being comparedwith others
Sc
ore
-po
int
dif
fere
nc
e in
re
ad
ing
Score-point difference when students reported that the below statements are"very true" or "extremely true"
After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Student co-operation and competition, and reading performance
Fig III.8.3
OECD average
Student co-operation Student competition
Inclusion
The right to be equal The right to be different
Social background
GenderLocation
Immigration
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Th
aila
nd
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Me
xic
oK
ore
aT
urk
ey
Sin
ga
po
reG
reece
Serb
iaIr
ela
nd
Cana
da
Bosn
ia a
nd H
erz
eg
ovin
aU
nited
Ara
b E
mira
tes
Qata
rC
hile
Rom
ania
Port
ug
al
Lithu
ania
Mo
nte
neg
roB
razil
B-S
-J-Z
(C
hin
a)
Arg
en
tin
aB
ela
rus
Chin
ese
Taip
ei
Alb
an
iaN
ort
h M
ace
don
iaC
zech R
ep
ub
licS
lovak R
epu
blic
Ho
ng
Kon
g (
Chin
a)
Sw
ede
nJo
rdan
Belg
ium
Austr
alia
Ma
laysia
Spa
inN
orw
ay
Ja
pa
nB
ulg
aria
Kaza
kh
sta
nF
ran
ce
Hung
ary
Ma
ca
o (
Ch
ina
)O
EC
D a
ve
rag
eE
sto
nia
United
Kin
gd
om
Bru
ne
i D
aru
ssala
mS
loven
iaP
ola
nd
Ma
lta
Latv
iaN
eth
erla
nds
Isra
el
Russia
Baku
(A
zerb
aija
n)
Mo
ldova
Uru
gua
yU
kra
ine
Italy
New
Ze
ala
nd
Denm
ark
Cro
atia
Fin
land
Luxe
mb
ou
rgIc
ela
nd
Sw
itze
rla
nd
Austr
iaG
erm
any
% Percentage of students amongst those who have attained at least minimum proficiency (Level 2) in the three core PISA subjectsand are high performers (Level 4) in at least one subject
High performers among all students Disadvantaged students Advantaged students
High performers who do not expect to complete higher education Fig II.6.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Arg
en
tin
aL
eb
ano
nG
reece
Alb
an
iaC
hile
Qata
rT
urk
ey
Sw
ede
nB
razil
United
Kin
gd
om
Nort
h M
ace
don
iaA
ustr
alia
Bru
ne
i D
aru
ssala
mM
on
ten
eg
roS
erb
iaF
ran
ce
Denm
ark
Ire
land
Hung
ary
Cro
atia
Belg
ium
Un
ited
Ara
b E
mira
tes
Isra
el
Esto
nia
Port
ug
al
Ma
laysia
Ma
lta
Luxe
mb
ou
rgS
loven
iaT
haila
nd
New
Ze
ala
nd
OE
CD
ave
rag
e-3
6K
aza
kh
sta
nIc
ela
nd
Cana
da
Lithu
ania
Baku
(A
zerb
aija
n)
Italy
Germ
any
Russia
Latv
iaS
inga
po
reP
ola
nd
No
rwa
yB
ulg
aria
Rom
ania
Sw
itze
rla
nd
Jo
rdan
Mo
ldova
Bela
rus
Slo
vak R
epu
blic
United
Sta
tes
B-S
-J-Z
(C
hin
a)
Fin
land
Austr
iaC
hin
ese
Taip
ei
Neth
erla
nds
Czech R
ep
ub
licM
aca
o (
Ch
ina
)K
ore
aH
ong
Kon
g (
Chin
a)
Ukra
ine
Ind
one
sia
Ja
pa
n
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
top
perf
orm
ers
wh
o e
xp
ec
t a
ca
ree
r in
th
e f
ield Expect to work as science or engineering professionals
Top performers among all students Girls Boys
Gender gap in career expectations amongst top performers High performers in mathematics and/or science who aspire to science and engineering professionals
Fig II.8.8
Students with
disadvantagedsocial background
Students with
advantagedsocial background
Growth mindset
Positive feeling
Life satisfaction
Sense of belonging
Bullying
Discipline
Teacher enthusiasm
Teacher support
Co-operation
Compounding disadvantage
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Parents'emotionalsupport
Teachersupport
Teacherenthusiasm
Self-efficacy Disciplinaryclimate
Student co-operation
Studentcompetition
A growthmindset
All countries and economies average
Bottom quarter
Second quarter
Third quarter
Top quarter
Do not exhibit
Exhibit
%
Percentage of academically resilient immigrant students
Fig II.9.10
Beyond the average
Inclusion in school systems
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
Fin
land
Norw
ay
Ma
ca
o (
Ch
ina
)B
aku
(A
zerb
aija
n)
Cana
da
Icela
nd
Denm
ark
Koso
vo
Sw
ede
nP
ort
ug
al
Esto
nia
Ire
land
Ma
lta
New
Ze
ala
nd
Jo
rdan
United
Kin
gd
om
Austr
alia
Bosn
ia a
nd H
erz
eg
ovin
aK
aza
kh
sta
nP
ola
nd
United
Sta
tes
Sau
di A
rab
iaM
on
ten
eg
roK
ore
aG
reece
Cro
atia
Russia
Geo
rgia
Fra
nce
Latv
iaH
ong
Kon
g (
Chin
a)
OE
CD
ave
rag
eN
ort
h M
ace
don
iaC
hin
ese
Taip
ei
Alb
an
iaU
kra
ine
Qata
rT
urk
ey
Bra
zil
Ma
laysia
Do
min
ican R
ep
ub
licS
inga
po
reIn
do
ne
sia
Sw
itze
rla
nd
Mo
rocco
Bru
ne
i D
aru
ssala
mM
exic
oS
erb
iaM
old
ova
Lithu
ania
Bela
rus
Italy
B-S
-J-Z
(C
hin
a)
Germ
any
Belg
ium
Ja
pa
nN
eth
erla
nds
Phili
ppin
es
Leb
ano
nU
rug
ua
yC
osta
Ric
