PISA - Excellence and Equity

Excellence and equity

Andreas SchleicherDirector for Education and Skills

PISA in brief - 2015

In 2015, over half a million students…- representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 72 countries/economies

… took an internationally agreed 2-hour test…- Goes beyond testing whether students can reproduce what they were taught to assess students’ capacity to

extrapolate from what they know and creatively apply their knowledge in novel situations- Total of 390 minutes of assessment material

… and responded to questions on…- their personal background, their schools, their well-being and their motivation

Parents, principals, teachers and system leaders provided data on:- school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences- 89,000 parents, 93,000 teachers and 17,500 principals responded

PISA 2015 OECDPartners

“the ability to engage with science-related issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen”

Science in PISA

•Explain phenomena scientifically•Evaluate and design scientific enquiry• Interpret data and evidence scientifically

Competencies

Recognise, offer and evaluate explanations for a range of natural and technological phenomena.

Describe and appraise scientific investigations and propose ways of addressing questions scientifically.

Analyse and evaluate data, claims and arguments in a variety of representations and draw appropriate scientific conclusions.

Trends in science performance

2006 2009 2012 2015450

470

490

510

530

550

570

OECD

450

470

490

510

530

550

570

OECD average

Stud

ent p

erfo

rman

ce

Trends in science performance

450

470

490

510

530

550

570

2006 2009 2012 2015450

470

490

510

530

550

570

OECD average

0510152025350

400

450

500

550 Singapore

JapanEstoniaChinese Tapei FinlandMacao (China) CanadaVietnam Hong Kong (China)B-S-J-G (China) KoreaNew Zealand SloveniaAustralia United KingdomGermany NetherlandsSwitzerland IrelandBelgium DenmarkPoland PortugalNorway United StatesAustria FranceSweden Czech Rep.Spain LatviaRussia LuxembourgItaly HungaryLithuania CroatiaCABA (Argentina) IcelandIsraelMalta Slovak Rep.

GreeceChile Bulgaria

United Arab Emirates UruguayRomaniaMoldova AlbaniaTurkey Trinidad and TobagoThailand Costa RicaQatar ColombiaMexico MontenegroJordan

IndonesiaBrazil PeruLebanonTunisia

FYROM KosovoAlgeria

Dominican Rep. (332)

Mea

n sc

ienc

e pe

rfor

man

ce

Hig

her

perf

oman

ceHigh performance

High equity

Low performanceLow equity

Low performanceHigh equity

High performanceLow equity

Science performance in PISA (2015)

More equity

350

400

450

500

550 SingaporeJapan

EstoniaChinese Tapei Finland Macao (China)CanadaViet Nam

Hong Kong (China)B-S-J-G (China) KoreaNew ZealandSloveniaAustraliaUnited KingdomGermanyNetherlands

SwitzerlandIrelandBelgium DenmarkPolandPortugal NorwayUnited StatesAustriaFrance

SwedenCzech Rep. Spain Latvia RussiaLuxembourg ItalyHungary LithuaniaCroatia IcelandIsraelMaltaSlovak Rep.

GreeceChile

Bulgaria

United Arab EmiratesUruguayRomania

Moldova TurkeyTrinidad and Tobago ThailandCosta Rica QatarColombia Mexico MontenegroJordanIndonesia BrazilPeru

LebanonTunisia

FYROM Kosovo AlgeriaDominican Rep. (332)

Mea

n sc

ienc

e pe

rfor

man

ce

Hig

her

perf

oman

ceScience performance and equity in PISA (2015)

Some countries combine excellence with equity

More equityMore equity

High performanceHigh equity




0510152025350

400

450

500

550

Colombia

NorwayPortugal

Romania

Percentage of performance varation explained by ESCS

Mea

n sc

ienc

e pe

rfor

man

ce

More equity

Science performance and equity in PISA (2006-2015)

Some countries improved performance

Hig

her

perf

oman

ceHigh performance

High equity




0510152025350

400

450

500

550

Brazil

BulgariaChile

Mexico Montenegro

Slovenia

Thailand

United States

Percentage of performance varation explained by ESCS

Mea

n sc

ienc

e pe

rfor

man

ce

More equity

Science performance and equity in PISA (2006-2015)

Some countries improved equity

Hig

her

perf

oman

ceHigh performance

High equity




Poverty is not destiny - Science performanceby international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)

