2013年7月12日 星期五
凱撒‧庫里雅瑪 (Cesar Kuriyama): 每日一秒
凱撒‧庫里雅瑪 (Cesar Kuriyama): 每日一秒
人生中有許多渺小、美麗、有趣、悲傷的時刻 -- 你如何才能逐一記住？導演凱撒‧庫里雅瑪 (Cesar Kuriyama) 每天都拍攝一秒並且持續在拍攝中的影片，作為一個收錄他生命中每個特別片段的計劃。
Cesar Kuriyama has been s
安德里亞斯‧施萊歇爾：用統計資料來建立更好的學校 Andreas Schleicher: Use data to build better schools
安德里亞斯‧施萊歇爾：用統計資料來建立更好的學校
讓我們來看看1960年代 世界各國的人口 完成高中教育的比例 你可以看到美國傲視群雄 而許多美國的經濟成就 歸功於這種長久以來 作為教育先驅者的優勢 但在1970年代，一些國家急起直追 到了1980年代 全球的人才數量持續成長 1990年代也毫不減勢 所以美國在60年代是第1名 到了90年代變成第13名 這並不是因為美國的水準下降了 而是因為其他國家迅速地追上
這告訴我們在全球經濟中 國家的進步不再是成功的指標 擁有國際上最好的教育體系才是 問題是 衡量學生在校的時間 或他們獲得的學位 並非總是判斷他們實力的好方法 看看街上那麼多找不到工作的畢業生 而雇主們卻在抱怨 找不到擁有合適技能的人才 這就說明了更高的學歷無法自動轉化為 更好的技能、更好的工作以及更好的生活
有了PISA我們試著去改變這樣的情況 學生的知識和技能 以直接的方式來衡量 我們採用一個非常特別的觀點 我們比較不在意 學生是否能複製在校所學 我們比較想測驗的是 他們能否從所學中舉一反三 以及在新環境中運用他們的知識 有些人批評這樣的方法 他們說這種衡量結果的方式 對學生極為不公平因為我們的測驗 是他們從未見過的問題 但是如果你認同那樣的邏輯 你應該認為生活就是不公平的 因為生活中對真理的測驗並不在於 我們是否記得在學校學過什麼 而是在於我們是否為改變做好了準備 我們是否準備好去面對各種新工作 去運用尚未發明的科技 去解決今天無法預期的問題
經過激烈的爭論後 我們衡量結果的方法很快就成為了標準 在2009年最新的測驗中 我們衡量了74個學校體系 共涵蓋了87%的經濟體 這張圖顯示了各國的得分 紅色是低於OECD平均值的黃色是中等，而綠色是表現優秀的國家 你們可以發現亞洲的上海、韓國、新加坡 歐洲的芬蘭以及北美洲的加拿大都有很好的表現 你們也可以看到 在上海和智利的15歲少年之間 有幾乎3.5個學年的差距 而差距會擴大為7個學年 如果包含了那些表現很差的國家 世界各國為年青人面對今日經濟發展 所做的準備不同
但我想要把第二個重要的特點 加入這個現象中 教育界人士喜歡討論公平 我們想用PISA來衡量他們究竟如何實現公平 如何確保所有的學生 來自不同的社會背景都擁有平等的機會 我們看到在一些國家 社會背景對學習成果的影響 非常巨大 機會的分配是不平等的 許多有潛力的孩子們被忽略了 我們看到在其他國家 成長背景的影響小了許多 我們都希望自己屬於右上角的那個象限 學生表現優秀而且學習機會均等 沒有人也沒有任何一個國家想要在那裡(左下角象限) 不僅學生表現差 而且社會差距過大 然後要討論的是(剩下的兩個象限)哪個比較好 是要屬於成績好 但社會差距大的象限? 還是要注重平等但接受平庸？ 但實際上如果你去檢視圖上的各個國家 可以發現有很多國家 能夠兼顧優秀和公平 事實上這個比較結果讓我們上了重要的一課 那就是無需犧牲公平 來達成優秀 這些國家從少數人優秀 進步到所有人優秀 這是一個非常重要的發現 這也挑戰了很多學校體系的範例 他們認為學校的存在主要是為了把學生分類這些測驗結果發佈後世界各國的政治決策者 教育工作者和研究人員 都想試著去找出 那些體系的成功有什麼訣竅
