Secretariat Update to the ECEC meeting - search.oecd.org

1 Secretariat Update TO THE ECEC meeting 10 DECEMBER 2013 Michael Davidson Head of Early Childhood and Schools Division education policy Committee Establishing its 2015-16 Programme of Work and Budget (PWB) Priority-rating exercise to decide which projects will be included and the extent of central funding ECEC project included in the rating exercise Data development (system-level data; service/staff-level data; and child outcomes data) policy analysis on transition from ECEC to primary schooling Rating exercise to be conducted in early 2014 EDPC decides on PWB in May/June 2014 2 Reports from other Committees Accession talks Council approved Roadmaps for accession talks with Colombia and Latvia [C(2013)110/FINAL, C(2013)122/FINAL] Secretariat mission to Bogota and launch of Colombian accession process by Secretary-General and President Santos in October Secretariat mission to Riga in December Colombia and Latvia now automatically have Invitee status in all OECD Committees In both cases process includes review by EDPC of education policy Next step.

2 Agreement on the process and time-line for review with Colombia and Latvia and approval by EDPC 3 Global Relations 2st trim. 13 Australia Czech Republic Ireland New Zealand 4rd trim. 13 Chile Finland Mexico Norway Turkey 2st trim. 14 Denmark France Germany Spain 4rd trim. 14 Netherlands Portugal United Kingdom TBD 2nd trim. 15 Austria Canada Hungary Sweden United States 4rd trim. 15 Belgium Italy iceland Korea Poland 2st trim. 16 Estonia Japan Luxembourg Slovenia 4rd trim. 16 Greece Israel Slovak Republic Switzerland education policy outlook 2014 education policy outlook 2016 Just published! education policy outlook : COUNTRY PROFILES EDU/EDPC(2013)23 policy advice and implementation INES Working Party Closer cooperation between INES and ECEC Network ECEC provided advice on the preparation of the technical manual on the implementation of ISCED 2011 ( Data Development and Policies for Early Childhood education and Care Implementing ISCED 2011, Input to the INES Working Party [EDU/EDPC/ECEC/(2013)4].)

3 ECEC Network Chair participated in the INES meeting 5 Reports from other Committees PISA Governing Board meeting , October 2013 Presented the education for Social Progress (ESP) longitudinal study of skill development The PGB asked the Secretariat to assess the feasibility of starting the panel earlier than Grade 1 PISA 2012 initial report Published on 3 December 2013 with the examination of PISA performance in relation to ECEC PISA -20020406080100120 Before accounting for ESCSA fter accounting for ESCSD ifference in mathematics performance between no attendance in pre-primary and attendance of more than one year Fig 7 8 Disadvantaged and advantaged students benefit equally from pre-primary attendance. An average of 67% of students in socio-economically disadvantaged schools had attended pre-primary education for more than one year, while 81% of students in advantaged schools had done so.

4 Across OECD countries, immigrant students who had attended pre-primary school score 14 points higher, on average, than immigrant students who had not attended 9 Other findings Students in private schools (79%) are more likely than students in public schools (73%) to have attended pre-primary school Students in schools located in towns or cities are more likely to attend pre-primary school than students in schools located in . 10 Other findings Cooperation with other OECD directorates Economics Directorate requesting EDU s input on ECEC for country reviews of Switzerland, Germany, the US Cooperation with other organisations UNESCO post-2015 goal setting and measurement Holistic Early Child development Index European Commission Cooperation agreement between EC and OECD EDU Eurydice IEA Cooperation with others ECEC BUDGET 2013-14 Update 12 Budget required (2013-14)= Eur 1,035 k Funded by: Part I funds: Eur 600k Country contributions.

5 Eur 435k Confirmed country contributions= Eur 311k Australia, Germany (Eur 50k), Chile, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway (Eur 29k each), Japan (Eur 10k), Italy, Korea, France (Eur 9k), Possible further contributions= Eur 19k Japan (Eur 19k) 13 Strands 1 and 2 combined, updated Scenario 1: Only confirmed country contributions Funding gap = Eur 124k Scenario 2: Confirmed plus prospective country contributions Funding gap= Eur 105k Suggested options at the last meeting Fewer network meetings? Reduce scope of strand 1? Reduce scope of strand 2? Reduce scope of both strands 1 and 2? Of the suggested options, reducing the scope of strand 2 is favoured, so as to retain an in-depth policy study on monitoring quality (Strand 1) Discussions at EDPC and INES meetings are considered for prioritising and defining the scope of strand 2.

6 14 Strand 1 and 2, updated funding gap