Thursday, November 16, 2017

Is the growth of international student mobility coming to a halt?

by Dirk Van Damme
Head of the Skills Beyond School Division,  Directorate for Education and Skills


Higher education is one of the most globally integrated systems of the modern world. There still are important barriers to the international recognition of degrees or the transfer of credits, but some of the basic features of higher education enjoy global convergence and collaboration. This is most visible in the research area, where advanced research is now carried out in international networks. But also in the field of teaching and learning, the international dimension has become very important. The so-called European Higher Education Area stands out as an area where degree structures, credit transfer arrangements and quality assurance frameworks have been aligned in order to adjust qualifications with the needs of an integrated labour market.

Yet, higher education is also one of the most unequal and hierarchical systems of the modern world; globalisation has not yet made the world of higher education a ‘flat’ one. There are huge imbalances between the quantitative supply and demand of education. And the imbalance in quality is even more striking: using an imperfect measure of quality such as the one provided by the global university rankings, one can immediately see that the perceived quality and reputation of academic institutions is concentrated in just a few countries, while the demand is exploding in other parts of the world. The academic top league (say, the top 50 institutions in any of the global rankings) is particularly concentrated, and because of the metrics used to determine quality it is very difficult for institutions in other parts of the world to enter that club.

To some extent international student mobility can be seen as a consequence of global academic inequality. Students are moving to other parts of the globe in order to find the best possible education their money can buy. International student mobility is one of the ways through which the geographical gap between supply and demand is being overcome. Investing resources in one’s son or daughter in order to secure them a high-quality credential has become a preferred strategy of affluent middle class families in emerging countries, especially after their purchasing power started to increase. The chart above shows that for many years the total number of international students remained rather stable around 1 million, but that from the 1990s onwards the numbers started to grow significantly. Some countries were quick to tap into this opportunity and developed strategies to market their higher education offer. From 0.8 million in 1975, the number rose to 4.2 million thirty-five years later.

Many people expected the growth to continue and even to accelerate. But that is not what happened, as is also clear from the chart. From 2012 onwards the growth really stopped. Between 2012 and 2015 a mere 100 thousand students were added to the 4.5 million. The recent figures, published in the OECD’s latest Education at a Glance, suggest that it is not just a temporary setback, but a more structural phenomenon.

What could be the reasons for this change? We probably need to look at developments both on the demand and the supply side. Regarding the former, the obvious explanation is the improvement of domestic education in the most important countries of origin. China, and to a lesser extent India, have invested huge resources in developing their higher education system, including a select number of universities that are predestined to achieve world-class status in the next few years. Chinese universities are now aggressively entering the global rankings and continue to improve their ranks every single year. Changing prospects at home have an impact on the investments strategies of affluent middle-class families in these nations.

Still, changes on the demand side alone cannot explain the lack of growth. Indeed, the potential reservoir of interested students in these countries remains immense. We also have to look at the supply side, to developments in the main countries of destination. It is evident that in the main countries active in the field of exporting education services, things have fundamentally changed as well. From a very hospitable and welcoming approach to international students, popular and political attitudes have reversed things into a much more hostile stance. This has happened in the main destination countries such as Australia, the UK and the US, but also in upcoming players such as Switzerland, Sweden or the Netherlands. The general backlash against migration, aggravated by the refugee crisis and the flows of asylum seekers, has also turned the climate for foreign students upside down. Populist and often false accusations that foreign students are only interested in permanent migration, and that they take the future jobs of domestic students, are now in the media every day.

The recent 2017 Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange data, published by the Institute of International Education (IIE), points to a decrease of 7% in the numbers of new international students enrolling in US higher education institutions. The majority of surveyed institutions (52%) in the IIE survey expressed concern that the country’s social and political climate could deter prospective international students. In the UK, a political decision is being discussed of removing international students from the government’s target of reducing net immigration. Still, Brexit and a general hostile climate against migration in the UK is probably also becoming a deterrent for international students. Similar developments can be seen in other countries of destination.

What is happening at both the demand and supply side of international higher education is fundamentally reshaping the size and direction of international student mobility flows. In a strange way, they are reshaping the global academic inequalities. At the same time they are also redefining where and how the future professionals and leaders of the 21st century world will be educated. Just as much as academic education was an important instrument in shaping the post-WWII global order, the current changes in international education will have a profound impact on the 21st century world.