讓我們退一步來看 並聚焦於那些發展PISA的國家 我用彩色的泡泡來代表他們 並讓泡泡的大小 按比例 反映出這些國家花費在學生身上的金錢多寡 如果金錢能夠說明 學習成果的品質 你就該看到所有的大泡泡都在上面，不是嗎？ 但事實並非如此 對每位學生的花費 只解釋了不到20% 國家之間表現差異的原因 譬如，盧森堡是最昂貴的體系 但並非表現最好 你會發現花費相近的兩個國家 結果卻非常不同 你也會看到—而我認為這是一個非常鼓舞人心的發現 我們的世界已不再是涇渭分明 不再分成富裕且教育良好的國家 以及貧窮且教育糟糕的國家 這是非常非常重要的一課
讓我們更詳細地來看 紅點表示 對每位學生的花費占一個國家財富的比例 投入金錢的方式之一是提高教師收入 你可以看到韓國大量地投入 來吸引最優秀的人才成為專業教師 韓國也投入長時間的上課天數 進一步提高了成本 還有，韓國希望老師們 除了傳授知識,還要去培養及開發 他們投入專業的發展與合作專案 以及其他許多項目 這些都要花錢 韓國如何負擔這些?答案是大班教育 就是這條藍色的圓柱使得成本下降 再來看看旁邊的盧森堡 這個紅點與韓國在一模一樣的位置 這表示盧森堡在每位學生身上的花費與韓國相當 但盧森堡的家長、教師和政策制定者 都喜歡小班教學 因為走進一個小班級感覺很舒服 所以他們把錢都投入在那裡 藍色的這一條,也就是班級大小使得成本上升 但即使是盧森堡也無法將金錢重複使用 而代價就是 教師的收入沒有特別好 學生的上學時間不長 基本上，老師除了教書之外並沒有時間去做其他事情 所以你可以看到，兩個國家花錢的方式非常不一樣 而實際上他們如何用錢 比用了多少錢對教育有更多的影響
讓我們回到2000年 記住,這一年iPod還沒有出現 這是當時世界各國的樣子 以PISA測驗結果來看 首先你會注意到所有的泡泡都小了許多,對吧? 那時我們在教育上的花費少了許多 大約少了35% 我們自問：如果已經在教育上投入了這麼多的錢 它是不是也跟著改善了許多？ 但讓人難堪的事實是 沒有多少個國家真正如此 不過有一些國家 已經有了不起的進步 我的母國德國,在2000年 屬於底下的那個象限 成績低於平均，社會差距大 要知道，德國曾經是一個 在擁有學位的國民數量上名列前茅的國家 測驗結果讓人非常失望 人們感到震驚 史無前例地，德國的公眾辯論 圍繞教育話題進行了數月 不是稅收，不是其他問題，而是教育 成為了公眾議題的焦點 後來政策制定者開始做出應對 聯邦政府大幅增加教育投資 努力提供更多機會 給來自移民家庭或社會弱勢群體的學生 有趣的是，這不僅是 使現有的體制更完善 同時也轉變了一些信念及範例 原本是德國教育的基礎 譬如，幼兒教育在傳統上 被認為是家庭的職責，而且你能看到在許多例子中 當婦女把孩子送到幼稚園 會被視為忽視家庭職責 PISA轉變了這個爭論 並且促使幼兒早期教育成為 德國公眾政策的核心 還有，傳統上德國的教育 把10歲的小孩，很小的年紀 區分為將來會成為知識工作者的人 以及將來為知識工作者工作的人 這樣的區分主要是依循社會經濟的路線 而這種典範現在也遇到了挑戰 發生了許多改變
再來看看屬於最高象限的韓國 在2000年韓國已經有很不錯的表現 但韓國人擔心，只有小部分的學生 達到非常優異的成績 他們接受了挑戰 並使得在十年內使得閱讀表現優秀的學生 比例增加了一倍 如果你只集中於培養最聰明的學生 你知道這會造成社會差距擴大 你會看到泡泡稍微朝另一個方向移動 不過這仍是很好的改進
所以確實可以看到很多的改變 甚至那些抱怨說 國家之間的排名高低 譬如PISA測驗結果，不過是一種人工產物，來自於文化、 經濟因素、社會問題、 社會均一性等因素 這些人現在必須承認教育改革是可能的 大家知道，波蘭並沒有改變它的文化 也沒有改變它的經濟 也沒有改變它的人口結構 他們沒有開除教師,而是改變了教育政策 和教育實務，非常了不起
