CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY

1. CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY Any use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey & Company is strictly prohibited CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY Any use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey & Company is strictly prohibited

2. Our report, “How the World’s Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better” focuses on global school system performance transformation • How does a system with poor performance become good? How does a good system become great? • What interventions move a system from poor to fair to good to great to excellent? • Which aspects of the school system improvement journey are universal and which are context-specific? • How does a system ignite and sustain system improvement? • Our research question SOURCE: McKinsey & Company

3. We identified 20 improved systems across the world from which to learn Each of these systems has achieved an increase in student achievement that is:  Significant  Widespread Sustained • Sustained improvers • Aspire Public Schools, USA • Boston/Mass, USA • England • Hong Kong • Latvia • Lithuania • Long Beach, CA, USA • Ontario, Canada • Poland • Saxony, Germany • Singapore • Slovenia • South Korea • Promising starts • Armenia • Chile • Ghana • Jordan • Madhya Pradesh, India • Minas Gerais, Brazil • Western Cape, South Africa SOURCE: McKinsey & Company

4. Our sample represents a continuum of improvement frompoor to fair to good to great • Good2 • Poor2 • Fair2 • Great • 1985 • 2000 • 2005 • 2010 • 1990 • 1995 • Systems • Singapore • Hong Kong • South Korea • Ontario, Canada • Saxony, Germany • England • Latvia • Lithuania • Slovenia • Poland • Long Beach, CA, USA • Boston/MA, USA • Armenia • Jordan • Western Cape, SA • Chile • Ghana • Aspire Public Schools (USA) • Systems withSpecial Assumptions • Minas Gerais, Brazil • Madhya Pradesh, India SOURCE: TIMSS, PISA, NAEP, national and provincial assessments; McKinsey & Company interventions database

5. Systems with similar spend have widely ranging levels of performance Universal scale score (maximum, median, minimum), in PISA 2000 units • 580 • Excellent • 561 Finland • 560 • 541 • 525 Ontario • 533 • 540 • Great Singapore • 522 • 520 Estonia Hong Kong Switzerland • 508 • 520 South Korea Ireland Japan Belgium Poland • 498 • 498 England Latvia France Iceland • 500 USA Hungary • Good Germany4 Croatia Netherlands Slovenia Lithuania Austria Luxembourg Denmark Czech Republic • 478 Italy Sweden Slovak Republic Australia Spain • 471 • 489 • 480 Armenia Portugal • 488 New Zealand • 485 Greece Moldova Norway Malaysia Malta Bulgaria Israel Jordan Romania Cyprus • 470 • 460 • Fair Turkey Bahrain • 464 Syria Philippines • 456 Chile Iran • 440 Georgia Oman Uruguay Saudi Arabia Columbia Mexico • 420 Algeria • 421 Botswana W. Cape Tunisia Kuwait El Salvador • 400 Brazil • 402 • Poor Ghana Argentina • 380 Azerbaijan • 383 • 380 • 361 Morocco • 0 • 0–1,000 • 1,000–2,000 • 2,000–3,000 • 3000–4,000 • 4,000–5,000 • 5,000–6,000 • 6,000–7,000 • 7,000–8,000 • 8,000–9,000 • 9,000–10,000 • 10,000+ • Public spend per student, PPP USD SOURCE: World Bank EdStats; IMF; UNESCO; PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS, McKinsey & Company

6. Lesson I • A system can make significant gains from wherever it starts – and these gains can be achieved in as short as six years SOURCE: McKinsey & Company

7. 2 Systems at all performance levels can improveoutcomes substantially in as short as six years • 2000 • 2006 PISA scores, average1; 2000–06 • +75% SYE2 • +65% SYE2 • +75% SYE2 • +25% SYE2 • 542 • 533 • 525 • 497 • 485 • 460 • 440 • 412 • Chile • Latvia • Saxony • Hong Kong • InitialPerformance • Poor • Fair • Good • Great 1 Average across math, science, and reading PISA scores 2 One school-year-equivalent (SYE) corresponds to 38 points on the PISA scale SOURCE: PISA, McKinsey & Company interventions database

8. l Singapore narrowed the achievement gap between its ethnic groups % of pupils who sat the Primary School Leaving Exam and achieved eligibility for secondary school by ethnicity • Chinese • Overall • Indian • Malay • 1987 • 88 • 89 • 90 • 91 • 92 • 93 • 94 • 95 • 96 • 97 • 98 • 99 • 00 • 01 • 02 • 03 • 04 • 05 • 2006 SOURCE: Singapore Ministry of Education

