bringing lessons from the world

11U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

Bringing lessons from the world

23 March 2009

Prof. Andreas SchleicherHead, Indicators and Analysis Division

OECD Directorate for Education

22U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

taThis session

1. There is nowhere to hide Why the yardstick for educational success is

no longer improvement by national standards but the best performing systems internationally

2. Benchmarking education internationally Where we are – and where we can be

– Where the US and other countries stand in terms of quality and equity of schooling outcomes

– What the best performing countries show can be achieved

3. How we can get there Some policy levers that emerge from

international comparisons

33U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

There is nowhere to hideThe yardstick for success is no longer improvement by national

standards but the best performing education systems

44U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

taA world of change in baseline

qualificationsApproximated by percentage of persons with high school or equivalent qualfications

in the age groups 55-64, 45-55, 45-44 und 25-34 yearsU

nite

d St

ates

Cz

ech

Repu

blic

Es

toni

aG

erm

any

Switz

erla

ndD

enm

ark

Cana

da

Nor

way

Swed

en

Russ

ian

Fede

ratio

n4Au

stria

3Sl

oven

iaIs

rael

Slov

ak R

epub

licN

ew Z

eala

nd

Hun

gary

Fi

nlan

dU

nite

d Ki

ngdo

m3

Net

herla

nds

Luxe

mbo

urg

EU19

ave

rage

OEC

D a

vera

geFr

ance

Aust

ralia

Ic

elan

dBe

lgiu

mPo

land

Irel

and

Kore

aCh

ile2

Gre

ece

Ital

ySp

ain

Turk

ey

Port

ugal

M

exic

oBr

azil2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1990s 1980s 1970s 1960s

%

1. Excluding ISCED 3C short programmes 2. Year of reference 20043. Including some ISCED 3C short programmes 3. Year of reference 2003.

13

1

1

27

AustraliaAustriaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyJapanNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPolandPortugalSlovak RepublicSpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States

Expe

nditu

re p

er st

uden

t at t

ertia

ry le

vel (

USD

)

Tertiary-type A graduation rate

A world of change – college education

Graduate supply

Cost

per

st

uden

t

Expe

nditu

re p

er st

uden

t at t

ertia

ry le

vel (

USD

)



United States

Japan

Sweden

Graduate supply

Cost

per

st

uden

t

Germany

Expe

nditu

re p

er st

uden

t at t

ertia

ry le

vel (

USD

)



Australia

United States (2000)

United States (1995)

Expe

nditu

re p

er st

uden

t at t

ertia

ry le

vel (

USD

)



Expe

nditu

re p

er st

uden

t at t

ertia

ry le

vel (

USD

)



United States

Australia

Ireland

Sweden

Expe

nditu

re p

er st

uden

t at t

ertia

ry le

vel (

USD

)



United States

Expe

nditu

re p

er st

uden

t at t

ertia

ry le

vel (

USD

)



Expe

nditu

re p

er st

uden

t at t

ertia

ry le

vel (

USD

)



Australia

United States

Rising higher education qualifications seem generally not to have led to an “inflation” of the labour-market value of qualifications.

In all but three of the 20 countries with available data, the earnings benefit increased between 1997 and 2003, in Germany, Italy and Hungary by between 20% and 40%

2020Co

uncil

, 18

Sept

embe

r 20

08Ed

ucat

ion

at a

Gla

nce

Denmark 4.4%Sweden 5.1%Norway 7.4%

Spain 7.6%Germany 8%France 8.4%

New Zealand 8.6%Korea 9%

Canada 9.4%Ireland 10.2%

Switzerland 10.3%Finland 10.7%

United States 11%Belgium 11.3%

United Kingdom 14.3%Hungary 19.8%

Poland 22.8%Portugal 23.9%

Czech Republic 29.1%

Direct cost Foregone earnings Gross earnings benefits Unemployment effectIncome tax effect Social contribution effect Composite Impact

Cost components Benefits components

Note: Those amounts (in USD equivalents) are not discounted by the IRR.

Cumulated streams of costs and benefits The IRR is the discount rate at which the Net Present Value=0. Given a stream of assumed costs and benefits over 25-to-64-years-old, the IRR represents the rate

of return on investment expressed as an interest rate.

