OECD Strategic Education Governance A perspective for Scotland Claire Shewbridge 25 October 2017 Edinburgh
CERI overview What CERI does Generate forward-looking research analyses and syntheses Identify and stimulate educational innovation Promote international exchange of knowledge and experience
This presentation…. OECD CERI Strategic Education Governance – Fed into the consultation document for proposed reform in Scotland • Empowering teachers, parents and communities to achieve: Excellence and equity in education, pp 4-5 A few key findings from an OECD review of the Scottish school system in 2015 Further insights from PISA 2015 results (released December 2016) Some considerations for a successful reform – The need to balance autonomy with a constructive accountability mechanism – Not an easy task! A challenge shared among OECD systems – Promoting more strategic education governance
OECD CERI - Strategic education governance Meeting challenges of how to… Encourage strategic thinking Design accountability mechanisms Build capacity for policy making and implementation Based on five key elements of effective governance in complex systems Get governance processes right Build in flexibility and adapt to unexpected events Involve stakeholders in open dialogue Look at the system as a whole Harness evidence and research effectively for policy reform
OECD review in 2015 Mixed evidence on overall quality of Scottish schooling – Scottish students performing above the OECD average in science and reading and at the average in mathematics (PISA 2012) – But some declining achievement levels on international data … and also on Scottish data – Positive attitudes reported by Scottish teenagers (PISA 2012) Positive points for equity – Scottish schools are inclusive – Migrant students do well – But national data show persistent gaps between students in least and most deprived areas
Significant drop in average performance of Scottish students in the PISA mathematics test Between 2003 and 2012 when mathematics was the main part of the PISA test 6
Mean score Negative trend Figure I.2.14 PISA 2015 Singapore SCIENCE confirmed in PISA 2015 550 Science performance Japan Estonia Chinese Taipei Finland 530 Macao (China) Canada Scottish students performed Hong Kong Viet Nam (China) at the OECD average in B-S-J-G (China) Korea New Zealand Slovenia PISA 2015 Australia 510 UK Germany Netherlands Ireland Belgium Poland Denmark Norway In earlier PISA surveys, their Portugal Scotland United States France Austria Sweden performance was above Czech Republic Spain Latvia 490 Russia average (515 in 2006) Luxembourg Italy Hungary Lithuania A lower proportion of CABA Croatia Israel Iceland (Argentina) 470 students performing well on Malta Slovak Republic the most challenging PISA Greece Chile science tasks 450 United Arab Bulgaria Emirates Romania Moldova Uruguay 430 Turkey Albania Trinidad and Thailand Tobago Costa Rica Qatar Colombia Mexico Georgia Montenegro Jordan 410 10 countries perform below this line …
10 15 20 25 0 5 % Singapore Chinese Taipei Japan Percentage of top performers in science (PISA 2015) Scottish students losing ground at the top Finland B-S-J-G (China) Estonia New Zealand Canada Australia Netherlands United Kingdom Korea Slovenia Germany Switzerland Macao (China) Belgium United States Sweden Viet Nam France Norway OECD average Austria Malta Scotland Portugal Hong Kong (China) Poland Czech Republic Ireland 12.5% Scotland; 9.0% OECD average PISA 2006 science test proportion of top performers in the There was a higher than average Denmark Luxembourg Israel Spain Hungary Lithuania Italy Croatia Latvia Iceland Russia Slovak Republic Bulgaria United Arab Emirates CABA (Argentina) Greece Qatar Trinidad and Tobago Uruguay Chile Georgia Moldova Romania Brazil Montenegro Thailand Lebanon Albania Colombia Turkey FYROM Jordan Costa Rica Table I.2.2a Peru Mexico Indonesia Tunisia Algeria Dominican Republic Kosovo
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 % Viet Nam Percentage of lowest performers in science (PISA 2015) Macao (China) 14.6% Scotland 19.3% OECD average Lowest performers in PISA 2006 science test Estonia Hong Kong (China) Singapore Japan Canada Finland Chinese Taipei Korea Slovenia Ireland Denmark B-S-J-G (China) Poland Germany Latvia Portugal United Kingdom New Zealand Australia Russia Spain Switzerland Netherlands Norway Scotland Belgium United States Czech Republic Austria OECD average Sweden France CABA (Argentina) Italy Croatia Lithuania Iceland Luxembourg Hungary Slovak Republic Israel Malta Greece Chile Bulgaria Romania Uruguay Albania United Arab Emirates Moldova Turkey Trinidad and Tobago Costa Rica Thailand Mexico Colombia Jordan Qatar Georgia Montenegro Indonesia Brazil Table I.2.2a Peru Lebanon FYROM Tunisia Kosovo Algeria Dominican Republic