所有這些產生了一個問題： 我們能從綠色象限的國家中學到什麼？ 這些國家創造了高水準的平等 優秀的表現，並且提升了成果 當然，問題在於：在某個國家的成功經驗 能否複製於另一個國家? 當然的，你不能複製整個教育體系 但這些比較結果辨識出了一些要素 是表現優異的體系共同擁有的 每個人都認同教育是重要的 每個人都這麼說 但對事實上這個測驗是顯示出：如何去衡量教育和其他事務 的先後順序？ 國家付給老師的薪水 如何和其他高技術勞工比較？ 父母希望孩子當老師 還是做律師？ 媒體上是怎麼談論學校和教師的？ 這些都是至關重要的問題 而我們從PISA學到，在高績效的教育體系中 領導者讓市民相信並選擇 要重視教育、重視未來 更甚於今天的消費 有趣的是，你可能不會相信 有些國家最吸引人的地方 並不是購物中心，而是學校 這樣的事情真的存在
但只重視教育 還不夠 另外還要相信所有的孩子 都能成功 有些國家的學生 從小就被分班了 學生被區隔 反映出人們相信只有某些孩子 能達到世界級的水準 而這通常和很嚴重的社會不平等有關 如果你去亞洲的日本、或歐洲的芬蘭 這些國家的父母和教師 希望每個孩子都能成材你會發現這種信念真的會投射在學生的行為上 當我們問學生們 要怎麼學好數學 北美的學生通常回答 這跟天賦有關 如果我生下來就不是數學天才，那麼我最好去學別的科目 而日本學生10個裡面有9個會回答 要靠我自己的投入,我自己的努力 這說明了很多有關他們所處的體系
而教育系統的品質 取決於系統中教師的品質 高績效系統非常注重 教師的招聘和挑選 以及培訓教師的方法 他們注重如何去改善 那些有困難的老師的績效 以及如何規劃教師的薪水 他們也提供一個環境讓教師共同合作 開發優良的教學方式 他們為教師提供深造的途徑 在職業發展上 在官僚作風的學校體系中 教師總是獨自一人在教室裡 照本宣科 而高績效系統非常清楚好的績效是什麼 他們訂立了野心勃勃的標準 但同時也讓教師自由發揮 —今天我要教些什麼?過去的教育是在傳承智慧 現在的挑戰是要讓需要的人產生智慧 高績效系統已經不是 責任和控制的專業或管理模式 也就是，如何去檢查學生是否有做功課 它們已轉變成工作組織的專業模式 他們鼓勵教師在教學方式上推陳出新 為教師提供所需的進修 來發展更優秀的教學方法過去的目標是標準化和循規蹈矩 高績效系統讓教師們 和校長們勇於創新 在過去，政策著重於結果 和規章制度 高績效系統幫助教師 和校長放眼教師的未來 和學校的未來
世界級水準系統最了不起的成果在於 它能達成體系內全方面的優良表現 芬蘭的PISA結果非常好 原因在於 只有5%的得分差異 發生在學校之間 每一間學校都成功了 這種成功是系統性的 他們如何做到的? 他們把資源投入到最能產生效益的地方 他們吸引最優秀的校長去最棘手的學校 吸引最優秀的教師 去最有挑戰的班級
知道成功的體系如何成功 還不能告訴我們如何去改善(自己的體系) 這很明顯，而這些限制 存在於PISA的國際比較裡 這裡需要其他形式的研究介入 這也是為什麼PISA沒有冒昧去 告訴各個國家應該怎麼做 但PISA的優點在於告訴大家 別人都在做什麼 PISA的例子說明了 資料比財務補貼的行政控制還要有效 後者是我們平常管理教育系統的方式
有些人提出 教育管理的改革 就像遷墳 你無法依賴墳墓裡的人來幫你(笑聲) 但是PISA指出了教育的可能性 它幫助國家去瞭解進步是可能的 那些固步自封的人不能再找藉口了 它協助國家訂立有意義的目標 依據領先國家已達到的可衡量目標 如果我們能夠幫助每一個孩子、每一位教師、每一所學校、 每一位校長、每一位父母都去瞭解進步的可能性 那麼教育改革的前景就無可限量 我們已建立了基礎 為更好的政策和更好的生活
(掌聲)
Radical openness is still a distant future in the field of school education. We have such a hard time figuring out that learning is not a place but an activity.