9. Pass rates, grade 3 2nd lowest wealth Percent Pass rates, grade 3 3rd lowest wealth Percent Pass rates, grade 3 Lowest wealth Percent Western Cape narrowed the literacy inequality gap in four years: among 3rd graders, the bottom three quintiles have caught up to the second richest Pass rates, grade 31 2nd highest wealth Percent Pass rates, grade 31 Highest wealth Percent • -5 • -1 • +13 • +19 • +25 • 2004 • 2006 • 2008 • 2004 • 2006 • 2008 • 2004 • 2006 • 2008 • 2004 • 2006 • 2008 • 2004 • 2006 • 2008 1 Interviewees in WCED attributed some of the drop in the two highest wealth quintiles to shifts upwards in wealth categories of learners from 2006 SOURCE: WCED Learner Assessment Studies, Final Reports, 2002-2008

10. Lesson II • Each stage of the school system improvement journey is associated with a unique set of interventions, from poor to fair to good to great to excellent SOURCE: McKinsey & Company

11. Fair to good • Good to great • Great to excellent • Poor to fair Our research finds that a unique ‘intervention cluster’ exists for each improvement journey • Journey • Intervention cluster theme • Achieving the basics of literacy and  • numeracy • Getting the foundations in place • Improving through peers and innovation • Shaping the professional 4] Assessing student 5] Utilizing student learning data 6] Revising policy or education laws Six interventions: 1] Revising curriculum and standards 2] Reviewing remunerations structure 3] Building technical skills • Common across all journeys SOURCE: McKinsey & Company SOURCE: McKinsey & Company

12. Poor to Fair example: Following implementation of the literacy reform in 2006, Minas Gerais improved literacy levels and rose to the top of Brazil’s national assessment Percentage of 8 year olds reading at recommended level Percentage of 8 year olds reading at poor levels1 86 73 • +76% 49 31 • -82% 14 6 • 2006 • 2008 • 2010 • 2006 • 2008 • 2010 From 2007 to 2009, Minas Gerais also rose from 5th place to 1st place among Brazilian states on Brazil’s national (IDEB) assessments 1 Poor performance level is defined by assessment as students are only able to read words SOURCE: Brazil PROALFA reading assessment

13. Poor to fair journeys focus on achieving basic literacy and numeracy Intervention types Theme • Providing scaffolding and motivation for low skill teachers and principals • Scripted lessons • Instructional time on task • Coaching on curriculum • School visits by center • Incentives for high performance • Getting all schools to minimum quality standard • Targets, data, and assessments • Infrastructure • Textbooks and learning resources • Supporting low performing schools • Getting students in seats • Expand seats • Fulfill students’ basic needs • Systems included • Chile (2001–05) • Madhya Pradesh (2006+) • Minas Gerais (2003+) • Western Cape (2003+) • Ghana (2003+) SOURCE: McKinsey & Company

14. +20% • +34% • +50% • +75% 69 69 • 67 • 67 • 65 • 63 • 62 61 60 60 60 59 • 58 • 57 • 57 • 56 • 56 • 54 • 53 50 • 48 • 47 • 46 • 36 • Grade 2 • Grade 3 • Grade 4 • Grade 5 Good to Great example: Long Beach math scores on the California STAR examinations improved significantly between 2004–09 • 2004 • 2007 • 2005 • 2008 • 2006 • 2009 % of students proficient and advanced SOURCE: Long Beach Unified School District

15. Good to great journeys emphasize shaping the professional Intervention types Theme • Raising calibre of entering teachers and principals • Recruiting • Preparation and induction • Raising calibre of existing teachers and principals • Professional development • Coaching on practice • Career pathways • School-based decision-making • Self-evaluation • Curriculum flexibility • Systems included Aspire (2003+) Boston (2006+) England (1995+) Hong Kong (1989–99) Long Beach (2005+) Latvia (2001+) Lithuania (2001+) Poland (2003+) Saxony (2000–05) Singapore (1988–98) Slovenia (2006+) South Korea (1983–98) SOURCE: McKinsey & Company