Dom

inica

n Re

publ

ic 40

Koso

vo 1

0

FYRO

M 13

Mont

eneg

ro 1

1

Unite

d Ar

ab E

mira

tes 3

Leba

non

27Me

xico

53

Cost

a Ri

ca 3

8

Turk

ey 5

9

Thail

and

55

Icela

nd 1

Rom

ania

20

Bulg

aria

13

Russ

ia 5

Chile

27

Lithu

ania

12

Italy

15Sp

ain 3

1

Croa

tia 1

0

OECD

ave

rage

12

Malta

13

Maca

o (C

hina

) 22

Aust

ria 5

Luxe

mbo

urg

14

Czec

h Re

publ

ic 9

Aust

ralia

4

Cana

da 2

Kore

a 6

Switz

erlan

d 8

Slov

enia

5

Finlan

d 2

Viet

Nam

76

Japa

n 8

B-S-

J-G (C

hina

) 52

280

330

380

430

480

530

580

630

Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile

Scor

e po

ints

Figure I.6.7

% of students in the bottom international

deciles of ESCS

OECD median student

Percentage of resilient studentsFigure I.6.10

Viet

Nam

Hong

Kon

g (C

hina

)Ja

pan

Chin

ese

Taip

eiFin

land

Spai

nPo

rtuga

lLa

tvia

Pola

ndAu

stra

liaNe

ther

land

sIre

land

Switz

erla

ndBe

lgiu

mIta

lyAu

stria

Czec

h Re

publ

icCr

oatia

Turk

eyLu

xem

bour

gTh

aila

ndSl

ovak

Rep

ublic

Israe

lCh

ileBu

lgar

iaTr

inid

ad a

nd T

obag

oCo

lom

bia

Indo

nesia

Braz

ilUn

ited

Arab

Em

irate

sGe

orgi

aLe

bano

nTu

nisia Peru

Dom

inica

n Re

publ

ic01020304050607080

%

Resilient students come from the bottom 25% of the ESCS index within their country/econ-omy and perform among the top 25% across all countries/economies, after accounting for socio-economic status

The global talent pool

The global pool of top performers: A PISA perspectiveFigure I.2.18

United States (8.5%); 300k

B-S-J-G (China) (13.6%); 181k

Japan (15.3%); 174k

Germany (10.6%); 79k Viet Nam (8.3%); 72k

United Kingdom (10.9%); 68k

Korea (10.6%); 60k

France (8.0%); 59k

Russia (3.7%); 42k

Canada (12.4%); 41k

Chinese Taipei (15.4%); 39k

Australia (11.2%); Poland (7.3%);

Netherlands (11.1%)Italy (4.1%)Spain (5.0%) Brazil (0.7%)

Singapore (24.2%)Belgium (9.0%)

Finland (14.3%)

Switzerland (9.8%) Sweden (8.5%)

Portugal (7.4%) New Zealand (12.8%)

Israel (5.9%)Others

Share of top performers among 15-year-old students:

Less than 1%1 to 2.5%2.5 to 5% 5% to 7.5% 7.5% to 10%10% to 12.5% 12.5% to 15%More than 15%

Gender

The difference is not how good they are at science but in their attitudes to science

-15-10-505

10152025

Boys' and girls' strengths and weaknesses in science

Figure I.2.29

It is harder for boys, on average, to perform well on these types of tasks...

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

(boy

s -

girls

)

Knowledge typesScience competencies Content areas

-15-10-505

10152025

Top-performing boys' and girls' strengths and weaknesses

Figure I.2.29

...but the highest-achieving boys perform better than the highest-achieving girls on all types of tasks, including these

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

(boy

s -

girls

)


-16-14-12-10-8-6-4-2024

Bottom-performing boys' and girls' strengths and weaknesses

Figure I.2.29

... It is harder for girls to perform well on these types of tasks, even among low achieversScor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

(boy

s -

girls

)


Science and careers

Students’ career expectationsFigure I.3.2

Dom

inica

n Re

p. ..

.Jo

rdan

6

Mexi

co

6Le

bano

n 1

5Pe

ru

7Un

ited

Stat

es

13Tu

nisia

19

Slov

enia

16

Aust

ralia

15

Mala

ysia

4

Spai

n 1

1Ur

ugua

y 1

7Tr

inid

ad a

nd T

. 1

3CA

BA (A

rg.)