Links 
Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators
Open Doors 2017

Follow the conversation on Twitter: #OECDEAG 


Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Is free higher education fair?

by Andreas Schleicher 
Director, Directorate for Education and Skills 


Skills have become the currency of 21st century economies and, despite the significant increase the UK has seen in university graduation over the last decade, the earnings of workers with a Master’s degree remain over 80% higher than those of workers with just five good GCSEs or an equivalent vocational qualification. Sure, not every university graduate will end up with a great salary, but the claim that for many studying does not pay is a myth: just one in 10 university graduates earn less than half the median salary, a figure which is double for adults with only five good GCSEs, and another 22% of graduates earn between half the median and the median salary. Conversely, 21% earn more than twice the median, three times more than those with five good GCESs. Beyond the monetary benefits, higher education brings important social benefits for individuals and nations, ranging from better health through to greater social participation, and up to more trust in people and institutions.

Some say these trends are all futures of the past, and that the job prospects of future graduates may look much worse, particularly if bringing in more and more people eventually means including less qualified applicants. But people have been saying these things ever since I began tracking those numbers over a decade ago, and the bottom line is that, so far, the rise in knowledge workers has generally not led to a decline in their pay, as we have seen for people at the lower end of the skills spectrum.

That brings up the question of who should pay for this, because there simply is no free university education.

The Nordic countries in Europe pay for universities through the public purse and some even generously subsidise the living costs of university students. It makes sense for them because participation is almost universal and they have a steeply progressive tax system so that they can recuperate the funds from graduates who typically end up as the better earners.

European countries like France or Germany, too, say higher education is important, but their governments are neither willing to put in the required funds nor allowing most of their universities to charge tuition. They end up compromising quality and limiting provision, with the effect that all workers end up paying for the university education of the rich parents’ children. That is, because wherever access is limited, it tends to be the wealthiest and not the smartest students who get the best places, whatever the source of funds.

The third alternative is to allow universities to charge tuition, and interestingly, OECD data show absolutely no cross-country relationship between the level of tuition fees countries charge and the participation of disadvantaged youth in tertiary education. In fact, social mobility is worse in Germany, which pays for all almost university education through the public purse, than it is in the UK. That is because to mobilise those public funds for higher education, Germany ends up charging tuition for children in kindergarten, which leads to a much less level playing field from the start.

But getting tuition right is not simple either. If countries put the burden for tuition entirely on the shoulders of families, they risk not attracting the brightest but instead the wealthiest children to attend, which means not making the most out of the country’s talent.

If countries rely mainly on commercial loans which students have to repay once they finish their studies, they still leave students and families with the risk, because the promise of greater lifetime earnings of graduates is a statistical one, and there is actually very wide dispersion in earnings. The UK, and some other countries too, have tried to square that circle with a combination of income-contingent loans and means-tested grants. That basically means risk-free access to financing for prospective students with governments leveraging, but not paying, for the costs.

The loans reduce the liquidity constraints faced by individuals at the time of study, while the income-contingent nature of the loans system addresses the risk and uncertainty faced by individuals (insurance against inability to repay) and improves the progressiveness of the overall system (lower public subsidy for graduates with higher private returns). In the UK, the repayments of graduates correspond to a proportion of their earnings and low earners make low or no repayments, and graduates with low lifetime earnings end up not repaying their loans in full.

But even the best loan system is often not sufficient. There is ample evidence that young people from low income families or from families with poorly educated parents (but also youth who just don't have good information on the benefits of tertiary education) underestimate the net benefits of tertiary education. That’s why it has paid off for the UK to complement the loan scheme with means-tested grants or tuition waivers for vulnerable groups. It will be worth it to continue to do so, simply because people with better education will pay much more in taxes than what their education costs.

Sure, those loan and grant systems cost money, and have shifted risks to government which will end up paying for any bad debt. Indeed, it is very likely that repayment rates will end up a lot lower compared to what the Government anticipated in 2012. But these costs are just a tiny fraction of the added fiscal income due to better educated individuals paying higher taxes, let alone the social benefits. Keep in mind that the added tax income of those graduates who end up in employment, on average over £80 000 in the UK, is many times larger than any conceivable bad debt. And where students don’t pay their loans back, tuition will still have had important effects in terms of having students choose their studies carefully and complete them on time, something where the UK does so much better than most other European countries.

