Melbourne Graduate School of Education

Transcription

1 1

2 2

3 Mean reading results (PISA 2000) Australia tied for 2 nd with 8 others among 42 countries. OECD (2003), Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow: Further results from PISA 2000, Fig. 2.5, p.76. 3

4 Australia s ranking in OECD/PISA Reading Reading ranks PISA 2000: 4 th but tied for 2 nd PISA 2003: 4 th but tied for 2 nd PISA 2006: 7 th but tied for 6 th Ahead of Australia Same as Australia Behind Australia PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006 Finland Korea Canada NZ Hong Kong Finland Korea Canada NZ Hong Kong Finland Korea Canada NZ Hong Kong 4

5 Trends in reading performance Korea Finland Hong Kong China Canada New Zealand Australia Changes for Finland, Canada & New Zealand are not significant. OECD (2007), PISA 2006: science competencies for tomorrow s world, Vol. 1 - analysis, Fig. 6.21, p

6 Trends in Australian reading performances 95 th %ile 90 th %ile 75 th %ile Mean 25 th %ile 10 th %ile 5 th %ile OECD (2007), PISA 2006: science competencies for tomorrow s world, Vol. 1 - analysis, Fig. 6.21, p

7 Australia s ranking in OECD/PISA Mathematics Mathematics ranks PISA 2000: 6 th but tied for 3 rd PISA 2003: 11 th but tied for 5 th PISA 2006: 13 th but tied for 9 th Ahead of Australia Same as Australia PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006 Hong Kong Japan Finland Korea Switzerland Canada Finland Hong Kong Korea Netherlands Switzerland Canada Macao Japan Taiwan Finland Hong Kong Korea Netherlands Switzerland Canada Macao Japan 7

8 Australia s ranking in OECD/PISA Science Science ranks PISA 2000: 8 th but tied for 3 rd PISA 2003: 6 th but tied for 4 th PISA 2006: 8 th but tied for 4 th Ahead of Australia Same as Australia PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006 Japan Korea Finland Hong Kong Canada Finland Japan Korea Hong Kong Canada Finland Hong Kong Canada Japan Korea 8

9 Conclusions Quality Australia ranks high among OECD and other countries The competition is not standing still 9

10 10

11 11

12 % at each reading proficiency level: PISA 2000 Level 5 Korea has relatively high mean but with few very high performers and very few low performers. Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Australia has somewhat more low performing students than some high-performing countries around it but a relatively high mean because it has a relatively high percentage of very high-performing students. Level 1 Below Level 1 Source: OECD, UNESCO (2003) Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow, Table 2.1a, p

13 Conclusions Quality Australia ranks high among OECD and other countries The competition is not standing still Equity Australia does not have a relatively long tail Marginally in reading but not in maths or science 13

14 14

15 Social background & reading literacy (PISA 2000) Reading literacy High Two indices of relationship: Social gradient Correlation or variance accounted for Low 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 PISA Index of social background Source: OECD (2001) Knowledge and skills for life, Appendix B1, Table 8.1, p.308 Social Advantage 15

16 Social gradients for science (PISA 2006) High quality Low equity High quality High equity Low quality Low equity Low quality High equity OECD (2007) PISA 2006: science competencies for tomorrow s world, Vol 1 analysis, Figure 4.6, p

17 SES-science literacy correlations (PISA 2006) High quality Low equity High quality High equity Low quality Low equity Low quality High equity OECD (2007) PISA 2006: science competencies for tomorrow s world, Vol 1 analysis, Figure 4.6, p

18 18

19 Variation in reading performance (PISA 2000) Variation of performance within schools Variation of performance between schools OECD, UNESCO (2003), Literacy skills for tomorrow s world: further results from PISA 2000, Table 7.1a, p

20 Variation in reading performance (PISA 2000) Variation of performance within schools Australia 40% 28% 32% Variation of performance between schools Variation explained by social background of students Variation explained by social background of schools Variation not explained by social background OECD, UNESCO (2003), Literacy skills for tomorrow s world: further results from PISA 2000, Table 7.1a, p

21 Conclusions Quality Australia ranks high among OECD and other countries The competition is not standing still Equity Relatively long tail Exists marginally in reading but not in maths or science Differences in students social backgrounds Are more strongly related to differences in educational achievement than in Canada, Finland, Korea Account for 70% of achievement differences bet schools 21

22 22

23 Improving equity Having high expectations for all students A national curriculum benchmarked against the best Being clear about: what is to be taught and learned students entitlements what achievement standards are expected 23

24 Content descriptions Mathematics Year 3

25 Achievement standards Mathematics Year 3

26 Improving equity Having high expectations for all students A national curriculum benchmarked against the best Being clear about: what is to be taught and learned students entitlements what achievement standards are expected Using data to inform school improvement The role of the My School website Offering fair comparisons Strategies for school improvement Identifying sources of lessons Targeting resources on underperforming schools with less advantaged students 26

27 Primary school with disadvantaged students 27

28 Disadvantaged school outperforming most others 28

29 Focusing on distribution not particular cut points 29

30 A risk of a narrowed curriculum? Preparing students for tests Ensuring familiarity is important Practice beyond that yields little Full curriculum to improve literacy and numeracy Literacy developed in English, history, the arts Numeracy developed in mathematics, science Broadening the literacy and numeracy tests Test a broader range of content and skills Have different students take different tests Report all students performances on common scales Monitor other areas with sample-based NAP Chart our national progress 30

31 31

32 Enhanced information on schools Additional subpopulations identified LBOTE and special needs in addition to Indigenous Better data on senior secondary outcomes VETiS (including school comment) and tertiary bound School resources Recurrent Commonwealth funding State/Territory funding Fees, charges and parental contributions Other sources Income allocated to capital projects Capital Commonwealth funding State/Territory funding New school loans Fee income allocated to capital projects 32

33 Improved reports on NAPLAN performance Graphical as well as tabular Combining information on magnitude (effect size) and statistical significance of differences Data on student progress as well as current status Restricted to students in same school in 2008 and 2010 No report on Yr 5 to Yr 7 in a 6+6 system Possibility of filtered displays With and without students with special needs With and without LBOTE students School s commentary on results 33

34 Improved measure of socio-economic advantage Direct measure rather than indirect CCD measure Removes risk of ecological fallacy introducing bias Potentially introduced other threats to validity Update complete home address data For cases where direct measures are not available Add variable to ICSEA calculation ICSEA 2009 ICSEA = SEA + I + R ISEA 2010 ISEA(?) = SEA + I + R + L I = indigenous R = remoteness L = interaction between LBOTE and SEA 34

35 Action to deter misuse of site Click-wrap agreement to accept terms of use Sign-in to prevent data scraping 35

36 Changes beyond 2010 Satisfaction with schooling Risks of response bias in two senses Expert group (including ABS) to advise Teaching staff expertise Linked to new certification/registration standards being developed and promulgated by AITSL With more to come, if there is a My School site Site won the e-government award in last night s Australian Information Industry Association Awards 36

37 Thank you