2121U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta Moving targetsFuture supply of high school graduates

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

China EU India US

200320102015

2222U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

5,000,000

China EU India US

200320102015

Future supply of high school graduates

0

2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

10 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

12 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

14 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

China EU India US

200320102015

Future supply of college graduates

2323U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

taHow the demand for skills has changed

Economy-wide measures of routine and non-routine task input (US)

1960 1970 1980 1990 200240

45

50

55

60

65 Routine manual

Nonroutine manual

Routine cognitive

Nonroutine analytic

Nonroutine inter-active

(Levy and Murnane)

Mea

n ta

sk in

put a

s per

cent

iles o

f th

e 19

60 ta

sk d

istrib

utio

n

The dilemma of schools:The skills that are easiest to teach and test are also the ones that are easiest to digitise, automate and outsource

2424U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

Deciding what to assess...

looking back at what students were expected to have learned

…or…looking ahead to how well they can extrapolate from what they have

learned and apply their knowledge and skills in novel settings.

For the PISA assessment of the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds, OECD governments chose the latter

2525U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

Coverage of world economy 77%81%83%85%86%87%

OECD’s PISA assessment of the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds

2626U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

taAverage performanceof 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply

High science performance

Low science performance… 18 countries perform below this line

I srael

I talyPortugal Greece

Russian FederationLuxembourgSlovak Republic,Spain,

Iceland LatviaCroatia

SwedenDenmarkFrancePolandHungary

AustriaBelgiumIrelandCzech Republic SwitzerlandMacao- China

GermanyUnited Kingdom

Korea

J apanAustralia

SloveniaNetherlandsLiechtenstein

New ZealandChinese Taipei

Hong Kong- China

Finland

CanadaEstonia

United States LithuaniaNorway

445

465

485

505

525

545

565

616

2727U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

taIncreased likelihood of postsec. particip. at age 19 associated with reading proficiency at age

15 (Canada)after accounting for school engagement, gender, mother

tongue, place of residence, parental, education and family income (reference group Level 1)

02468

101214161820

Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

2828U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

France=495

- 35 - 25 - 15 - 5 5 15 25 35

Overall science score

I dentifying scientific issues

Explaining phenomena scientifically

Using scientific evidence

Knowledge about science

Earth and space

Living systems

Physical systems

Strengths and weaknesses of countries in science relative to their overall performance

France

OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Figure 2.13

Science competencies

Science knowledge

2929U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

France=495 Czech Republic=512

- 35 - 25 - 15 - 5 5 15 25 35






Earth and space

Living systems

Physical systems


Czech Republic


Scientific competencies

Scientific knowledge

20

3030U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

United States=489

- 35 - 25 - 15 - 5 5 15 25 35






Earth and space

Living systems

Physical systems


United States


Science competencies

Science knowledge

3131U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

taAverage performanceof 15-year-olds in science – extrapolate and apply

Low average performanceLarge socio-economic disparities

High average performanceLarge socio-economic disparities

Low average performanceHigh social equity

High average performanceHigh social equity

Strong socio-economic impact on

student performance

Socially equitable distribution of

learning opportunities


Low science performance

I srael

I talyPortugal Greece

Russian FederationLuxembourgSlovak Republic,Spain,

Iceland LatviaCroatia

SwedenDenmarkFrancePolandHungary

AustriaBelgiumIrelandCzech Republic SwitzerlandMacao- China

GermanyUnited Kingdom

Korea

J apanAustralia



Hong Kong- China

Finland

CanadaEstonia

United States LithuaniaNorway

445

465

485

505

525

545

565

616

3232U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik






student performance




Low science performance

I srael

GreecePortugal I talyRussian Federation

LuxembourgSlovak Republic SpainIcelandLatviaCroatia

Sweden

DenmarkFrancePoland

HungaryAustriaBelgium Ireland

Czech Republic Switzerland Macao- ChinaGermany United Kingdom

Korea

J apanAustralia



Hong Kong- China

Finland

CanadaEstonai

United States Lithuania Norway

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

2122215

3333U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3300

500

700

School performance and socio-economic background Germany

Stud

ent p

erfo

rman

ce

AdvantagePISA Index of socio-economic background

Disadvantage

Schools proportional to size

Student performance and students’ socio-economic background within schoolsSchool performance and schools’ socio-economic backgroundStudent performance and students’ socio-economic background