Every year I am reading media stories that the financial burden on students, perceived or real, is choking off entry into higher education. But every year our statistics show a rise in entry to higher education. It’s also noteworthy that the UK ranks second after New Zealand when it comes to the share of international students, which is another indicator of the attractiveness of UK higher education.

Still, there is a lot the UK can do to further improve its approach to financing universities. For a start, it can do better with aligning course offerings with societal demand. That may also mean thinking more carefully about fee structures, ensuring that these better reflect the cost of provision and the value to students. Indeed, it is crucial to ensure that fees reflect the educational value of the programmes for students, rather than the amounts that universities can extract from students simply because graduates can expect higher lifetime earnings that also reflect their prior attainment.

Consider that England currently has an above-average share of low-skilled 20-34 year-old graduates, but an above-average share of tertiary graduates. Any increases in tuition fees must therefore demonstrably go into better teaching and learning. The Framework of Excellence makes a start to address this, but it does not yet adequately capture the most important element in this regard: the value that universities add to student learning outcomes.

I also worry that the loan repayment parameters mean that many middle income workers – such as teachers, health professionals, public sector workers – will end up paying more for their education than better earners such as lawyers and bankers. Not least, it needs to be kept in mind that many UK students are likely to have some level of debt for up to 30 years and some research on the broader implications of student debt would be important. Contrast this with Australian students who pay off the loan for their undergraduate degree within nine years of graduation.

That being said, among all available approaches, a system of income-contingent loans and means-tested grants is still the most scalable and sustainable approach to university finance. From a public policy point of view, governments should invest public resources in education over the lifetime of a young person in those stages where its impact is greatest, both in terms of efficiency and equity. Higher education is not high on that list.

Links 
Education at a Glance 2017: How much do tertiary students pay and what public support do they receive?
Enhancing higher education system performance: Benchmarking higher education system performance

Follow the conversation on Twitter: #OECDEAG

Image source: @Shutterstock

Thursday, November 9, 2017

What matters for managing classrooms?

by Francesca Gottschalk
Consultant, Directorate for Education and Skills 


Teaching is a demanding profession. Teachers are responsible for developing the skills and knowledge of their students, helping them overcome social and emotional hurdles and maintaining equitable, cohesive and productive classroom environments. On top of their teaching responsibilities, they are also expected to engage in continued professional development activities throughout their careers. The demands of the job are many and varied, and teachers tend to report some of the highest levels of workplace stress of any profession. This contributes to the loss of many talented and motivated individuals from the teaching workforce.

Teachers, especially the least experienced, tend to report that student disengagement and misbehaviour is one of the biggest stressors. In fact, terms like “reality shock” or “shattered dreams” are sometimes used to describe what happens when teachers are first put in front of a classroom.

So, what can be done? There are a number of ways to soften the sometimes harsh contrast between their expectations and what really goes on in the classroom. Specialised training and practicum during teacher education programmes can help prepare new teachers for the realities of teaching, while protective factors, such as teacher self-efficacy or confidence in their skills, can also make a big difference. When teachers are capable and confident in classroom management, ensuring that lessons are run smoothly in an organised classroom environment, student learning and positive social and emotional outcomes can be enhanced.

How can we establish if teachers have this “protective factor” and are confident in their abilities? The Innovative Teaching for Effective Learning Teacher Knowledge Survey offers a unique opportunity to better understand teachers’ professional competence and how this is developed. The pilot study assessed teachers’ pedagogical knowledge (or, in simple terms, what teachers know about teaching and learning), their opportunities to learn, and other professional competences, such as self-efficacy. Teachers’ knowledge of classroom management is part of their “toolkit” of instructional processes, which also encompasses elements like teaching methods and lesson planning.

The pilot results suggested that in-service and pre-service teachers have a relatively strong knowledge of classroom management, especially in comparison to other areas of pedagogical knowledge. Teachers who reported being confident in their classroom management skills also reported being provided with lots of opportunities to learn how to manage classrooms and tended to be more experienced teachers. As there is a link between teacher confidence and retention, the relationship uncovered between learning opportunities and self-efficacy in this pilot study is quite promising!

