TED日本語 - アンドレア・シュライヒャー: データに基づく学校改革


TED Talks(英語 日本語字幕付き動画)

TED日本語 - アンドレア・シュライヒャー: データに基づく学校改革

TED Talks


Use data to build better schools


Andreas Schleicher




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 can not 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 everything about 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 divided between 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 workers and 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 policies and 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 teachers relative to other highly skilled workers? Would you want your child to become a teacher rather 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 them what 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.

Thank you.


学校教育の「徹底した開放」 には まだ時間が必要です 重要なのは「どこで」学習するかより ― 「何を」学習するかの方なのに理解されていません

これからお話するのは世界中の15才の子供を対象に 知識や技能を測るOECDによるテスト ― PISAのことです また これは学力を国際比較することで いかに教育を内政問題からグローバルな問題へと 捉え直すことができたかという話です

まず高校の卒業率から 1960年代の世界を見てみましょう アメリカが群を抜いています 教育に率先して力を注ぎ 長い間 優位に立っていたことが 経済面の成功にも貢献しました ところが70年代には他国も追いついてきます 80年代には 人材資源は世界規模で増加し 90年代も この傾向は続きます アメリカは60年代は1位でしたが 90年代には13位に後退します 水準が下がったのではなく 他国の急速な向上の結果です

教育の可能性を示しているのが 韓国です 二世代前は 韓国の生活水準は 現在のアフガニスタンと同程度で 成績は ほぼ最下位でした でも現在は全ての若者が高校を卒業しています

経済がグローバル化した今日では 国内的に教育が改善しただけでは成功したとは言えません 国際的に見て教育システムが優れているかどうかが重要なのです ただ生徒の本当の能力は 在学期間や取得できる学位からは 適切に捉えることができません 大学を卒業しても就職できない学生がいる一方で 雇用側は必要な技能を持つ人材の 不足に悩んでいるという最悪の状況です 高学歴だからといって優れた技能や よい仕事 ― よりよい暮らしに結びついていないのです

だから PISAを使って知識と技能を直接測ることで この状況を変えたいと考えています 私達の手法は特殊です 生徒が学校で学んだことを 覚えたかどうかはあまり重視しません 私達が測ろうとしたのは 知識に基づいて推論する力や 初めて経験する場面で知識を活用する力です この方法は批判されることもありました 「生徒が初めて見る問題で 成績を測るのは不公平だ」と言うのです でも その考え方でいけば 人生だって不公平です 人生で試されるのは学校で学んだ知識ではなく 変化に対応できるか ― 今までにない仕事に適応し 新しい技術を使いこなせるか ― 予想もつかない問題を解決できるか ということです

一時は批判を受けましたが 私達のとった方法はすぐに標準になりました 2009年に行った最新のテストでは 世界74か所の学校システムを調べました これは世界の経済圏の87%をカバーします この図は国ごとの成績です OECDの平均より下は 赤 ― 平均程度なら 黄色優秀なら 緑です 成績が優秀なのはアジアでは上海 韓国 シンガポール ― 欧州ではフィンランド ― 北米ではカナダです 上海とチリの15才を比べると およそ3.5学年分の学力差があることがわかります 成績が最下位層の国を含めると 差は7学年分に広がります 今日の経済社会へ乗り出す若者たちは 既に準備の段階で大きな格差があるのです

ここに重要な要素を 付け加えましょう 教育者は「公平」を重視します PISAでは公平さの度合い つまり ― 様々な社会的背景を持つ人に 等しく機会を保障しているかを測ろうと考えました その結果 社会的背景が 成績を左右している国があることがわかりました 機会が不平等なせいで 子供達の可能性が損なわれています 一方 社会背景による影響が はるかに小さい国もあります 理想的なのは右上のような ― 成績が優秀で学習機会が平等な状態です どの国も 赤い領域 つまり ― 成績が悪い上に 社会格差が大きい状態は避けたいのです 一方で こんな問題が生じます 成績が良くても 格差が大きい方がマシなのか? 機会の平等を目指して成績には目をつぶるべきか? 実際には グラフに現れた国々を見ていると 優秀かつ公平な国が いくつもあることが わかります 国際比較による大きな発見の一つが 優秀な成績を収めるために 機会の平等を犠牲にする必要はないということです こうした国々が目指してきたのは 一部だけではなく全生徒の能力を高めることです 重要な教訓です 学校で人を選別するという ― 教育システムへの批判でもあります 結果が公表されると世界中の政策立案者や教育者 研究者が 成功の秘訣を探り始めました