aP
an
am
aT
haila
nd
Slo
ven
iaC
hile
Luxe
mb
ou
rgC
olo
mb
iaIs
rael
Rom
ania
Slo
vak R
epu
blic
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
licA
rgen
tin
aU
nited
Ara
b E
mira
tes
Hung
ary
Peru
Bulg
aria
Isolation index
Isolation of disadvantaged students from high-achieving students in reading
Fig II.4.4
Lower probability for disadvantaged students to attend a school that enrols high-achieving students
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Peru
Uru
gua
yU
nited
Ara
b E
mira
tes
Th
aila
nd
Austr
alia
Ho
ng
Kon
g (
Chin
a)
Tu
rkey
Luxe
mb
ou
rgB
razil
Sau
di A
rab
iaC
olo
mb
iaP
an
am
aP
hili
ppin
es
Arg
en
tin
aB
-S-J
-Z (
Chin
a)
Isra
el
United
Sta
tes
New
Ze
ala
nd
Slo
ven
iaM
alta
Do
min
ican R
ep
ub
licM
aca
o (
Ch
ina
)In
do
ne
sia
Jo
rdan
Mo
rocco
Ca
na
da
United
Kin
gd
om
Belg
ium
Sw
itze
rla
nd
Ire
land
Spa
inD
enm
ark
Germ
any
Leb
ano
nB
rune
i D
aru
ssala
mS
wede
nK
ore
aB
aku
(A
zerb
aija
n)
OE
CD
ave
rag
eS
lovak R
epu
blic
Gre
ece
Me
xic
oR
ussia
Norw
ay
Vie
t N
am
Ja
pa
nC
hile
Ma
laysia
Hung
ary
Qata
rK
aza
kh
sta
nE
sto
nia
Serb
iaC
zech R
ep
ub
licC
hin
ese
Taip
ei
Bosn
ia a
nd H
erz
eg
ovin
aIc
ela
nd
Fra
nce
Alb
an
iaN
eth
erla
nds
Bela
rus
Sin
ga
po
reM
on
ten
eg
roG
eo
rgia
Italy
Costa
Ric
aP
ort
ug
al
Ukra
ine
Pola
nd
Koso
vo
Cro
atia
Latv
iaF
inla
nd
Bulg
aria
Mo
ldova
Lithu
ania
Ro
ma
nia
No
rth
Mace
don
ia
Me
an
in
de
x d
iffe
ren
ce
be
twe
en
ad
va
nta
ge
d a
nd
d
isa
dva
nta
ge
d s
ch
oo
ls
Index of shortage of education staff Index of shortage of educational material
Few systems align resources with needs
Fig II.5.5
Disadvantaged schools have more
resources than advantaged schools
Disadvantaged schools have fewer
resources than advantaged schools
Based on principals’ reports
Redefining success
Learning, unlearning and relearning throughout life
Primary and
secondary
education
Job:
Same sector
age
From:
To:
age
Job
Adult upskilling and reskilling
Tertiary:
specialise
Retire
and
pension
Primary and
secondary
education
ECEC Tertiary:
transversalJob Job Job Job
JobJob
BUT: LOW-SKILLED ARE
LESS LIKELY TO PARTICIPATE IN TRAINING
0
20
40
60
80
Source: Survey of Adult Skills (2012, 2015)
SHARE OF WORKERS WHO PARTICIPATED IN ON-THE-JOB TRAINING IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR
BY EDUCATION LEVEL (%)
tertiary – master/research degree
lower secondary or less
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%Participated, but does not want to participate (more)
Did not participate, and does not want to participate
Willingness to participate in adult learning is low
Source: OECD calculations based on OECD (2017) Survey of Adults Skills database (PIAAC) (2012, 2015).
Adults not willing to participate, % of 25-64 year-olds, 2012/2015
17
Education won the race with technology throughout history, but there is no automaticity it will do so in the future
Inspired by “The race between technology and education” Pr. Goldin & Katz (Harvard)
Industrial revolution
Digital revolution
Social pain
Universal public schooling
Technology
Education
Prosperity
Social pain
Prosperity
Changing education can be like moving graveyards
• The status quo has many protectors– Everyone supports reform – except for their own children– Even those who promote reforms often change their mind when they understand
what change entails for them
• The frogs rarely clear the swamp– The loss of privilege is pervasive because of the extent of vested interests
• Asymmetry of costs and benefits of educational reform– Costs are certain and immediate, benefits are uncertain and long-term
• Lack of supportive ecosystems– Lack of an ‘education industry’ that pushes innovation and absorbs risks– A research sector that is often disengaged from the real needs of real classrooms
• You can lose an election but you don’t win one over education– Complexity and length of reform trajectory that extend electoral cycles– A substantial gap between the time when the cost of reform is incurred, and the time
when benefits materialise
Andreas SchleicherDirector for Education and Skills
Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org
–All publications
–The complete micro-level database
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: SchleicherOECD
Wechat: AndreasSchleicher
