pisa - excellence and equity
Post on 16-Apr-2017
1.896 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
Low performanceLow equity
Low performanceHigh equity
High performanceLow 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
Low performanceLow equity
Low performanceHigh equity
High performanceLow 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
Low performanceLow equity
Low performanceHigh equity
High performanceLow 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
)
Knowledge typesScience competencies Content areas
-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
)
Knowledge typesScience competencies Content areas
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
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
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
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
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
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
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
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
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
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
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
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
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
United Arab Emirates
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
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
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
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
United Arab Emirates
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
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
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
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
Overall science scale; 556
Overall science scale; 532
Content knowledge; 553
Content knowledge; 538
Procedural and epistemic knowledge; 558
Procedural and epistemic knowledge; 528
Score points
Comparing countries and economies on the different science knowledge subscales
Figure I.2.30
Sing
a...
Aus
480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560
Overall science scale; 556
Overall science scale; 532
Overall science scale; 495
Content knowledge; 553
Content knowledge; 538
Content knowledge; 501
Procedural and epistemic knowledge; 558
Procedural and epistemic knowledge; 528
Procedural and epistemic knowledge; 490
Score points
Comparing countries and economies on the different science knowledge subscales
Figure I.2.30
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
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentive structures and accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
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
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
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
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: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.orgTwitter: SchleicherOECDWechat: AndreasSchleicher
and remember:Without data, you are just another person with an opinion
Thank you
top related