PISAに参加している国ごとに状況を見てみましょう 各国を色つきのマルで示し その国が生徒にかけた金額に応じて マルの大きさを変えます 学習の成果を 金額で説明できるとしたら マルが大きい程上に行くはずです でもそうなっていません 生徒1人当たりの支出で説明できるのは 能力差の2割未満です 最もお金をかけているルクセンブルグも それほど優秀ではありません 支出は ほぼ同額でも成績に大差がある例も見られます また私が最も明るい兆しだと思うのは 現在の世界は もはや裕福で教育レベルの高い国と 貧しくて教育が行き届かない国に 区別できないということです この点は非常に大切です

細かく検討しましょう 赤い点で表しているのは 国の富に応じた生徒一人当たりの支出額です 支出先の一つは教員の給与です 韓国では優秀な人材が 教職に就くように多大な投資をしています また韓国は授業時間が長いため さらにコストがかかります また韓国の教師は 授業以外に研修が求められます 専門性の向上や共同研究などに 投資しています どれもお金がかかりますが どうやりくりしているのでしょう? 実は韓国は1学級の人数が多いのです 下向きの棒はコストを引き下げる要素を表します ルクセンブルグでは 赤い点が韓国と同じ所にあります 両国は生徒当たりの支出額が同じなのです でもルクセンブルグでは保護者 教員 行政の ― すべてが少人数学級を好みます そういう学級に行くのは楽しいものです 少人数学級を維持するために 資金が投入されコストを押し上げています 使えるお金には限りがありますから 代わりに 教員の給料は抑えられ 1日の授業時間も長くはありません また教師は基本的に授業しかしません お金の使い道は両国でまったく違うというわけです 教育への投資額よりも お金の使い道の方がはるかに重要なのです

次に2000年までさかのぼりましょう iPodが発明される前の年です これがPISAの成績から見た当時の世界の姿です マルが小さいですね 教育費は今より35%も少なかったのです では教育にお金をかけることで 質は向上したでしょうか? 残念ながら 多くの国で そうなっていません 一方で驚くほど改善している国もあります 私の出身国のドイツは2000年には ― 下位群にいました 成績は標準以下で社会的格差も大きかった 学位が基準だった頃は ドイツは優秀な国の一つに数えられていたのです とても残念な結果です 国民はショックを受け 歴史上初めて 数か月に渡って 国内の議論は教育でもちきりになりました 税でも 他の問題でもなく 教育が議論の的になったのです 政策立案者は対応を始めました 連邦政府は教育予算を大幅に増やし 移民や社会的に不利な立場の生徒が より多くの機会を得られるようになりました 興味深いことに それは教育政策の議論に留まらず 教育の根幹となる思想や パラダイムまでもがPISAのデータで変化したのです それまで幼児の教育は家庭の責任と考えられていて 母親が子供を幼稚園にやると 家庭の責任を放棄していると 思われかねませんでした ところがPISAで議論の方向が変わり 幼児教育は公共政策の 中心に据えられました また伝統的にドイツの教育は 10才という早い段階で 将来 知識労働者の道に進む子供と― 彼らに仕えることになる子供を区別してきました この区別は 社会経済的な区別と ― ほぼ同じであるため制度自体に異議が唱えられています 大きな変化です

幸い 9年後の調査では 教育の質と平等は改善しています 課題に適切に対応した結果です

韓国はそれとは対照的です 2000年には すでに優秀でしたが 本当に優れた生徒は全体の ごく一部に過ぎないことが課題でした 韓国も課題に対応し 読解力が高い生徒の割合が 10年で2倍になりました ただ優秀な生徒だけに力を入れると 格差は広がってしまいます だからマルは少し左寄りになりました それでも素晴らしい改善です

ポーランドでは教育改革によって 学校間の格差が劇的に減り 成績下位の学校の多くで成績が向上し 学年に換算して半年分以上の伸びが見られました 他の国はどうでしょう ポルトガルはバラバラだった学校制度を ― 統一して 教育の質と公平性を高めました ハンガリーでもそうです

実際 目に見える変化がたくさん起きています こんな批判をよく耳にします PISAで出すような 相対順位は各国の文化や経済的要因 ― 社会問題や社会の均質性などの差に過ぎないと しかし この様な批判をする人たちも 教育改革は可能だと認めざるを得ないでしょう 例えばポーランドでは 文化や経済 人口構成に 変化はありません 先生を減らしたわけでもありません 変えたのは教育政策と実践だけです

