International Benchmarking

1
International Benchmarking

• Stan W. Heffner

2
Why International Benchmarking?

• Ohio should benchmark its academic standards
  with those in other states and nations, to ensure
  that its standards are as rigorous, as focused,
  and as useful to teachers as the best in the
  nation and the world. In doing so, the State
  should pay particular attention to the breadth of
  its standards, as international research has
  identified benefits of few, more focused topics
  of study (Achieve, 2006).

3
Purpose of International Benchmarking

• Identify best practices which Ohio can use to
  improve student achievement
• Compare Ohio to top performing nations in order
  to
• Revise content standards
• Ensure high levels of cognitive demands
• Set benchmarks in science and mathematics
• Identify best practices in teaching and student
  support
• Further the economic best interest of the state

4
Test Scores and Economic Growth
5
Measures for Comparison
6
Countries Selected Significantly and Persistently
Outscore the US
Significantly Higher
United States
Significantly Lower
7
Which are the High Performing Countries?
International Assessments (PISA)

• Science
• Finland
• Hong Kong
• Japan
• New Zealand
• Ontario, Canada
• Singapore
• United Kingdom
• US is 19 / 40

• Math
• Finland
• Hong Kong
• Japan
• Netherlands
• Singapore
• United Kingdom
• US is 28 / 40

8
Three Comparative Lenses

• Academic
• Social and Cultural
• Teaching Profession

9
First Lens Curriculum
10
Organized by Topics Mathematics
11
Preliminary Findings Academic
12
Preliminary Findings Academic

• Articulate national curriculum for grades K-12
  (or equivalent)
• Describe national- or state-directed
  instructional delivery systems
• Examine how differing levels of cognitive demand
  are distributed throughout the nations
  assessments

13
Three Comparative Lenses

• Academic
• Social and Cultural
• Teaching Profession

14
Second Lens Social and Cultural Influences
15
Preliminary Findings Social and Cultural

• Description of the structure of the nations
  educational system
• Most systems differentiate curriculum (content)
  from about age 15 with a focus on preparing
  students for university, employment, or other
  tertiary learning programs

16
Preliminary Findings Social and Cultural

• Describe how, if at all, social services are
  integrated into educational services
• Most comparison countries do better than the US
  at mediating the impact of socio-economic status
• Describe the extent to which the nations schools
  have a homogeneous student population or capacity
  to respond to diversity
• Most the comparison countries have immigrant
  populations at least equivalent to the US (by
  percentage)

17
Three Comparative Lenses

• Academic
• Social and Cultural
• Teaching Profession

18
Third Lens Status of the Teaching Profession
19
Preliminary Findings Teaching Profession

• Compare how teachers are recruited and prepared
• Most countries screen teacher candidates at
  hiring
• Analyze teacher compensation systems
• Many high-performing countries have
• High starting salaries
• Shorter steps of advancement
• Fewer steps to the top of the pay scale
• Examine how and when teachers receive
  professional development

20
Summary What are High-Achieving Nations Doing?

• Lean curriculum
• Focused on deep understanding and higher order
  skills
• Lower stakes, higher standards
• Investments
• Teacher preparation and school-level support
• Equitable spending
• Extra investments in high-need schools and
  students
• Performance assessments
• Guide and gauge progress
• Classroom-based assessments as part of the system

21
Next Steps

• Data collection
• Validation panel
• Progress reports to State Board of Education
  Achievement Committee
• Pilot performance assessments
• Employ in standards review and revisions