Furthermore, since experienced teachers tended to show higher self-efficacy than their pre-service counterparts, it could be helpful to build more field experience into teacher education. Many countries across the OECD, such as Estonia, Hungary and Israel, are already doing this. Similarly, longer induction sessions before entering the teaching workforce could also help bridge the gap between expectations and reality – this approach will be important to explore further, especially as teachers find classroom disturbances to be one of the most stress-inducing parts of their jobs. If left unchecked, it can eventually lead to burnout.

The pilot project was an initial exploration of teacher knowledge and competence that has laid the groundwork for future work on a larger scale. Its purpose was to provide evidence that can help shape policies to improve teacher preparation and education, but it can also help to attract (and retain) high-quality individuals to the profession.

Strong education systems depend on having an effective teaching workforce. It is therefore essential to equip them with the knowledge and skills for them to be effective and confident in the classroom. In order to keep them there, countries need to focus on piecing together the “shattered dreams” of teachers, and supporting them as much as possible along the way.

Links
Teaching in Focus No. 19 - How do teachers become knowledgeable and confident in classroom management? Insights from a pilot study
Innovative Teaching for Effective Learning Teacher Knowledge Survey
Understanding teachers' pedagogical knowledge: Report on an international pilot study

Photo credit: @Shutterstock 

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

How PISA measures students’ ability to collaborate

by Andreas Schleicher
Director, Directorate for Education and Skills

Late next month (21 November, to be exact) we’ll be releasing the results PISA’s first-ever assessment of students’ ability to solve problems collaboratively. Why has PISA focused on this particular set of skills? Because in today’s increasingly interconnected world, people are often required to collaborate in order to achieve their objectives, both in the workplace and in their personal lives. Working with others is not as easy as it sounds. One person might end up reproducing another’s work; poor communication and personal tensions between people might prevent a team from reaching its goal. So it’s worth finding out whether students today know what it takes to work (and play) well with others.

This month’s PISA in Focus describes what it means, according to PISA, to be competent in collaborative problem solving. Along with the skills needed to solve problems individually, a good team member also has to develop and maintain a shared understanding of the problem with his or her teammates, take the actions needed to solve the problem, and establish and maintain team organisation. These skills can help determine how students learn, teachers teach and how we judge the performance of schools.

PISA in Focus also explains how PISA is able to measure students’ collaboration skills – not, as you might expect, by observing students as they work with other students, but by following their interactions with team members who are actually computer simulations of humans (known as computer agents). Today’s technology allows us to assess students’ 21st century skills. Not only can the behaviour of these computer agents be controlled, but they can also be programmed so that some are more co-operative than others, and some may be more focused on solving the problem than others. Sound familiar? Yes: they’re programmed to be just like you and me.

Several “screen shots” from a part of the assessment that was released to the public are also presented so you can get a better idea of the kinds of tasks PISA students were asked to perform, and how the students’ responses express the skills they need to collaborate with others. In short, this month’s PISA in Focus gives you both a behind-the-scenes look at the thinking that went into the design of the assessment, and a front-row seat for when the results of the assessment are released next month.

Links 


Monday, October 30, 2017

The fork in the road towards gender equality

by Simon Normandeau
Statistician, Directorate for Education and Skills


Gender biases can be persistent. Too persistent. A simple exercise to illustrate the point: Picture a doctor or a professor. You will most likely think of a man. Now think of nurses and teachers and you are likely to imagine a woman. This unconscious gender bias is rooted in years of associating male and female attributes to specific roles in society. Inevitably, it also influences students’ career choices.

Gender differences in career aspirations are set early on. Children tend to mimic the social environment in which they grew up: boys are more drawn towards male-dominated fields while girls aspire to careers held by inspirational role models of their own gender. By the age of 15, boys and girls have already been regularly exposed to one of the most strongly gender-biased professions: teaching. On average across OECD countries, 83% of primary teachers are women; and this proportion shows no sign of shrinking anytime soon. 

Careers in science show the opposite trend. Data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) show that even if boys and girls have similar scores in science, girls are less likely than boys to envision themselves in a science-related career when they are 30. This demonstrates that aspirations to pursue a career in science are not necessarily determined by students’ aptitude in these fields.