ここで疑問がわいてきます 図の緑の領域に入った国 ― 公平性と成績を両立し 優れた成果をあげた国から学べることは何か? また ある環境での成功が 他の場所にも応用できるのか? 当然 教育システムを丸写しする訳にはいきません でも国際比較によって優秀なシステムの 共通点が明らかになっています 教育の重要性は誰もが認めています ただ 課題となるのは他の政策との兼ね合いで どう優先順位をつけるかです 国は教員の給与をどうするか? 他の技能労働者の給与とのバランスは? 自分の子供の職業として 弁護士より教師の方が魅力的か? メディアは学校や教師をどう扱っているか? どれも重要な問題です 私達がPISAから学んだことは優秀な教育システムでは 国民が納得して 今日の消費より 明日の教育を重んじるように 指導者が呼びかけていることです 信じられないかもしれませんが 皆が行きたがるのがショッピングセンターではなく 学校だという国があるのです 本当の話です

ただ 教育に価値があると 言うだけでは不十分です もう一つ大切なことは子供達はみんな ― 成功できるという信念です 生徒が小さい頃から 分け隔てされる国があります 世界的な基準に達する子供は わずかだという発想に基づいて分けられているのです これは大抵 社会格差と密接に関連しています 日本やフィンランドでは 保護者も教師も 全ての生徒が成功できると考え それが生徒の行動に現れています 数学で成功するには何が大切か 生徒に尋ねると 北米の生徒はたいてい ― 才能と答えます 数学の天才でないなら別の勉強を と言うのです 日本の生徒の9割は かけた時間や努力によると答えます 生徒の答えが教育システムをよく表しています

かつては生徒が多様でもほぼ同じ方法で指導していました PISAの成績が上位の国では生徒の違いを認め ― 個に応じた教育活動を行っています そういった国では どんな生徒にも優れた才能があると考えて 個に応じた学習機会を用意しています

また優秀な教育システムでは 意欲的で明確な目標をあらゆる領域で設定しています 生徒は何が大事か ― 何が成功につながるかを把握しています

どの国でも 重要なのはシステムの質よりも 教師の質です 成績上位の教育システムでは 教員採用と研修に力を入れています 厳しい状況で 苦労する教師の ― 能力をいかに高め 給与体系をどうするか検討しています 教師が共同作業を通してよりよい実践ができるように 環境を整えるとともに 専門性を高められるように 研修の機会を設けています 官僚的なシステムでは 大量の指導すべき事項を 教師に押しつけ孤立無援で教室に配置します 一方 成績上位のシステムでは目指す生徒像が明確です 設定する目標は高くても 目の前の生徒に教えるべき内容は捉え易くなっています かつて 教育とは知恵を授けることでした でも今では主体的に知恵を生み出すことが求められています 成績上位の国では説明責任や管理 すなわち ― 必要なことが行われているか確認する作業を 一部の専門職や管理職に任せるのではなく 組織全体で行おうとしています 教師自身が 教育を革新できるように促し ― より質の高い実践ができるように 必要な手段を提供しています かつてのゴールは規格化と法令遵守でした 成績上位の教育システムでは 教師と学校長の創造性を重視します かつて教育政策の重点は 成果と教員の確保でした 優秀なシステムでは教師や学校長 自らが 身近な教員や近所の学校に目を向ける環境が整っています

一流のシステムにおける成果とは システム全体が優秀な成績を収めていることです PISA上位のフィンランドが特に素晴らしいのは 生徒の成績の差が 学校間でわずか5%だという点です すべての学校が成功しているのです 組織的な成功です 秘訣は何でしょう? それは人材を適切に配置することです 大変な学校にはタフな校長 ― 困難な学級には優秀な教員が 配置されているのです

また こういった国では公共政策の全領域で 足並みが揃っています 長期に渡って政策が一貫しており それが実施されているか常に確認しています

ただし成功した国がしたことを 知るだけでは改善の具体策はわかりません またPISAの国際比較にも 限界があることははっきりしています だから多様な調査が必要になります PISAが各国に具体策を提案しないのはそのためです 一方PISAの強みは 他国の取り組みを紹介できることです PISAの例が示すように データの力は教育向けの補助金を ― 管理する行政の力より大きいのです

教育行政の変革を 「墓場の引っ越し」に たとえる人がいます 中にいる人に手伝ってもらえない(笑) 一方 PISAは教育の可能性を示し ― 改善が可能だと気付く手助けをしています 現状肯定派の言い訳を許しません 先進的な取り組みで達成された例を元に 各国がしっかり目標設定するのを支援します 全ての子供 教師 学校校長 保護者に どんな改善が可能かを伝え ― 教育改革に限界がないと示すことができれば 私達はよりよい政策と生活の 基礎を築いたと言えるでしょう



― もっと見る ―
― 折りたたむ ―


  • 主語
  • 動詞
  • 助動詞
  • 準動詞
  • 関係詞等