But I want to tell you the story of PISA, OECD's test to measure the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds around the world, and it's really a story of how international comparisons have globalized the field of education that we usually treat as an affair of domestic policy.
Look at how the world looked in the 1960s, in terms of the proportion of people who had completed high school. You can see the United States ahead of everyone else, and much of the economic success of the United States draws on its long-standing advantage as the first mover in education. But in the 1970s, some countries caught up. In the 1980s, the global expansion of the talent pool continued. And the world didn't stop in the 1990s. So in the '60s, the U.S. was first. In the '90s, it was 13th, and not because standards had fallen,but because they had risen so much faster elsewhere.
Korea shows you what's possible in education. Two generations ago, Korea had the standard of living of Afghanistan today, and was one of the lowest education performers.Today, every young Korean finishes high school.
So this tells us that, in a global economy, it is no longer national improvement that's the benchmark for success, but the best performing education systems internationally. The trouble is that measuring how much time people spend in school or what degree they have got is not always a good way of seeing what they can actually do. Look at the toxic mix of unemployed graduates on our streets, while employers say they cannot find the people with the skills they need. And that tells you that better degrees don't automatically translate into better skills and better jobs and better lives.
So with PISA, we try to change this by measuring the knowledge and skills of people directly. And we took a very special angle to this. We were less interested in whether students can simply reproduce what they have learned in school, but we wanted to test whether they can extrapolate from what they know and apply their knowledge in novel situations. Now, some people have criticized us for this. They say, you know, such a way of measuring outcomes is terribly unfair to people, because we test students with problems they haven't seen before. But if you take that logic, you know, you should consider life unfair, because the test of truth in life is not whether we can remember what we learned in school, but whether we are prepared for change, whether we are prepared for jobs that haven't been created, to use technologies that haven't been invented, to solve problems we just can't anticipate today.
And once hotly contested, our way of measuring outcomes has actually quickly become the standard. In our latest assessment in 2009, we measured 74 school systems that together cover 87 percent of the economy. This chart shows you the performance of countries. In red, sort of below OECD average. Yellow is so-so, and in green are the countries doing really well. You can see Shanghai, Korea, Singapore in Asia; Finland in Europe; Canada in North America doing really well. You can also see that there is a gap of almost three and a half school years between 15-year-olds in Shanghai and 15-year-olds in Chile, and the gap grows to seven school years when you include the countries with really poor performance.There's a world of difference in the way in which young people are prepared for today's economy.
But I want to introduce a second important dimension into this picture. Educators like to talk about equity. With PISA, we wanted to measure how they actually deliver equity, in terms of ensuring that people from different social backgrounds have equal chances. And we see that in some countries, the impact of social background on learning outcomes is very, very strong. Opportunities are unequally distributed. A lot of potential of young children is wasted. We see in other countries that it matters much less into which social context you're born. We all want to be there, in the upper right quadrant, where performance is strong and learning opportunities are equally distributed. Nobody, and no country, can afford to be there, where performance is poor and there are large social disparities. And then we can debate, you know, is it better to be there, where performance is strong at the price of large disparities? Or do we want to focus on equity and accept mediocrity? But actually, if you look at how countries come out on this picture, you see there are a lot of countries that actually are combining excellence with equity. In fact, one of the most important lessons from this comparison is that you don't have to compromise equity to achieve excellence.These countries have moved on from providing excellence for just some to providing excellence for all, a very important lesson. And that also challenges the paradigms of many school systems that believe they are mainly there to sort people. And ever since those results came out, policymakers, educators, researchers from around the world have tried to figure out what's behind the success of those systems.