19

Bulg

aria

25

Koso

vo

7Ma

lta

11Ne

w Ze

alan

d 2

4Es

toni

a 1

5Be

lgiu

m

16FY

ROM

20

Icela

nd

22HK

G (C

hina

) 2

0Ita

ly

17Mo

ldov

a

7Mo

nten

egro

18

Luxe

mbo

urg

18

Maca

o (C

hina

) 1

0Sw

eden

21

Viet

Nam

13

Kore

a

7Sl

ovak

Rep

ublic

...

Finla

nd

24Cz

ech

Repu

blic

22

Neth

erla

nds

19

Indo

nesia

19

05

101520253035404550

Percentage of students who expect to work in science-related professional and technical occupations when they are 30Science-related technicians and associate pro-

fessionalsInformation and communication technology pro-fessionalsHealth professionals

%

% o

f stu

dent

s with

va

gue

or m

issin

g ex

pect

ation

s

Boys and girls’ expectations of a science careerFigure I.3.5

...science and engineering pro-fessionals

...health professionals

...information and communica-tion technology (ICT) profes-

sionals

...science-related technicians or associate professionals

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Boys Girls

%

Students who expect to work as...

Students’ enjoyment of learning scienceFigure I.3.9

I like reading about <broad science>

I am happy working on <broad science> topics

I generally have fun when I am learn-ing <broad science> topics

I am interested in learning about <broad science>

I enjoy acquiring new knowledge in <broad science>

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Girls Boys

%

Percentage of students who reported that they "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements

300 400 500 600 7000

10

20

30

40

50 Low enjoyment of scienceModerate enjoyment of scienceHigh enjoyment of science

Score points in science

Perc

enta

ge o

f st

uden

ts e

xpec

ting

a

care

er in

sci

ence

Students expecting a career in scienceby performance and enjoyment of learning

Figure I.3.17

SingaporeCanadaSloveniaAustralia

United KingdomIreland

Portugal

Chinese TaipeiHong Kong (China)

New ZealandDenmark

JapanEstoniaFinland

Macao (China)Viet Nam

B-S-J-G (China)Korea

GermanyNetherlandsSwitzerland

BelgiumPoland

SwedenLithuaniaCroatiaIcelandGeorgiaMalta

United StatesSpainIsrael

United Arab Emirates

BrazilBulgaria

ChileColombiaCosta Rica

Dominican RepublicJordanKosovo

LebanonMexico

PeruQatar

Trinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkey

Uruguay

Above-average science performance

Stronger than average epistemic beliefs

Above-average percentage of students expecting to work in a science-related occupation

Norway

Mul

tiple

out

com

es

Less

ons f

rom

PIS

A

Low impact on outcomes

High impact on outcomes

Low feasibility High feasibility

Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins

Less

ons f

rom

PIS

A




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins

Commitment to universal achievement

Gateways, instructional systems

Capacity at point of delivery

Incentive structures and accountability

Resources where they yield most

A learning systemCoherence

Less

ons f

rom

PIS

A




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







A commitment to education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve Universal educational standards and

personalization as the approach to heterogeneity in the student body…

… as opposed to a belief that students have different destinations to be met with different expectations, and selection/stratification as the approach to heterogeneity

Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom

40 50 60 70 80 90 10040

50

60

70

80

90

100

CABA (Argentina)

Costa Rica

Sweden

Bulgaria Romania

VietNam

Uruguay

United States

Norway

Chile

Hungary

B-S-J-G(China)

Turkey

Mexico

Portugal

Iceland

Korea

Albania

Japan

Trinidad and Tobago

UAEAlgeria Ireland

Indonesia

NewZealand

Colombia

Peru

Macao (China) Spain

Switzerland

Lebanon

Netherlands

SlovakRepublic

UK

Slovenia

Brazil

Kosovo

Finland

Thailand

LatviaR² = 0.20443386862099

Academic inclusion across schools (%)

Soci

o-ec

onom

ic in

clus

ion

acro

ss sc

hool

s

OECD average

OEC

D av

erag

e

Academic and social inclusion across schoolsFigure II.5.12

Less

ons f

rom

PIS

A




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Investing resources where they can make mostof a difference Alignment of resources with key challenges