Data on fields of study released in Education at a Glance 2017 and analysed in a new Education Indicators in Focus confirm that the gender disparities observed in career aspirations in the PISA study are alive and well in tertiary education too. Three out of four students entering the field of education are women; but only one out of four entering the field of engineering, manufacturing and construction is female. Moreover, the share of women entering a programme in engineering, manufacturing and construction is even smaller than the share of 15-year-old girls who aspire to work in science and engineering, showing the effect of social norms over just a few years, and their impact on all-important career decisions. 

From school to university, gender disparities then spill over into the labour market. The figure above shows that the field of study a young woman selects has consequences for her employment after graduation. Women who graduated from health and welfare and education programmes are more likely to be employed than women who graduated from male-dominated programmes, such as engineering, manufacture and construction. But the figure also shows that no matter which field of study they choose, women are always less likely than men to be employed – and the widest gender gaps are found among graduates from science-related fields.

Gender disparities accumulate throughout life. Thus, ensuring equal opportunities to girls and boys to pursue the field of study of their choice, regardless of stereotypes and societal gender imbalances, is a critical step towards more equity in the labour market. Gender diversity in professions also creates value by encouraging a variety of thought and opinion in the workplace. Studies have shown that gender diversity in companies brings higher financial returns, a better reputation and improved internal communication. 

Gender diversity is at the heart of Goal 5 of the Sustainable Development Goals, which aims to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls by 2030. While some progress has already been made, gender equality is still a target to be reached, and gender bias, whether conscious or unconscious, still a barrier to be dismantled. Education systems have a role to play in promoting and valuing the success of girls in different career paths, to encourage them to pursue their studies in fields that are increasingly valued in the labour market – and currently dominated by men. 

Links 

Join our OECD Teacher Community on Edmodo

Friday, October 27, 2017

How can we tell if artificial intelligence threatens work?

by Stuart W. Elliott
U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine


New technologies tend to shift jobs and skills. New technologies bring new products, which shift jobs across occupations: with the arrival of cars, the economy needed more assembly line workers and fewer blacksmiths. New technologies also bring new work processes, which shift skills in jobs: with the arrival of copiers, office workers needed to replace ink cartridges but not use carbon paper. Economic history is full of examples of new technologies causing such shifts.

Workers often worry that new technologies will destroy old jobs without creating new ones. However, economic history suggests that job destruction and creation have always gone together, with a shift in jobs and skills that leaves most people still employed.

Will artificial intelligence (AI) differ from past technologies in the way it shifts jobs and skills? To answer that question, we need to know which skills will be supplied by AI and which will be left for people. If workers have the skills AI lacks, they will be able to find new jobs if AI automates their old jobs. In that case, AI will shift jobs and skills just like previous technologies. However, if workers do not have the skills AI lacks, these shifts will break down and the institution of work itself will be threatened.

As an example, consider literacy and numeracy. These skills are widely used in many jobs—so widely used that countries invest many years of formal education to help everyone develop them. The OECD assesses these skills in its Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) because they are so important for work and education.

A new OECD study uses PIAAC to assess whether AI can perform these skills as well. The study is only exploratory, but its results are sobering. Current AI techniques are close to allowing computers to perform at Level 3 on the 5-level scale in literacy and numeracy—at or above the proficiency of 89% of adults in OECD countries. Only 11% of adults are above the level that AI is close to reproducing.

If literacy and numeracy were the only work skills, this new study would suggest that AI is not like other technologies. As current AI techniques are applied, many workers with moderate proficiency in literacy and numeracy would be displaced and would not have the higher-level skills for the jobs that remain. The usual shift of workers between jobs and skills would break down.

Of course, if this happened, we would need to improve education. The results of the Survey of Adult Skills show what might be possible. For adults with tertiary education, 21% are above the computer level in literacy and 23% are above the computer level in numeracy. And in the highest performing countries, these percentages for adults with tertiary education reach 37% in literacy and 36% in numeracy, for Japan and Sweden, respectively. These results are much better than the current OECD average of 11%.

With high-quality tertiary education, many more adults could develop literacy and numeracy skills above the current computer level. However, there would still be a serious problem if literacy and numeracy were the only work skills even with high-quality tertiary education for everyone. We do not have examples of education policies at scale that bring 80% or even 50% of adults above the current computer level.