3434U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

taSchool performance and socio-economic background

United StatesSt

uden

t per

form

ance


Disadvantage



3535U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

taSchool performance and socio-economic background

FinlandSt

uden

t per

form

ance


Disadvantage



3636U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

Hong Kon

g-Chin

a

Canad

a

Liech

tenste

in

Eston

ia

New Zea

land

Netherl

ands

German

y

Switz

erlan

d

Austral

ia

Slove

nia

Austria

Belgium

United

King

dom

Swed

en

Luxem

bourg

France

Macao-C

hina

Denmark

United

State

s

Croatia

Russian

Fede

ration

Israe

lSe

rbiaJor

danQata

r300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Native students First-generation students Second-generation students

OECD average = 500

Immigrants and science performance

Native students

Second-generation students

First-generation students

PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Figure 4.2a.

3737P

ISA

OE

CD

Pro

gram

me

for

Inte

rnat

iona

l Stu

dent

Ass

essm

ent

Brie

fing

of C

ounc

il14

Nov

embe

r 200

7

How to get thereSome policy levers that emerge from

international comparisons

3838U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta Some myths US coverage of the sampled population

is more comprehensive than in other countries

US covered 96% of 15-year-olds enrolled (OECD 97%) US covered 86% of all 15-year-olds (OECD 89%) No impact on mean performance

No relationship between size of countries and average performance

No relationship between proportion of immigrants and average performance

Few difference in students’ reported test motivation

Limited impact of national item preferences .

4040U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

High ambitions and universal

standardsRigor, focus and

coherence

Great systems attract great teachers and

provide access to best practice and quality

professional development

4141U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta Challenge and support

Weak support

Strong support

Lowchallenge

Highchallenge

Strong performanceSystemic improvement

Poor performanceImprovements idiosyncratic

ConflictDemoralisation

Poor performanceStagnation

4242U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

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

4343U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

NoYes

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

No

Yes0

41

46

63

Standards based external

examinations School autonomyin selecting teachers for hire

PISA score in science

School autonomy, standards-based examinations and science performance

School autonomy in selecting teachers for hire

4444U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

taLocal responsibility and national

prescription

National prescription

Schools leading reform

Schools todayThe industrial

model, detailed prescription of

what schools do

Schools tomorrow?

Building capacity

Finland todayEvery school an effective school

Towards system-wide sustainable reform

4545U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

taPublic and private schools

0 20 40 60 80 100

LuxembourgJ apanI taly

SwitzerlandFinland

DenmarkCzech Republic

SwedenHungaryAustria

PortugalUnited States

NetherlandsSlovak Republic

KoreaI reland

SpainCanadaMexico

New ZealandGermany

OECDUnited Kingdom

Government schoolsGovernment dependent privateGovernment independent private

- 150 - 100 - 50 0 50 100

Observed perf ormance diff erence

Diff erence af ter accounting f or socio-economic background of students and schools

Private schools perform better

Public schools perform better

%Score point difference

4646U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

taPooled international dataset, effects of selected

school/system factors on science performance after accounting for all other factors in the model

OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies from Tomorrow’s World, Table 6.1a

Gross Net30

20

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Approx. one school year

Scor

e po

int d

iffer

ence

in s

cienc

e

Schools practicing ability grouping (gross and net)

Academically selective schools (gross and net)

but no system-wide effect

School results posted publicly (gross and net)

One additional hour of science learning at

school (gross and net)

One additional hour of out-of-school lessons

(gross and net)

One additional hour of self-study or homework

(gross and net)

School activities to promote science

learning(gross and net)

Schools with greater autonomy (resources)

(gross and net)

Each additional 10% of public funding(gross only)

Schools with more competing schools

(gross only)

School principal’s perception that lack of

qualified teachers hinders instruction

(gross only)

School principal’s positive evaluation of quality of educational

materials(gross only)