16.       The engine of sustained and continuous improvement is collaborative professional practice • Collaborative practice is school professionals working with each other to improve their practice • Examples • Boston, MA, USA Study groups, professional learning communities using research and data Teachers visiting each other's class rooms Teachers doing demonstration lessons together and joint-lesson-planning Teachers mentoring and coaching each other and working with specialist coaches and principals on instructional practice Schools, subject groups, or system developing a consensus model of good practice Teacher and leaders reviewing student performance data together and jointly developing solutions • Ontario, Canada • Aspire Public Schools, USA • Hong Kong SOURCE: system interviews, McKinsey analysis

17. Share methods and impact • Analyze student data Intentional instruction • Assess impact • Plan instruction • Teach The core of collaborative practice is intentional instruction • Teachers build a shared range of effective instructional strategies • Teachers analyse student data to understand needs • Teachers schedule common time to work together to plan lessons and student support • Teacher assesses impact on student learning with data • Teacher uses the planned lesson and strategies • “Were are precise but not prescriptive…we are trying to cultivate intentional teaching, where a teacher can tell you why she is using a particular strategy for a particular student need” – Student Achievement Officer SOURCE: Interviews

18. The balance of capability-building and accountability shifts as systems improve their performance • Professional development and training • Accountability • 100% = • 26 • 51 • 54 • 32 50 55 67 78 • 50 • 45 • 33 • 22 • Poor to Fair • Fair to Good • Good to Great • Great to Excellent Capability building vs. formal accountability Share of professional development & training interventions relative to accountability interventions SOURCE: McKinsey & Company interventions database

19. Teachers directly receive 56% of all support interventions and only 3% of all accountability interventions Percentage of interventions in reform area directed at agent among all improved systems1 • Accountability • Support • Centre / • Overall system • Create targets • Tracking and/or reporting school performance • External partnerships • Advisory bodies 18 16 • Schools / • Principals • School inspections& principal assessment • School coaches • Principal professional development 35 20 • Teachers • Teacher appraisal or proficiency assessment • Teacher professional development • Teaching materials 3 56 • Students • Student assessments • Textbooks • Meeting student basic needs (e.g. nutrition, health) 44 8 1 Accountability: N = 101; Support: N = 180 SOURCE: McKinsey & Company interventions database

20. Lesson III • A system’s context might not determine what needs to be done, but it does determine how it is done SOURCE: McKinsey & Company

21. One of the most important contextual decisions we encountered is when to mandate or persuade change Mandate Persuade “When there is time pressure to deliver results, and the stakeholder environment is fractious, sometimes agreeing to a number is the best way to get people focused” “We have never used targets. Focusing on targets can lead to shortcuts in teaching practice” Data Singapore US systems Language of instruction “No good for our students could ever come from making school data public and embarrassing our educators” Hong Kong Singapore “There is no shame in transparency…we are here for the kids” Professional development expectations Poland Lithuania 1 In all subjects, except the mother tongue, from Primary 1 onwards SOURCE: Interviews SOURCE: McKinsey & Company

22. A system’s context might not determine what needs to be done, but it does determine how it is done • While ‘structure’ and ‘resource’ interventions dominate the debate, ‘process’ deserves as much attention • Six interventions occur equally at every performance stage for all systems but manifest differently • Prescribe adequacy and unleash greatness, with collaborative practice as the engine of continuous improvement • The middle layer plays a crucial role in delivering and sustaining improvement – compliance, communication, collaboration, and insulation • Ignition occurs due to socio-economic crisis, a critical report about system performance, or the installation of a new political or strategic leader 8 1 2 9 5 6 7 3 4 • Leadership continuity is essential – the median tenure of new strategic leaders is six years and that of new political leaders is seven years Our research highlights nine lessons about school system improvement • A system can make significant gains from wherever it starts – and these gains can be achieved in as short as six years • Each stage of the school system improvement journey is associated with a unique set of interventions SOURCE: McKinsey & Company

23. Appendix

24. To compare our sample systems to each other, we created a Universal Scale of performance • Multiple assessments… • …normalised… • …onto a Universal Scale • Poor • Fair • Good • Great • Excellent • 25 unique assessments • Test • Subject • Year • Level • Normalised to a single scale1 • New units are equivalent to 2000 PISA • Tiered into Poor, Fair, Good, Great, and Excellent performance PISA TIMSS NAEP • -1 SD440 • Avg480 • +1 SD520 • +2 SD560 Other local assessments • 1 SYE2 • 1 SYE • 1 SYE 1 Via method of Erik Hanushek & Ludger Woessmann 2 School Year Equivalent (equal to 38 points on the PISA 2000 scale) SOURCE: TIMSS; PISA; PIRLS; Hanushek et al; team analysis