Odds ratio 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dominican Republic CABA (Argentina) proficiency in science (PISA 2015) Odds ratio that disadvantaged students do NOT attain the baseline level of basic science proficiency Disadvantaged Scottish students fare relatively better in Peru Singapore France Hungary B-S-J-G (China) Luxembourg Chile Bulgaria Belgium Czech Republic Slovak Republic Germany Switzerland Chinese Taipei New Zealand Spain Austria Japan Portugal Poland Australia Israel Uruguay OECD average Malta Ireland Greece Jordan Lebanon Romania Slovenia Costa Rica Italy Mexico Finland Georgia Netherlands Sweden Brazil Moldova Lithuania Canada Qatar United States Denmark Colombia Indonesia Korea Norway Tunisia United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Scotland Russia Croatia Trinidad and Tobago FYROM Viet Nam Turkey Estonia Hong Kong (China) Latvia Figure I.6.9 Montenegro Kosovo Iceland Thailand Macao (China) Algeria
350 400 450 500 550 600 Score points Non-immigrant students in many other systems (PISA 2015) Similar to other students in Scotland and stronger than counterparts Relative performance of immigrant students in science Greece Costa Rica Jordan CABA (Argentina) Israel Sweden France Slovenia Austria Germany Second-generation immigrant students Netherlands Denmark Italy Norway Belgium OECD average Spain Croatia United States Luxembourg Switzerland Qatar First-generation immigrant students Portugal Russia United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Scotland Ireland Australia Estonia Hong Kong (China) Figure I.7.4 New Zealand Canada Macao (China) Singapore
Scottish students report strong approach to Figure I.2.32 acquiring scientific knowledge Students' epistemic beliefs (PISA 2015) Scotland United Kingdom OECD average The ideas in <broad science> science books sometimes change Sometimes <broad science> scientists change their minds about what is true in science It is good to try experiments more than once to make sure of your findings Good answers are based on evidence from many different experiments Ideas in <broad science> sometimes change A good way to know if something is true is to do an experiment 70 75 80 85 90 95 Percentage of students who agreed with the following statements
Complex systems: many actors involved and the need for a constructive accountability system PISA survey cycles have allowed insight to the greater number of actors involved in decision making – Well established trend to greater responsibility at the school level – But starting to reverse between 2009 and 2015 • Fewer principals reported having considerable responsibility over budget, hiring teachers or courses offered at school PISA 2015 highlighted the interplay between autonomy and accountability – Science performance better when principals report greater autonomy over resources, curriculum and other school policies – But especially in countries where • achievement data are tracked over time or posted publicly • principals report higher levels of educational leadership OECD Governance in Complex Education Systems case studies revealed challenges in striking this balance in all systems
Complex systems: stakeholder involvement, capacity building and constructive accountability System Focus of the case study Implementation lessons Flanders Attainment targets & Overall context of multi-level (Belgium) stakeholder participation governance Germany Building local capacity & Local factors that influence promoting use of data the relative effectiveness Poland Implementation of new school Logistical & structural issues; supervision system building trust in evaluation for improvement Sweden Devolution of decision making Lack of local capacity building to municipal authorities & system vision Netherlands Improving the performance of Dynamics of implementation; weak primary schools role of the media and parents Norway Implementation of formative Dynamics of change and student assessment capacity building for teachers programme when going large scale
Recommend
More recommend