But let's step back for a moment and focus on the countries that actually started PISA, and I'm giving them a colored bubble now. And I'm making the size of the bubble proportional to the amount of money that countries spent on students. If money would tell you everythingabout the quality of learning outcomes, you would find all the large bubbles at the top, no?But that's not what you see. Spending per student only explains about, well, less than 20 percent of the performance variation among countries, and Luxembourg, for example, the most expensive system, doesn't do particularly well. What you see is that two countries with similar spending achieve very different results. You also see -- and I think that's one of the most encouraging findings -- that we no longer live in a world that is neatly dividedbetween rich and well-educated countries, and poor and badly-educated ones, a very, very important lesson.
Let's look at this in greater detail. The red dot shows you spending per student relative to a country's wealth. One way you can spend money is by paying teachers well, and you can see Korea investing a lot in attracting the best people into the teaching profession. And Korea also invests into long school days, which drives up costs further. Last but not least, Koreans want their teachers not only to teach but also to develop. They invest in professional development and collaboration and many other things. All that costs money.How can Korea afford all of this? The answer is, students in Korea learn in large classes.This is the blue bar which is driving costs down. You go to the next country on the list, Luxembourg, and you can see the red dot is exactly where it is for Korea, so Luxembourg spends the same per student as Korea does. But, you know, parents and teachers and policymakers in Luxembourg all like small classes. You know, it's very pleasant to walk into a small class. So they have invested all their money into there, and the blue bar, class size, is driving costs up. But even Luxembourg can spend its money only once, and the price for this is that teachers are not paid particularly well. Students don't have long hours of learning. And basically, teachers have little time to do anything else than teaching. So you can see two countries spent their money very differently, and actually how they spent their money matters a lot more than how much they invest in education.
Let's go back to the year 2000. Remember, that was the year before the iPod was invented.This is how the world looked then in terms of PISA performance. The first thing you can see is that the bubbles were a lot smaller, no? We spent a lot less on education, about 35 percent less on education. So you ask yourself, if education has become so much more expensive, has it become so much better? And the bitter truth really is that, you know, not in many countries. But there are some countries which have seen impressive improvements.Germany, my own country, in the year 2000, featured in the lower quadrant, below average performance, large social disparities. And remember, Germany, we used to be one of those countries that comes out very well when you just count people who have degrees. Very disappointing results. People were stunned by the results. And for the very first time, the public debate in Germany was dominated for months by education, not tax, not other kinds of issues, but education was the center of the public debate. And then policymakers began to respond to this. The federal government dramatically raised its investment in education. A lot was done to increase the life chances of students with an immigrant background or from social disadvantage. And what's really interesting is that this wasn't just about optimizing existing policies, but data transformed some of the beliefs and paradigms underlying German education. For example, traditionally, the education of the very young children was seen as the business of families, and you would have cases where women were seen as neglecting their family responsibilities when they sent their children to kindergarten. PISA has transformed that debate, and pushed early childhood education right at the center of public policy in Germany. Or traditionally, the German education divides children at the age of 10, very young children, between those deemed to pursue careers of knowledge workersand those who would end up working for the knowledge workers, and that mainly along socioeconomic lines, and that paradigm is being challenged now too. A lot of change.
And the good news is, nine years later, you can see improvements in quality and equity.People have taken up the challenge, done something about it.
Or take Korea, at the other end of the spectrum. In the year 2000, Korea did already very well, but the Koreans were concerned that only a small share of their students achieved the really high levels of excellence. They took up the challenge, and Korea was able to double the proportion of students achieving excellence in one decade in the field of reading. Well, if you only focus on your brightest students, you know what happens is disparities grow, and you can see this bubble moving slightly to the other direction, but still, an impressive improvement.
A major overhaul of Poland's education helped to dramatically reduce between variability among schools, turn around many of the lowest-performing schools, and raise performance by over half a school year. And you can see other countries as well. Portugal was able to consolidate its fragmented school system, raise quality and improve equity, and so did Hungary.
So what you can actually see, there's been a lot of change. And even those people who complain and say that the relative standing of countries on something like PISA is just an artifact of culture, of economic factors, of social issues, of homogeneity of societies, and so on, these people must now concede that education improvement is possible. You know, Poland hasn't changed its culture. It didn't change its economy. It didn't change the compositions of its population. It didn't fire its teachers. It changed its education policiesand practice. Very impressive.