Measured effectEffect after accounting for the socio-economic

background of students, schools and countries

4747U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

Strong ambitions

Access to best practice and quality professional development

Accountability

Devolvedresponsibility,

the school as the centre of action

Integrated educational

opportunities From prescribed

forms of teaching and assessment towards personalised learning

4848U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta Durchschnittliche Schülerleistungen im Bereich Mathematik






student performance




Low science performanceTurkey

AustraliaJ apan

Finland

CanadaNew Zealand

KoreaCzech Republic United Kingdom

AustriaGermany

Netherlands

SwitzerlandIrelandBelgium

PolandSwedenHungary

IcelandFrance Denmark

United States SpainLuxembourg NorwaySlovak Republic

I talyGreecePortugal

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

21222

Early selection and institutional differentiation

High degree of stratificationLow degree of stratification

6

4949U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

taMoney matters - but other things do too

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000400

425

450

475

500

525

550

575

495

410

488

f(x) = 0.000612701270434401 x + 462.612736410929R² = 0.19035445894851

Scienceperformance

Cumulative expenditure (US$ converted using PPPs)

5050U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

Portu

gal

Spain

Switz

erlan

d

Turk

ey

Belg

ium

Kore

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Germ

any

Gree

ce

Japa

n

Aust

ralia

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

m

New

Zeala

nd

Fran

ce

Neth

erlan

ds

Denm

ark

Italy

Aust

ria

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Hung

ary

Norw

ay

Icela

nd

Irelan

d

Mexic

o

Finlan

d

Swed

en

Unite

d St

ates

Polan

d

Slov

ak R

epub

lic

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Salary as % of GDP/capita Instruction time 1/teaching time 1/class sizePo

rtuga

l

Spain

Switz

erlan

d

Turk

ey

Belg

ium

Kore

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Germ

any

Gree

ce

Japa

n

Aust

ralia

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

m

New

Zeala

nd

Fran

ce

Neth

erlan

ds

Denm

ark

Italy

Aust

ria

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Hung

ary

Norw

ay

Icela

nd

Irelan

d

Mexic

o

Finlan

d

Swed

en

Unite

d St

ates

Polan

d

Slov

ak R

epub

lic

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Difference with OECD average

Spending choices on secondary schoolsContribution of various factors to upper secondary teacher compensation costs

per student as a percentage of GDP per capita (2004)

Percentage points

5151U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta Paradigm shifts

Prescription Informed profession

Uniformity Embracing diversity

Demarcation Collaboration

Provision Outcomes

Bureaucratic – look up Devolved – look outwards

Talk equity Deliver equity

Hit & miss Universal high standards

Received wisdom Data and best practice

The old bureaucratic education system The modern enabling education system

5252U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

Towards next generation of global benchmarks

Challenges to the instrumentsChallenges to the approach

5353U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

Low policy value

High policy value

Low feasibility High feasibility

Money pits

Must haves

Low-hanging fruits

Quick wins

Examine individual, institutional and systemic

factors associated with high performance

Establish the relative standing of countries in terms of quality and equity in basic

school subjects

Extending the range of competencies through which quality is assessed (including ICT)

Measuring growth in learning

Bridging gap between formative and summative

assessment .

Monitor educational progress

5454U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta Why care? Progress

Concerns about skill barriers to economic growth, productivity growth and rates of technological innovation– One additional year of education equals to between

3 and 6% of GDP– Rising tertiary level qualifications seem generally not

to have led to an “inflation” of the labour-market value of qualifications (in all but three of the 20 countries with available data, the earnings benefit increased between 1997 and 2003, in Germany, Italy and Hungary by between 20% and 40%)

Fairness Concerns about the role of skills in creating

social inequity in economic outcomes– Both average and distribution of skill matter

to long-term growth (high percentages of low skill impede growth)

Value for money Concerns about the demand for, and efficiency

and effectiveness of, investments in public goods

5555U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

0

10

20

30

40

1989

1994

1999

2004

2014

2019

2024

2029

2034

2039

2044

2049

2054

2059

2064

The cost of inactionImproved GDP from achieving the goal of being first in the world by 2000

Note: *K-12 education expenitures are assumed to be constant at the level attained in 2005. These data show that economic benefits from a 1989 reform that raised the U.S. to the highest levels of test performance would cover the cost of K-12 education by 2015

Source:Eric Hanushek

Percent addition to GDP

10-year reform20-year reform30-year reformTotal U.S. K-12 spending

5656U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

5757U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Mar

ch, 2

2 20

09B

ringi

ng L

esso

ns fr

om th

e W

orld

’s T

op P

erfo

rmer

s to

Min

neso

ta

Thank you !

www.oecd.org; www.pisa.oecd.org– All national and international publications– The complete micro-level database

email: [email protected]

[email protected]

…and remember:Without data, you are just another person with an opinion

bringing lessons from the world

Documents