Fortunately, literacy and numeracy are not the only work skills. There are many more skills that are important for work than the ones measured by PIAAC. Many jobs involve tasks using expert knowledge like scientific reasoning. Many jobs involve physical tasks like cooking. Many jobs involve social tasks like conversation.

PIAAC does not measure the other skills needed for such tasks and cannot tell us how AI might perform on them. However, computer scientists are developing AI to reproduce these other skills as well. Do AI’s capabilities in these other skills look as proficient as their capabilities in literacy and numeracy? We do not know.

The new study using PIAAC to assess AI in literacy and numeracy is only a first step. The OECD is working with the U.S. National Academies to develop a new programme to assess AI capabilities across all work skills. In the years ahead, policymakers will need this information to know whether AI will shift jobs and skills just like other technologies have done in the past—or whether this time is different.

Links
Computers and the Future of Skill Demand
Skills Matter: Further Results from the Survey of Adult Skills
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)

Follow the conversation on Twitter: #AI and #GoingDigital

Photo credit: @Shutterstock

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Teachers for tomorrow

by Andreas Schleicher
Director, Directorate for Education and Skills


Anyone flying into Abu Dhabi or Dubai is amazed how the United Arab Emirates has been able to transform its oil and gas into shiny buildings and a bustling economy. But more recently, the country is discovering that far greater wealth than all the oil and gas together lies hidden among its people. If the country would live up to its ambition to be among the world’s 20 leading school systems, as measured by PISA, that would add over USD 5 600 billion to the economy over the lifetime of today’s primary school students, or the equivalent of 9 times the size of the UAE’s economy. That is because people with a solid foundation of knowledge, with creative, problem-solving and collaborative skills, and with character qualities such as mindfulness, curiosity, courage and resilience, make a so much greater contribution to economic and social progress.

The trouble is that the UAE has been slow to invest in the people who can dig up and develop that new wealth: highly effective and creative teachers. That might be about to change. On 7 October, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan invited over 800 teachers from around the world to the first Qudwa Global Teachers’ Forum to reimagine the profession. It was the first such event where the talk wasn’t just about teachers, but where teachers talked about how they can prepare today’s students for their future, rather than for our past. In what was dubbed the “ask’ track of the event, teachers explored the future of teaching and the design of innovative learning environments. The “advance” track featured amazing role models for tomorrow’s teachers. And in the “share” track, teachers exchanged views on innovative practices.

For a start, teachers drew up a job description for the profession far bolder than what governments typically come up with. Of course, teachers need to have a deep understanding of what they teach and whom they teach, because what teachers know and care about makes such a difference to student learning. But Qudwa also expects teachers to be passionate, compassionate and thoughtful; to encourage students’ engagement and responsibility; to respond effectively to students of different needs, backgrounds and languages; to provide continual assessments of students and meaningful feedback; to promote collaborative learning, tolerance and social cohesion; and to ensure that students feel valued and included. And it expects teachers themselves to collaborate and work in teams, and with other schools and parents, in order to advance their profession.

Most of the teachers at the Qudwa forum acknowledged there was even more involved than this. Successful people generally had a teacher who was a mentor and took a real interest in their life and aspirations, who helped them understand who they are, and revealed their passions and how to build on their strengths. These were teachers who instilled a love of learning and taught them how to build effective learning strategies, and who helped them discover where they can make a difference to social progress.

Put all of this together and it seems teachers would have every reason to ask for much better pay to meet those expectations. But I heard no one at the forum saying they need more money before they can make a start. That is quite remarkable, because that’s usually the killer argument with which we pass responsibility on to someone else. Instead, the event offered many promising answers for how teachers can meet incredible expectations.

Teachers’ commitment to helping all learners

What impressed me most was the participants’ deep commitment to equity, to do whatever it takes to leverage the talent of every learner. That came across in many ways. First, in the belief that every student can learn, and the importance of embracing diversity in learning with differentiated approaches to teaching. This means building instruction from students’ passions and capacities, helping students personalise their learning and assessments in ways that foster engagement and talents, and encouraging students to be ingenious. As Aggeliki Pappa, a teacher from Greece, put it: “We need to break down the belief that some students cannot learn or are disabled. Students are just differently abled.”