And all that raises, of course, the question: What can we learn from those countries in the green quadrant who have achieved high levels of equity, high levels of performance, and raised outcomes? And, of course, the question is, can what works in one context provide a model elsewhere? Of course, you can't copy and paste education systems wholesale, but these comparisons have identified a range of factors that high-performing systems share.Everybody agrees that education is important. Everybody says that. But the test of truth is, how do you weigh that priority against other priorities? How do countries pay their teachersrelative to other highly skilled workers? Would you want your child to become a teacherrather than a lawyer? How do the media talk about schools and teachers? Those are the critical questions, and what we have learned from PISA is that, in high-performing education systems, the leaders have convinced their citizens to make choices that value education, their future, more than consumption today. And you know what's interesting? You won't believe it, but there are countries in which the most attractive place to be is not the shopping center but the school. Those things really exist.
But placing a high value on education is just part of the picture. The other part is the belief that all children are capable of success. You have some countries where students are segregated early in their ages. You know, students are divided up, reflecting the belief that only some children can achieve world-class standards. But usually that is linked to very strong social disparities. If you go to Japan in Asia, or Finland in Europe, parents and teachers in those countries expect every student to succeed, and you can see that actually mirrored in student behavior. When we asked students what counts for success in mathematics, students in North America would typically tell us, you know, it's all about talent. If I'm not born as a genius in math, I'd better study something else. Nine out of 10 Japanese students say that it depends on my own investment, on my own effort, and that tells you a lot about the system that is around them.
In the past, different students were taught in similar ways. High performers on PISA embrace diversity with differentiated pedagogical practices. They realize that ordinary students have extraordinary talents, and they personalize learning opportunities.
High-performing systems also share clear and ambitious standards across the entire spectrum. Every student knows what matters. Every student knows what's required to be successful.
And nowhere does the quality of an education system exceed the quality of its teachers.High-performing systems are very careful in how they recruit and select their teachers and how they train them. They watch how they improve the performances of teachers in difficulties who are struggling, and how they structure teacher pay. They provide an environment also in which teachers work together to frame good practice. And they provide intelligent pathways for teachers to grow in their careers. In bureaucratic school systems,teachers are often left alone in classrooms with a lot of prescription on what they should be teaching. High-performing systems are very clear what good performance is. They set very ambitious standards, but then they enable their teachers to figure out, what do I need to teach to my students today? The past was about delivered wisdom in education. Now the challenge is to enable user-generated wisdom. High performers have moved on from professional or from administrative forms of accountability and control -- sort of, how do you check whether people do what they're supposed to do in education -- to professional forms of work organization. They enable their teachers to make innovations in pedagogy. They provide them with the kind of development they need to develop stronger pedagogical practices. The goal of the past was standardization and compliance. High-performing systems have made teachers and school principals inventive. In the past, the policy focus was on outcomes, on provision. The high-performing systems have helped teachers and school principals to look outwards to the next teacher, the next school around their lives.
And the most impressive outcomes of world-class systems is that they achieve high performance across the entire system. You've seen Finland doing so well on PISA, but what makes Finland so impressive is that only five percent of the performance variation amongst students lies between schools. Every school succeeds. This is where success is systemic.And how do they do that? They invest resources where they can make the most difference.They attract the strongest principals into the toughest schools, and the most talented teachers into the most challenging classroom.
Last but not least, those countries align policies across all areas of public policy. They make them coherent over sustained periods of time, and they ensure that what they do is consistently implemented.
Now, knowing what successful systems are doing doesn't yet tell us how to improve. That's also clear, and that's where some of the limits of international comparisons of PISA are.That's where other forms of research need to kick in, and that's also why PISA doesn't venture into telling countries what they should be doing. But its strength lies in telling themwhat everybody else has been doing. And the example of PISA shows that data can be more powerful than administrative control of financial subsidy through which we usually run education systems.
You know, some people argue that changing educational administration is like moving graveyards. You just can't rely on the people out there to help you with this. (Laughter) But PISA has shown what's possible in education. It has helped countries to see that improvement is possible. It has taken away excuses from those who are complacent. And it has helped countries to set meaningful targets in terms of measurable goals achieved by the world's leaders. If we can help every child, every teacher, every school, every principal, every parent see what improvement is possible, that only the sky is the limit to education improvement, we have laid the foundations for better policies and better lives.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)