(e.g. attracting the most talented teachers to the most challenging classrooms)

Effective spending choices that prioritise high quality teachers over smaller classes

Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and science performance

Figure II.6.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Hungary

Costa Rica

Chinese Taipei

Chile

Brazil

TurkeyUruguayBulgaria

MexicoThailandMontenegroColombia

Dominican Republic

PeruGeorgia

Luxembourg

SwitzerlandNorwayAustria

Singapore

United States

United Kingdom

Malta

SwedenBelgium Iceland

DenmarkFinland NetherlandsCanada

Japan

Slovenia

AustraliaGermany

IrelandFranceItaly

PortugalNew ZealandKorea

SpainPoland

Israel

Estonia

Czech Rep.Latvia

Slovak Rep.

RussiaCroatiaLithuania

R² = 0.363584735029023

R² = 0.0354531836854976

Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)

Scie

nce

perf

orm

ance

(sc

ore

poin

ts)

-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5350

400

450

500

550

Luxembourg

Chile

Australia

TurkeyMexico

Portugal

Iceland

Japan

Greece

NewZealand

Spain Latvia

Estonia

SlovakRepublic

Canada UnitedKingdom

Finland

R² = 0.305426290490751

Equity in resource allocation

PISA

sci

ence

sco

re

Principals in disadvantaged schools more concerned about the material re-sources

Principals in advantaged schools more

concerned about the ma-

terial resources

OECD average

OE

CD

ave

r-ag

e

Equity in allocation of material and human resources

Based on Figure II.6.4

Different schools

Variation in science performance between and within schools

Figure I.6.11Ne

ther

land

s 1

14Bu

lgar

ia

115

Trin

idad

and

Tob

ago

98

Slov

enia

10

1Sl

ovak

Rep

ublic

10

9Un

ited

Arab

Em

irate

s 1

10Isr

ael

126

Czec

h Re

publ

ic 1

01Ja

pan

97

Sing

apor

e 1

20Ch

ines

e Ta

ipei

11

1Tu

rkey

70

Croa

tia

89Ch

ile

83OE

CD a

vera

ge

100

CABA

(Arg

entin

a)

82Vi

et N

am

65Au

stra

lia

117

Peru

66

Thai

land

69

FYRO

M 8

0Do

min

ican

Repu

blic

59

Geor

gia

92

New

Zeal

and

121

Mont

eneg

ro

81Sw

eden

11

7Al

bani

a 6

9Ma

cao

(Chi

na)

74

Esto

nia

88

Cost

a Ri

ca

55Ca

nada

95

Denm

ark

91

Irela

nd

88No

rway

10

3Ice

land

93

120100806040200

20406080

Between-school variation Within-school variation

Total variation as a proportion of the OECD average

OECD average 69%

OECD average 30%

%

Differences in educational resourcesbetween advantaged and disadvantaged schools

Figure I.6.14

CABA

(Arg

entin

a)Pe

ruUn

ited

Arab

Em

irate

sJo

rdan

Braz

ilTu

rkey

Dom

inica

n Re

publ

icUr

ugua

yB-

S-J-G

(Chi

na)

Japa

nLu

xem

bour

gPo

rtuga

lIta

lyCr

oatia

Alge

riaIsr

ael

Swed

enMo

ldov

aSl

oven

iaHu

ngar

yVi

et N

amSi

ngap

ore

Gree

ceCa

nada

Qata

rKo

sovo

Kore

aSw

itzer

land

Hong

Kon

g (C

hina

)FY

ROM

Alba

nia

Slov

ak R

epub

licEs

toni

aCo

sta

Rica

Latv

ia

-3

-2

-1

0

1Index of shortage of educational material

Mea

n in

dex

diffe

renc

e be

twee

n ad

-va

ntag

ed a

nd d

isadv

anta

ged

scho

ols

Disadvantaged schools have more resources than advantaged schools

Disadvantaged schools have fewer resources than advantaged schools

School performance

Striving to have excellent schools in every neighbourhood and making them accessible to all students