It also came through in the way in which so many of these teachers are addressing social disadvantage, even in the most difficult circumstances. Children from privileged backgrounds will always find open doors in life, but those from disadvantaged backgrounds have only one card to play, and that is to meet a teacher like those at the Qudwa forum and get a good education. If they miss that boat, often there will be no second chance for them. And how we treat the most vulnerable students reflects who we are. I remember Manil Maharjan, a teacher from Nepal, saying, “When students can see a positive future, that’s when can concentrate on their present.” Or Jacque Kahura, from Kenya, who noted: “If we understand these students and their life and their background, then we can fill the multiple roles they need.” At the global level too, the world is no longer divided between countries that are rich and well-educated and those that are poor and badly educated. Countries can choose to develop a superior education system, and if they succeed it will yield huge rewards.

Third, teachers’ commitment to equity came through in how participants at the Qudwa forum embraced learning science and pedagogical innovation. This is about how teachers and schools can better recognise that students learn differently, and give students more ownership over the time, place, path and pace of learning. As Niall McGonigle, from the UAE, put it: “No matter what you're teaching, there's always a way to involve children in the process.” Parveen Jaleel, another teacher from the UAE, added: “Just put the child in the centre and ignore everything else.”

I was also impressed by teachers’ commitment to their profession beyond the role they play in the classroom. These teachers saw themselves as learners with a growth mindset, and as contributing collaboratively to system leadership. As Richard Spencer, from the United Kingdom, noted: “Great teachers are great learners and students need to see their teachers learning.” The heart of this is working with a high degree of professional autonomy and in a collaborative culture. As Souad Belcaid, from Morrocco, noted: “Don’t be afraid of feedback”; and Eldijana Bjelcic, from the United States, added pointedly: “All feedback requires trust between provider and recipients.”

We heard how teacher development must be viewed in terms of lifelong learning, with initial teacher education conceived as providing the foundation for ongoing learning, rather than producing ready-made professionals. And teachers explained how many of them are already engaged in research as an integral part of what it means to be a professional teacher.

Responding to a rapidly changing world

The sharing session also exposed many examples of how digital technology can leverage great teaching, even if it will never replace poor teaching. What if we could get teachers around the globe working on curated crowd-sourcing of the best educational practices, making the Qudwa forum a permanent institution? Technology could create a giant open-source community of teachers and unlock the creative skills and initiative of all teachers, simply by tapping into the desire of people like you to contribute, collaborate and be recognised for it. I remember Paul Solarz saying: “I've been teaching for 19 years. I was one of the most reluctant technology users. But now my students are my partners in bringing technology into the classroom.”

But the heart of this is not technology; it is ownership. As Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah mentioned at the opening, while learning will become more digital, teaching remains a deeply human activity, based on trust and passion. As I could see at the forum, when teachers feel a sense of ownership over their classrooms, when students feel a sense of ownership over their learning, that is when productive learning takes place. So the answer is to strengthen trust, transparency, professional autonomy and the collaborative culture of the profession all at the same time.

But the most central reason why teachers’ ownership of the profession is a must-have rather than an optional extra lies in the pace of change in school systems. Even the most effective attempts to push a government-established curriculum into classroom practice will drag out over a decade, because it just takes so much time to communicate the goals and methods through the different layers of the system and to build them into traditional methods of teacher education. In this age of accelerations, such a slow process is no longer good enough and inevitably leads to a widening gap between what students need to learn and what teachers teach. When fast gets really fast, being slow to adapt makes us really slow.

The only way to shorten that pipeline is for teachers themselves to be involved in the design of curricula and the pedagogies to enact and enable 21st-century curricula. As many teachers said, subject-matter knowledge will be less and less the core and more and more the context of good teaching. Twenty-first century education is about helping children develop a reliable compass and the navigation tools to find their own way through our increasingly complex, uncertain, ambiguous and volatile world. While governments can establish directions and curriculum goals, teachers need to take charge of the instructional system.

