1. In the dark all schools and education systems look the same… But with a little light….

2. But with a little light…. …important differences become apparent….

3. Average performance of 15-year-olds in mathematics Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High mathematics performance Low mathematics performance

4. Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High mathematics performance Low mathematics performance

5. Coherence in performance standards OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 4.1a, p.383. 20

6. Variation of performance between schools Variation of performance within schools Coherence in performance standards OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 4.1a, p.383. 111 14 12 5

7. Coherence in performance standards Variation of performance between schools Variation of performance within schools Variation explained by socio-economic level of students and schools OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 4.1a, p.383. In other countries, large performance differences among schools persist In Austria, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and Turkey, most of the performance variation among schools lies between schools… …and in some of these countries, most notably those that are highly stratified, a large part of that variation is explained by socio-economic inequalities in learning opportunities 28 22 4 6 26 16 15 3

8. Student performance School performance and schools’ socio- economic background – Czech Republic Advantage PISA Index of social background Disadvantage Figure 4.13 School proportional to size Student performance and student SES within schools School performance and school SES

9. Student performance School performance and schools’ socio- economic background - Finland Advantage PISA Index of social background Disadvantage Figure 4.13 Student performance and student SES Student performance and student SES within schools School performance and school SES School proportional to size

10. Money matters but other things do too Mexico Greece Portugal Italy Spain Germany Austria Ireland United States Norway Korea Czech Republic Slovak republic Poland Hungary Finland Netherlands Canada Switzerland Iceland Denmark France Sweden Belgium Australia Japan R 2 = 0.28 Cumulative expenditure (US$) Performance in mathematics

11. Sympathy doesn’t raise standards – aspiration does r In the high performing countries studied… National research teams report a strong “culture of performance” –Which drives students, parents, teachers and the educational administration to high performance standards r PISA suggests… …that students and schools perform better in a climate characterised by high expectations and the readiness to invest effort, the enjoyment of learning, a strong disciplinary climate, and good teacher-student relations –Among these aspects, students’ perception of teacher-student relations and classroom disciplinary climate display the strongest relationships

12. High ambitions and clear standards Access to best practice and quality professional development

13. Challenge and support Weak support Strong support Low challenge High challenge Strong performance Systemic improvement Poor performance Improvements idiosyncratic Conflict Demoralisation Poor performance Stagnation

14. High ambitions Access to best practice and quality professional development Accountability and intervention in inverse proportion to success Devolved responsibility, the school as the centre of action

15. Governance of the school system r In the high performing countries studied School-based decision-making is combined with devices to ensure a fair distribution of substantive educational opportunities The provision of standards and curricula at national/subnational levels is combined with advanced evaluation and support systems –That are implemented by professional agencies Process-oriented assessments and/or centralised final examinations are complimented with individual reports and feed-back mechanisms on student learning progress r Standard setting and equity-related goals Key objectives: –Raise educational aspirations, establish transparency over educational objectives, reference framework for teachers Approaches range from definition of broad educational goals up to formulation of concise performance expectations Some countries go beyond establishing educational standards as mere yardsticks and use performance benchmarks that students at particular age or grade levels should reach Instruments –Minimum standards, targets defining excellence, normative performance benchmarks r Monitoring and equity-related goals Diverging views how evaluation and assessment can and should be used –Some see them primarily as tools to reveal best practices and identify shared problems in order to encourage teachers and schools to improve and develop more supportive and productive learning environments –Others extend their purpose to support contestability of public services or market-mechanisms in the allocation of resources –e.g. by making comparative results of schools publicly available to facilitate parental choice or by having funds following students Differences in type of performance benchmarks being used and reported for the various stakeholders involved, including parents, teachers and schools

16. Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Low average performance Large socio-economic disparities High average performance Large socio-economic disparities Low average performance High social equity High average performance High social equity Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High mathematics performance Low mathematics performance

17. Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High mathematics performance Low mathematics performance School with responsibility for deciding which courses are offered High degree of autonomy Low degree of autonomy

18. Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik Strong socio- economic impact on student performance Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities High mathematics performance Low mathematics performance Early selection and institutional differentiation High degree of stratification Low degree of stratification

19. Strong ambitions Access to best practice and quality professional development Accountability Devolved responsibility, the school as the centre of action Individualised learning Integrated educational opportunities

20. Organisation of instruction r In the high-performing countries studied Schools and teachers have explicit strategies and approaches for teaching heterogeneous groups of learners –A high degree of individualised learning processes –Disparities related to socio-economic factors and migration are recognised as major challenges Students are offered a variety of extra-curricular activities Schools offer differentiated support structures for students –E.g. school psychologists or career counsellors Institutional differentiation is introduced, if at all, at later stages –Integrated approaches also contributed to reducing the impact of students socio-economic background on outcomes

21. Support systems and professional teacher development r In the high performing countries studied Effective support systems are located at individual school level or in specialised support institutions Teacher training schemes are selective The training of pre-school personnel is closely integrated with the professional development of teachers Continuing professional development is a constitutive part of the system Special attention is paid to the professional development of school management personnel

22. Strong ambitions Access to best practice and quality professional development Accountability and intervention in inverse proportion to success Individualised learning Devolved responsibility, the school as the centre of action Integrated educational opportunities

23. Further information 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

24. OECD countries participating from PISA 2000 OECD countries participating from PISA from 2003 OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2000 OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2003 OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2006 PISA country participation