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3200

300

400

500

600

700 Public schools

PISA index of economic, social and cultural status

Bel

ow

1b

Leve

l 1b

Leve

l 1a

Leve

l 2

Leve

l 3

Leve

l 4

Leve

l 5

Lev 6

Brazil: School performance and schools’ socio-economic profile

Scor

e po

ints

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3200

300

400

500

600

700 Public schools


Bel

ow

1b

Leve

l 1b

Leve

l 1a

Leve

l 2

Leve

l 3

Leve

l 4

Leve

l 5

Lev 6

Scor

e po

ints

Viet Nam: School performance and schools’ socio-economic profile

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3200

300

400

500

600

700 Public schools


Bel

ow

1b

Leve

l 1b

Leve

l 1a

Leve

l 2

Leve

l 3

Leve

l 4

Leve

l 5

Lev 6

Brazil: School performance and schools’ socio-economic profile

Scor

e po

ints

Integrating immigrants

Student performance in scienceby immigrant background

Figure I.7.4Gr

eece

Cost

a Ri

caJo

rdan

CABA

(Arg

entin

a)Isr

ael

Swed

enFr

ance

Slov

enia

Aust

riaGe

rman

yNe

ther

land

sDe

nmar

kIta

lyNo

rway

Belg

ium

OECD

ave

rage

Spai

nCr

oatia

Unite

d St

ates

Luxe

mbo

urg

Switz

erla

ndQa

tar

Portu

gal

Russ

iaUn

ited

Arab

Em

irate

sUn

ited

King

dom

Irela

ndAu

stra

liaEs

toni

aHo

ng K

ong

(Chi

na)

New

Zeal

and

Cana

daMa

cao

(Chi

na)

Sing

apor

e350

400

450

500

550

600Non-immigrant students Second-generation immigrant studentsScore points

Percentage of immigrant students and education systems' average performance in science

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70300

350

400

450

500

550

600

OECD average

CABA (Argentina)

Costa Rica

Sweden

Jordan

LuxembourgUnited States

Denmark

Italy

Australia

Portugal

RussiaHong Kong (China)

QatarBelgium

IsraelCroatia


Ireland

Greece

New Zealand

Macao-China

Spain

Switzerland

Estonia

332

Netherlands

Germany

Singapore

Austria

Canada

United Kingdom

Slovenia

France

R² = 0.087174062168885

Percentage of immigrant students

Mea

n sc

ienc

e pe

rform

ance

Figure I.7.3

Immigrant students’ performance in scienceby country of origin and destination

Figure I.7.9

NetherlandsSwitzerland

GermanyBelgiumAustria

Denmark400 420 440 460 480 500

Students from Turkey in:

AustraliaNew Zealand

Hong Kong (China)Macao (China)

Netherlands

400 450 500 550 600

Students from mainland China in:

Mean science performance

Second-generation immigrant students' score after accounting for socio-economic status First-generation immigrant students' score after accounting for socio-economic status

NetherlandsUnited Arab Emirates

FinlandDenmark

Qatar350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490

Students from Arabic-speaking countries in:

Less

ons f

rom

PIS

A




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Capacity at the point of delivery Attracting, developing and retaining high quality

teachers and school leaders and a work organisation in which they can use their potential

Instructional leadership and human resource management in schools

Keeping teaching an attractive profession System-wide career development …

Student-teacher ratios and class sizeFigure II.6.14

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 505

10

15

20

25

30

CABA (Argentina)

JordanViet Nam

Poland

United States

Chile

Denmark

Hungary

B-S-G-J(China) Turkey

Georgia

ChineseTaipei

Mexico

Russia

Albania

Hong Kong(China)

Japan

Belgium

Algeria

Colombia

Peru

Macao(China)

Switzerland

Malta

Dominican Republic

Netherlands

Singapore

Brazil

Kosovo

Finland

ThailandR² = 0.24784962376208

Class size in language of instruction

Stud

ent-

teac

her

ratio High student-teacher

ratios and small class sizes

Low student-teacher ratios and large class

sizes

OECD average

OE

CD

ave

rage

Teachers

Malta

Unite

d St

ates

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

mAu

stra

liaGr

eece

Geor

gia

Trin

idad

and

Tob

ago

Portu

gal

Switz

erla

ndVi

et N

amCh

ileB-

S-J-G

(Chi

na)

Neth

erla

nds

Esto

nia

New

Zeal

and

Mexi

coCz

ech

Repu

blic

Koso

voRu

ssia

FYRO

MFin

land

Spai

nHo

ng K

ong

(Chi

na)