In the past, the policy focus was on providing education; tomorrow it needs to be on outcomes, shifting from looking upwards in the bureaucracy towards looking outwards to the next teacher, the next school and the next education system. In the past, administrations emphasised school management; tomorrow the focus needs to be on instructional leadership, with leaders supporting, evaluating and developing high-quality teachers and designing innovative learning environments. As Armand Doucet, from Canada, said:  “We need administrators who are leaders and who understand that teachers need to do innovative things to get through to students.” Over dinner with a group of teachers from the Varkey Global Teacher Prize community, we talked about how assessments and accountability need to evolve, too, as school systems advance, and as rules become guidelines and good practice, and ultimately, as good practice becomes culture.

The Qudwa forum showed how effective learning environments constantly create synergies and find new ways to enhance professional, social and cultural capital with others. They do that with families and communities, with higher education, with other schools and learning environments, and with businesses. Participants heard how building trust between a teacher and parents requires regular and open communication. It also means creating places where parents, children and teachers don’t just talk but do things together. This might be something as simple as having breakfast together, which happens in Nablus, or more structured activities, like the innovative Maker Space in Bulgaria. As Anika Mir, from the UAE, put it: “Parents can be our assets and our allies as teachers”; and Stephen Ritz said: “We need to push the walls of the classroom out and bring the community in.”

I was also struck by how deeply participants engaged in imagining the role of teachers for tomorrow. The past was constructed on divisions, with teachers and content divided by subjects and students separated by expectations of their future career prospects. The Qudwa forum showed how the future needs to be integrated, with an emphasis on merging subjects and combining students. It also needs to be connected, so that learning is open to the rich resources in the community. Those participants who joined Ger Graus from Kidzania saw how we can raise and widen horizons if we can better integrate the world of schooling with real life. Also Soonufat Supramaniam, a teacher from Malaysia, showed participants how much can be achieved by inviting people from different areas and careers to come to schools and discuss their careers.

Instruction in the past was subject-based; instruction in the future needs to be more project-based. It needs to build experiences that help students think across the boundaries of subject-matter disciplines. The past was hierarchical; the future is collaborative, recognising both teachers and students as resources and co-creators. In the past, schools were technological islands, with technology often limited to supporting existing practices, and students always outpacing schools in their adoption of technology. Now schools need to harness the potential of technologies to liberate learning from past conventions and connect learners in new and powerful ways, with new sources of knowledge and with one another.

Tomorrow begins now

All that will have profound implications for the work organisations of schools. The past was about prescription; the future is about an informed profession, where professional and collaborative working norms replace the industrial work organisation, with its administrative control and accountability. Professionalism means emphasising the internal motivation of members and their ownership of professional practice. That demands public confidence in professionals and the profession, professional preparation and learning, collective ownership of professional practice, and acceptance of professional responsibility in the name of the profession. With all of that, tomorrow’s teachers will enjoy deep professional knowledge, a high degree of professional autonomy, and a collaborative culture.

The challenge is that such transformation cannot be mandated by government, which leads to surface compliance, nor can it be built solely from the ground up. Education needs to become better at identifying and championing key agents of change, and better at finding more effective approaches for scaling up and spreading innovation. That is also about finding better ways to recognise, reward and celebrate success, to do whatever is possible to make it easier for innovators to take risks and encourage the emergence of new ideas. Education needs less virtual reform and more real change.

None of this is easy; none of it will be done overnight. And the status quo will always have many protectors. But that’s no reason to give up on education as the most powerful tool for building a fairer, more humane and more inclusive world.

Knowledge and skills have become the global currency of 21st-century economies. But there is no central bank that prints this currency; we cannot inherit this currency, and we cannot produce it through speculation. We can only develop it through sustained effort and investment by people and for people. And no school system can achieve that without attracting, developing and sustaining great teaching talent.

Last but not least, everyone took the theme of the event, “teaching for tomorrow”, literally. What made this Qudwa forum special for me was that it was not about the day after tomorrow, the next year or the next life, but about what everyone can introduce into their daily work tomorrow – literally. The UAE should be credited for offering such an amazing platform to work together on this globally. As Sean Bellamy said: “If the education system is diseased, then the Qudwa has gathered the cure here under one roof.” And perhaps that outward-looking perspective will turn out to become the key differentiator for seeing progress in education. The division may be between those schools and education systems that feel threatened by alternative ways of thinking and those that are open to the world and ready to learn from the world’s best experiences.

Links
Qudwa Global Teachers’ Forum

Photo credit: Qudwa 2017