Dom

inica

n Re

publ

icBe

lgiu

mIn

done

siaHu

ngar

ySw

eden

Urug

uay

Mold

ova

Peru

Cost

a Ri

caIce

land

Tuni

siaCA

BA (A

rgen

tina)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

Disciplinary climate and science performanceFigure II.3.7

A more positive disciplinary climate is associated with better student performance in almost all

countries/economies

Malta

Norw

ayFin

land

Hong

Kon

g (C

hina

)Sw

eden

Chin

ese

Taip

eiUn

ited

King

dom

B-S-

J-G (C

hina

)Ma

cao

(Chi

na)

Unite

d St

ates

Esto

nia

Trin

idad

and

Tob

ago

Irela

ndCa

nada

Hung

ary

Kore

aTu

rkey

Jord

anCr

oatia

Switz

erla

ndNe

ther

land

sPo

land

Japa

nMo

nten

egro

Mexi

coRu

ssia

Chile

Gree

ceIn

done

siaDo

min

ican

Repu

blic

Colo

mbi

aPe

ruTu

nisia

Slov

ak R

epub

licUr

ugua

y

-20-15-10-505

10152025

After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

Teacher support in science lessons and science performance

Figure II.3.12

Teacher support in science lessons is associated with lower student

performance

Teacher support in science lessons is associated with better student

performance

First age at selection in the education system and index of teacher support in science lessons

Figure II.3.11

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17-0.6

-0.4

-0.1

0.1

0.3

0.5

0.7

10

Austria

Belgium

84

Czech Republic

Demark

Estonia

12

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

5

Ireland

IsraelItaly Japan

Korea Latvia

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

9

Norwy

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

SpainSweden

Switzerland

Turkey 11

3

Albania

Brazil

B-S-G-J (China)

Bulgaria

Colombia

Costa Rica

Croatia

Dominican Rep.

FYROM

Georgia

Hong Kong

Indonesia

1

LithuaniaMacao (China)

7

Montenegro

26

Romania

Russia

Singapore

Chinese Taipei

Thailand


UruguayViet Nam

R² = 0.360338547715815

First age at selection in the education system

Inde

x of

tea

cher

sup

port

in s

cien

ce le

sson

s

1. Jordan2. Peru3. United States4. Chile5. Iceland6. Qatar7. Malta8. Canada9. New Zealand10. Australia11. United Kingdom12. Finland

In education systems with early tracking students are less likely to report that their science teachers support students in their learning

Czec

h Re

publ

icSl

oven

iaSl

ovak

Rep

ublic

Switz

erla

ndCh

ileAu

stra

liaCa

nada

Mex

ico

Belg

ium

Dom

inic

an R

ep.

OEC

D a

vera

geAl

geria

Turk

eyTh

aila

ndFY

ROM

Jord

anBr

azil

Tuni

siaPe

ruCh

ines

e Ta

ipei

Lith

uani

aU

rugu

ayCo

sta

Rica

Indo

nesia

Croa

tiaJa

pan

Kore

aIs

rael

Gre

ece

Fran

ceSp

ain

Ital

yTr

inid

ad &

Tob

ago

Esto

nia

Latv

iaCo

lom

bia

Leba

non

Net

herla

nds

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profileBefore accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile

Score-point difference in science when principals reported that school teachers cooperate by exchanging ideas or material

Teacher collaboration and science performanceTable II.6.21

Less

ons f

rom

PIS

A




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the system and aligned with high stakes gateways and instructional systems

Well established delivery chain through which curricular goals translate into instructional systems, instructional practices and student learning (intended, implemented and achieved)

High level of metacognitive content of instruction

Quality time

Making learning time productive so that students can build their academic, social and emotional

skills in a balanced way

Learning time and science performanceFigure II.6.23

35 40 45 50 55 60300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Finland

Germany Switzerland

Japan Estonia

Sweden

NetherlandsNew Zealand

Macao(China)

Iceland

Hong Kong(China) Chinese Taipei

Uruguay

Singapore

Poland United States

IsraelBulgaria

Korea

Russia ItalyGreece

B-S-J-G (China)

Colombia

Chile

Mexico

BrazilCostaRica

TurkeyMontenegroPeru

QatarThailand

UnitedArab

Emirates

Tunisia

Dominican Republic

R² = 0.205109930113565

Total learning time in and outside of school

PISA

sci

ence

sco

re

OECD average

OECD average

OE

CD

ave

rage

Learning time and science performanceFigure II.6.23

Finla

ndGe

rman

ySw

itzer

land

Japa

nEs

toni

aSw

eden

Neth

erla

nds

New

Zeal

and

Aust

ralia

Czec

h Re

publ

icMa

cao

(Chi

na)

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

mCa

nada

Belg

ium

Fran

ceNo

rway

Slov

enia

Icela

ndLu

xem

bour

gIre

land

Latv

iaHo

ng K

ong

(Chi

na)

OECD

ave

rage

Chin

ese

Taip

eiAu

stria

Portu

gal

Urug

uay

Lithu

ania

Sing

apor

eDe

nmar

kHu

ngar

yPo

land

Slov

ak R

epub

licSp

ain

Croa

tiaUn

ited

Stat

esIsr

ael

Bulg

aria

Kore

aRu

ssia

Italy

Gree

ceB-

S-J-G

(Chi

na)

Colo

mbi

aCh

ileMe

xico

Braz

ilCo

sta

Rica

Turk

eyMo

nten

egro

Peru

Qata

rTh

aila

ndUn

ited

Arab

Em

ir...

Tuni

siaDo

min

ican

Repu

...

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

678910111213141516

Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning timeHours

Scor

e po

ints

in sc

ienc

e pe

r hou

r of t

otal

lear

ning

tim

e

Balancing curricula

Chin

ese

Ta...

480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560

Overall science scale; 532

Content knowledge;

538

Procedural and epistemic

knowledge; 528

Score points

Comparing countries and economies on the different science knowledge subscales

Figure I.2.30

Sing

a...

Chin

ese

Ta...

480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560



Content knowledge; 553


Procedural and epistemic knowledge; 558


Score points


Figure I.2.30

Sing

a...

Aus

480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560










Score points


Figure I.2.30

Less

ons f

rom

PIS

A




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Governance, incentives, accountability, knowledge management Aligned incentive structures

For students How gateways affect the strength, direction, clarity and nature of the incentives

operating on students at each stage of their education Degree to which students have incentives to take tough courses and study hard Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing well

For teachers Make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation Improve their own performance

and the performance of their colleagues Pursue professional development opportunities

that lead to stronger pedagogical practices A balance between vertical and lateral accountability Effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread

innovation – communication within the system and with stakeholders around it

A capable centre with authority and legitimacy to act

Governance

Across the OECD, 70% of students attend schools whose principals have considerable responsibility for hiring teachers, and in half the cases also over

budget allocations within the school

Maca

o (C

hina

)Un

ited

King

dom

Neth

erla

nds

Slov

ak R

epub

licSw

eden

Latv

iaDe

nmar

kIce

land

Bulg

aria

Chile

Slov

enia

Aust

ralia

Irela

ndCh

ines

e Ta

ipei

Japa

nNo

rway

OECD

ave

rage

Switz

erla

ndRo

man

iaCo

lom

bia

Cana

daCr

oatia

Hung

ary

Germ

any

Trin

idad

and

Tob

ago

Fran

ceMo

nten

egro

Italy

Cost

a Ri

caBr

azil

Viet

Nam

Koso

voUr

ugua

yTu

nisia

Gree

ce

-20-10

0102030405060

0102030405060708090100

Percentage-point difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schoolsIndex of school autonomy (%) %

Perc

enta

ge-p

oint

diff

eren

ceIndex of school autonomyby schools’ socio-economic status

Figure II.4.7

Disadvantaged schools have more school autonomy

Advantaged schools have more school autonomy

Reso

urce

s

Curri

culu

m

Disc

iplin

ary

polic

ies

Asse

ssm

ent p

olici

es

Adm

issio

ns p

olici

es

Reso

urce

s

Curri

culu

m

Disc

iplin

ary

polic

ies

Asse

ssm

ent p

olici

es

Adm

issio

ns p

olici

es

Reso

urce

s

Curri

culu

m

Disc

iplin

ary

polic

ies

Asse

ssm

ent p

olici

es

Adm

issio

ns p

olici

es

Reso

urce

s

Curri

culu

m

Disc

iplin

ary

polic

ies

Asse

ssm

ent p

olici

es

Adm

issio

ns p

olici

es

Reso

urce

s

Curri

culu

m

Disc

iplin

ary

polic

ies

Asse

ssm

ent p

olici

es

Adm

issio

ns p

olici

es

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Correlations between the responsibilities for school governance and science performance

Figure II.4.8

Lower science

performance

Higher science performance

Students score lower in science when the school governing board

holds more responsibility for admissions policies

School principal Teachers School governing board

Local or regional education authority

National education authority

Public and private schools

Across OECD countries, 84% of students attend public schools, 12% government-dependent private schools and 4% independent private schools

PISA generally observes no systematic net performance differences

Turk

eyVi

et N

amTu

nisia

Chin

ese

Taip

eiGr

eece

Czec

h Re

publ

icEs

toni

aFr

ance

CABA

(Arg

entin

a)Me

xico

Indo

nesia

Swed

enMa

ltaLa

tvia

B-S-

J-G (C

hina

)Sl

oven

iaUn

ited

King

dom

Norw

ayCr

oatia

Peru

Cost

a Ri

caCh

ileKo

rea

Cana

daIre

land

Trin

idad

and

Tob

ago

Germ

any

Leba

non

Pola

ndUn

ited

Arab

Em

irate

s-100-80-60-40-20

0204060

After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

Science performance in public and private schools

Figure II.4.14

Students in private schools perform better

Students in public schools perform better

Student assessments and teacher appraisals are widely used

In five out of six school systems, students are assessed at least once a year with mandatory standardised tests

81% of students are in schools where tests and principal or senior staff observations of lessens are used to monitor teacher practice

Frequency of mandatory standardised tests at school

Figure II.4.21

Swed

enLa

tvia

Russ

iaIce

land

Alge

riaSi

ngap

ore

FYRO

MAl

bani

aB-

S-J-G

(Chi

na)

Qata

rJo

rdan

Thai

land

Chin

ese

Taip

eiCA

BA (A

rgen

tina)

Esto

nia

Maca

o (C

hina

)Isr

ael

Finla

ndGr

eece

Hung

ary

Slov

ak R

epub

licKo

rea

Bulg

aria

Braz

ilSw

itzer

land

Mexi

coHo

ng K

ong

(Chi

na)

Trin

idad

and

Tob

ago

Croa

tiaLit

huan

iaGe

rman

yMo

nten

egro

Cost

a Ri

ca

0102030405060708090

100Percentage of students in schools where mandatory standardised tests are used:Never 1-2 times a year 3-5 times a year Monthly More than once a month%

Less

ons f

rom

PIS

A




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Coherence of policies and practices Alignment of policies

across all aspects of the system Coherence of policies

over sustained periods of time Consistency of implementation Fidelity of implementation

(without excessive control)

Total time per week in regular lessonsIndex of teacher supportSchool is located in a city

Index of shortage of educational materialSchool offers a science club

School offers science competitionsAcademic performance considered for school admission

Index of science-specific resourcesClass size

Student's socio-economic profile, squaredStudent has no immigrant background

Index of school disciplinary climateStudent is enrolled in a general programme

Student speaks at home the test languageIndex of disciplinary climate in science lessons

Requirement to attend at least one science courseSchool's socio-economic profile

Index of teacher-directed instructionIndex of adaptive instruction

Student's socio-economic profile

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

All countries and economiesOECD countries

Level of confidence that a relationship exists (z-scores)

Factors associated with a higher science performance

Figure II.7.2

Positive association with science performance

Ability grouping within schools

Teachers' participation in professional development

Index of educational leadership

Residence considered for school admission

Student attends a private school

Index of student behaviour hindering learning

Student skipped a school day

Student arrived late for classes

Index of enquiry-based instruction

Student is a girl

After-school study time

Index of perceived feedback

Student had repeated a grade at least once

-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0

All countries and economiesOECD countries

Level of confidence that a relationship exists (z-scores)

Factors associated with a lower science performance

Figure II.7.2

Negative association with science performance

Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/pisa– All publications– The complete micro-level database

Email: [email protected]: SchleicherOECDWechat: AndreasSchleicher

and remember:Without data, you are just another person with an opinion

Thank you

PISA - Excellence and Equity

Education

Transcript of PISA - Excellence and Equity